PDA

View Full Version : End of "off-roster" PPT? (CGF/Attorneys on AB2460 ramifications? )


shooter5
06-09-2012, 10:38 PM
Sooo.. Just spotted this gem of "journalism"..

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/ryan-mcgowan-and-thomas-l_n_1563387.html)

Ive got my own questions, but at the end of this article I read this in regard to AB2460

"..But current law does not require the dealer to make sure the ultimate buyer is also eligible to own handguns that aren't on the Department of Justice's list of approved weapons."

WTF is this guy talking about? If you PPT a firearm through an FFL the "ultimate buyer" has to DROS like everyone else..

If the person who bought the firearm LEGALLY through a PPT then turned around and sold ANY weapon "roster" or not ILLEGALLY without a DROS that is on them, not the original owner..

Did I miss a something?

So they LEGALLY sold guns to people they probably shouldn't have, and maybe they did have intent, that's what lawyers are for.. BUT, how the hell does anyone know what/who the guy you LEGALLY sell a weapon to is going to "ultimately" do or sell it to?

I just think it sucks this is what Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento and the rest of these WEASELS are going use to "Illegal-ize" the roster-EXEMPT PPT transfer of weapons that should never have been "off-list" in the First place.. LEO is usually the LAST means of buying an "off-roster" firearm. So how will this shake out for EVERYONE?

With our PRAVDA of sympathetic "journalists" like this half-wit they'll probably pull it off..

* This is more specifically about AB2460 on NOT the pending litigation over the alleged "straw buying". Looking for Attorney understanding of the pending "law" and ramifications of such a modification of the current law..

Quiet
06-10-2012, 12:24 AM
"..But current law does not require the dealer to make sure the ultimate buyer is also eligible to own handguns that aren't on the Department of Justice's list of approved weapons."

My read on that is the person is crying about the fact that private party transfers are exempt from the unsafe handgun laws. [PC 32110(a)]




Penal Code 32110
Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to any of the following:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) of Division 6 in order to comply with Section 27545.

dantodd
06-10-2012, 5:02 AM
Here is the thread on the arrests etc. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578935

OlderThanDirt
06-10-2012, 5:54 PM
I'm surprised the Legislature hasn't been pooping their pants over the SSE. I suspect they don't understand it.

littlejake
06-11-2012, 7:30 AM
IANAL -- I just read the Bill as written at this moment; and I read it as prohibiting a person who acquired an off roster HG because they are roster exempt, may not transfer it to a person who is not also roster exempt.

I don't read in that the PPT of a HG that has gone off-roster, or was brought into the state by a new resident, or was purchased by the SSE method would become non transferable to a non roster exempt person via the PPT process.

morrcarr67
06-11-2012, 10:26 AM
IANAL -- I just read the Bill as written at this moment; and I read it as prohibiting a person who acquired an off roster HG because they are roster exempt, may not transfer it to a person who is not also roster exempt.

I don't read in that the PPT of a HG that has gone off-roster, or was brought into the state by a new resident, or was purchased by the SSE method would become non transferable to a non roster exempt person via the PPT process.

You're right.

Here's the problem I see if this goes into law.

You and I go into a LGS to do a PPT. I'm buying a non-roster gun from you that you got via the SSE rule. Mr. Dealer sees that it is off roster and ask me if I'm exempt? I say no. He says oh so sorry but you can't have it. Thanks for playing have a nice day.

Now this would be wrong on the part of the LGS but I can see this happening a lot.

littlejake
06-11-2012, 3:30 PM
Oh yeah. The interpretation of law outside the bounds of intent is a large part of the problem. Most laws have unintended consequences; and if it pleases a certain faction; they are more than content to let it be. If it displeases the same cult, they cry, "loophole," and pile more bad law on to plug it.

SJgunguy24
06-11-2012, 5:02 PM
How the hell can any government tell you what you can or can't do with a legal item?
Anyone can sell a car to an unlicensed driver, those are far more dangerous than any gun.

shooter5
06-11-2012, 11:35 PM
IANAL -- I just read the Bill as written at this moment; and I read it as prohibiting a person who acquired an off roster HG because they are roster exempt, may not transfer it to a person who is not also roster exempt.

I don't read in that the PPT of a HG that has gone off-roster, or was brought into the state by a new resident, or was purchased by the SSE method would become non transferable to a non roster exempt person via the PPT process.

That is how "it reads" but now (basically my question) is how can they tell an LEO they can no longer PPT an "off-roster" or "OLL" firearm that they could have obtained or previously owned in any of the same (various) ways the rest of us NON-LEOs legally do?

Basically what Im saying is I don't see how this (AB 2460) Bill gets through without effecting EVERYONE in some way..

and/or does it create some kind of (for lack of a better word) paradox in said Law that could possibly help kill the actual "bill" but somehow draw so much attention that the weasels in Sacramento take it to the next level and it gets even worse?

fred40
06-12-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm surprised the Legislature hasn't been pooping their pants over the SSE. I suspect they don't understand it.

SSSHHHHH.....delete your post dude. Dont give them any ideas

winnre
06-12-2012, 1:03 PM
I'm surprised the Legislature hasn't been pooping their pants over the SSE. I suspect they don't understand it.


Single shot pistol....nothing to worry about, move along now.....shhhh

vincewarde
06-12-2012, 1:34 PM
IANAL -- I just read the Bill as written at this moment; and I read it as prohibiting a person who acquired an off roster HG because they are roster exempt, may not transfer it to a person who is not also roster exempt.

Wow, that is a very narrow change to the law. Until recently, the other side would have used this to prohibit that transfer of any gun not on the roster - instead they are writing the bill in such a way that it only affects LEOs.

More evidence that we are winning.

ap3572001
06-12-2012, 1:52 PM
Here is a MAJOR flaw and the reason why it WILL NOT pass as written.

If the bill will pass, it will mean is that an LEO will NOT be able to PPT an off roster handgun to anyone but another LEO.

So if I bought/owned off roster handguns BEFORE I became an LEO , I will only be able to sell them to another LEO?

How about if I bought an off roster handgun from anyone right here on Calguns? I guess once its mine I will ONLY be able to sell to LEO's?

Does this make any sense ?

In both examples I ( the LEO) bought my off roster handguns W/O using my status.

So why can't I sell it via PPT just like anyone else?

PS. Also keep in mind that there are PLENTY of older, off roster handguns here in Ca that were bought BEFORE the roster. That have NOTHING to do with LEO status, SSE or any other current BS.

DannyInSoCal
06-12-2012, 2:01 PM
You're right.

Here's the problem I see if this goes into law.

You and I go into a LGS to do a PPT. I'm buying a non-roster gun from you that you got via the SSE rule. Mr. Dealer sees that it is off roster and ask me if I'm exempt? I say no. He says oh so sorry but you can't have it. Thanks for playing have a nice day.

Now this would be wrong on the part of the LGS but I can see this happening a lot.

Semms like you would have to do your own SSE...

mrdd
06-12-2012, 4:26 PM
Here is a MAJOR flaw and the reason why it WILL NOT pass as written.

If the bill will pass, it will mean is that an LEO will NOT be able to PPT an off roster handgun to anyone but another LEO.

So if I bought/owned off roster handguns BEFORE I became an LEO , I will only be able to sell them to another LEO?

How about if I bought an off roster handgun from anyone right here on Calguns? I guess once its mine I will ONLY be able to sell to LEO's?

Does this make any sense ?

In both examples I ( the LEO) bought my off roster handguns W/O using my status.

So why can't I sell it via PPT just like anyone else?

PS. Also keep in mind that there are PLENTY of older, off roster handguns here in Ca that were bought BEFORE the roster. That have NOTHING to do with LEO status, SSE or any other current BS.

No, it does not make any sense, and I agree that it is very unfair. The real solution is that we need to take down the roster once and for all.

HK-40
06-12-2012, 6:41 PM
Roster has to go.
They can be sure that our current issue Gen4 G17 and 22's are VERY safe handguns. We torture test potential duty guns to make sure that are safe, accurate and reliable.

By the way, we NEVER trust loaded chamber indicators (if the pistol has it). We press check to make sure the gun is loaded and lock the slide back to be sure it is not.

It is MUCH safer that way than trusting indicators.

In an extreme emergency , when the last magazine is lost but You still have (or can get) some ammo , You can use a pistol as a single shot and still have a chance to save Your life.

With magazine disconnect You loose that option.

Many S&W pistols sold to LE DID NOT have a magazine disconnect.

Also , If they really cared that people use SAFE firearms, They would ENCOURAGE them to use guns that are popular with military and police.

Colt AR's, HK 9mm Carbines, Glocks (ALL GEN), Beretta M9's,HK45's etc. are all VERY safe firearms.