PDA

View Full Version : Own pistol for 1 yr before PPT?


thebronze
01-08-2013, 2:51 PM
So I was at a LGS and the guy running the place said that the Sac County Deputies were convicted of some "technicality" in the law that says you have to have possession of a handgun for 12 months before you can sell it on a PPT, or some such malarkey.

During the years I've been on here, I've never heard of such a "law".

Anyone here have any idea WTF he was talking about?

Rock6.3
01-08-2013, 2:53 PM
I believe there were some charges filed against LEO's in California for purchasing off roster handguns and reselling them. If memory serves correctly the issue was volume of purchases/sales which pointed to being an unlicensed dealer of firearms.

thebronze
01-08-2013, 2:57 PM
That's correct.

ke6guj
01-08-2013, 3:05 PM
So I was at a LGS and the guy running the place said that the Sac County Deputies were convicted of some "technicality" in the law that says you have to have possession of a handgun for 12 months before you can sell it on a PPT, or some such malarkey.

During the years I've been on here, I've never heard of such a "law".

Anyone here have any idea WTF he was talking about?

there is no quantified time limit that a private party must hold onto a firearm before they can legally PPT it. (the FFL might be thinking about the ATF rule that if an FFL transfers a firearm into his personal name, that if he sells it before a year expires, that he must transfer it back into his bound book and then process it out as a dealer sale).

ATF and CA just say that you can't sell firearms as a business, and that is an open-ended definition. If you bought something, tried it and didn't like it, there is no law that says that you can't sell it the same week you bought it. Once, not a problem. 10 times in a year, with the same model handgun, we now have a problem. It is the entirety of the situation, and what BATFE/CADOJ feel you are doing, and what they can argue to a jury.

stix213
01-08-2013, 3:46 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578935

Burbur
01-08-2013, 5:36 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578935

TLDR version: these cops were purchasing, even special ordering, off-roster handguns for the purpose of reselling them immediately.

blakdawg
01-08-2013, 6:07 PM
So I was at a LGS and the guy running the place said that the Sac County Deputies were convicted of some "technicality" in the law that says you have to have possession of a handgun for 12 months before you can sell it on a PPT, or some such malarkey.

During the years I've been on here, I've never heard of such a "law".

Anyone here have any idea WTF he was talking about?

2 Sacramento County deputies, an FFL, and a private party have been charged with various crimes related to straw purchases or dealing without a license; none have been convicted, and the pretrial process is ongoing.

thebronze
01-08-2013, 7:31 PM
2 Sacramento County deputies, an FFL, and a private party have been charged with various crimes related to straw purchases or dealing without a license; none have been convicted, and the pretrial process is ongoing.

Not quite. One of the Deputies took a plea deal.


I appreciate the info, but my question wasn't really about the case per se, it was about some supposed law that says that a person has to own a firearm for a year before it's PPT'd.

bwiese
01-08-2013, 9:33 PM
So I was at a LGS and the guy running the place said that the Sac County Deputies were convicted of some "technicality" in the law that says you have to have possession of a handgun for 12 months before you can sell it on a PPT, or some such malarkey.

During the years I've been on here, I've never heard of such a "law".

Anyone here have any idea WTF he was talking about?


Often, counters at gunshops are filled with otherwise-unemployable that paint crazy pictures with words. Sad.

There's no time-clock law etc.

There is indeed drama in Sacto involving police officers, deputies and jail/prison guards buying off-roster handguns to 'flip' to buyers. One of these guns sold by a cop (who I think plead out) was sold somehow to a bad guy. The investigation further blossomed when the rumor mill said that asssault weapons and 'evil guns' were being sold - when it was really just matters of non-Rostered status [blued-vs.-stainless or other trivial configuration differences, not-yet-Rostered, etc.]

It was perhaps a tad exacerbated by people getting Sacto CCWs and many putting small new compact pistols like the Ruger LCxxx on their app - as these guns are yet unrostered.

The key issue was NOT really amount of time held, but for the purposes which the gun was originally acquired - and thus misrepresentation on the 4473 ("Are you the actual buyer of this gun? Yes/No" etc.) It involves timing of purchases, cash flow timing in relation to gun acquisition, etc.

The investigation has involved financial records (ATM withdrawals, credit card pmts, etc) - i.e., did the cop buyer receive money beforehand to acquire the gun? Did the dealer knowingly participate/structure? etc. Buying a gun with intention to flip it [totally separate from buying a gun for investment gain and then reselling it] requires a dishonest answer on 4473.

However, the US Attorney is a bit lost in these cases - really doesn't understand CA law at least in quite a few aspects. And certainly attacking tail end buyers in PPT situations answering ads, etc. ain't gonna fly: that individual answered the 4473 honestly, and the US Attorney is gonna have a very very high burden to show to a jury that having a process with two+ background checks, two+ waiting periods, two+ safety demo tests, etc. is harmful/illegal etc. esp as that gun could be possessed in CA by someone moving in with it, as a spare gun for LEO, etc.

This appears in part why the fight has moved so hard on to trivial details of such transactions - since these case(s) have been flailing about listlessly for some time and may not be rise to a real sustainable/convictable case, the US Atty is trying to build up cases for USC 1001 felony misreprensentations (lying to investigator, etc.) for 'substitute' conviction (i.e., Martha Stewart issue: can't convict on the main issue so convict on lying to investigators).

If these people were willing to "do it right" and pay an extra $75-$100 for "single-shot exemption", etc. they'd not be in this plight. [For those doubting SSE/Single-action revolver exemption usage validity, know this process has been going on for a LONG time and "we'd already be in jail" given they acted on the Sacto matters some time ago. We also understand it's begrudgingly tolerated at this point (regardless of what DOJ former-narco BOF field-agents-du jour think or express). DOJ staff has even provided guidance to FFLs on "how to do SSEs right" and there is video of this.

P5Ret
01-08-2013, 10:29 PM
I'll bet it is Sac county SO policy for the deputies, and the message got confused somewhere along the line. My old department put a line in every letter they issued to bypass the 10 day wait that the firearm was to be for personal use and not for resale for 6 months. Probably the sheriff's way of trying keeping off the media radar since the original problem.

Munk
01-08-2013, 10:44 PM
>DOJ staff has even provided guidance to FFLs on "how to do SSEs right" and there is video of this.

This is fantastic to know, and I would love to have a youtube link to show some of the more disbelieving people i've encountered.

JoshuaS
01-09-2013, 12:17 AM
I highly doubt any red flag will come up if you sell a gun you bought a week after you bought it. No one will stop you, except maybe a very ignorant FFL. Do that on a regular basis though and you are asking for trouble.

Obviously making a substantial profit, doing it frequently, a short time between purchasing and selling all of these separately or together can paint a picture.

JoshuaS
01-09-2013, 12:17 AM
I highly doubt any red flag will come up if you sell a gun you bought a week after you bought it. No one will stop you, except maybe a very ignorant FFL. Do that on a regular basis though and you are asking for trouble.

Obviously making a substantial profit, doing it frequently, a short time between purchasing and selling all of these separately or together can paint a picture.