View Single Post
  #4  
Old 12-29-2009, 10:46 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 10,706
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

If the person were to give you the lock in advance, then it seems like it would meet (a). Clearly, the lock exchange program is safer though. If the customer were to walk in, hand you the lock, walk away and then come back to pick up their firearm, it would seem that it would meet with the penal code. I understand why there is the requirement that the lock be purchased a short time before (so that one lock is not used for many firearms), but if the person gets a good deal on 500 locks, why should they be forced to buy even more locks?

How would anyone know if the lock came with the firearm, provided by the FFL or that the customer brought it in?

The "intent" is really not all that important since what the penal code says is what will get enforced. The BATF attorney says that their lock law means that a safe has to be provided by the FFL at the time of transfer and clearly that is not what the intent was with the law. He also says that the customer can not provide the lock or the safe, but that seems to be based on a slight misreading of the code section.

The exact details of how you do something can be important to keep you out of trouble.
__________________
Kemasa.
False signature edited by Paul: Banned from the FFL forum due to being rude and insulting. Doing this continues his abuse.

Don't tell someone to read the rules he wrote or tell him that he is wrong.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote