Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > FFL's Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

FFL's Forum For open discussion between FFLs and polite questions for FFLs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2017, 10:45 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,290
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

A question came up about PC 32000 and sales by a LEO of off roster handguns. If a licensee is prohibited from transferring an "unsafe" handgun obtained using a LEO exemption to a non exempt person, how does an FFL know that it was originally purchased with an exemption? It is possible that the LEO got it in a PPT or as a IntraFamiliar transfer isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-13-2017, 4:24 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 21,192
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

AFAIK...
It is determined during the 10 day wait by CA DOJ.

Because AFS is a historically database, if the off-Roster handgun was acquired via LEO exemption it will be indicated in that handgun's record along with the info of everyone who owned/transferred that handgun.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:01 AM
BONECUTTER BONECUTTER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

LEO's who used to be able to buy off Roster can still sell them.
AB2165 added new LEO types who can't.
Quote:
SECTION 1. Section 32000 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

32000. (a)A person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The manufacture in this state, or importation into this state, of a prototype handgun when the manufacture or importation is for the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 32010 to conduct an independent test to determine whether that handgun is prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive, and, if not, allowing the department to add the firearm to the roster of handguns that may be sold in this state pursuant to Section 32015.
(2) The importation or lending of a handgun by employees or authorized agents of entities determining whether the weapon is prohibited by this section.
(3) Firearms listed as curios or relics, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) The sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun.
(5) The sale, purchase, or delivery of a handgun, if the sale, purchase, or delivery of the handgun is made pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 10334 of the Public Contract Code.
(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities or sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training pursuant to Section 832:
(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.
(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.
(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.
(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.
(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
(J) A county probation department.
(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.
(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.
(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.
(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.
(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.
(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.
(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:
(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.
(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.
So newly added types can only sell to newly added types.
There is no way the DOJ can check this during the 10 day wait as the exemption option is still just peace officer. There is no other option to select for the newly added versions.

Other then the dealer requesting a copy of the previous DROS and if done as a Law Enforcement exempt transaction asked to see the peace officer ID there is no way for the dealer to tell.

It's the LEO doing it who's really gambling.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:11 AM
rbetts's Avatar
rbetts rbetts is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Occupied Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,080
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

So to be clear, LEO's cannot PPT off roster handguns to civilians anymore
__________________


Golden State Tactical <---click here or Here--->Golden State Tactical Store

An Outpost Deep In the Heart of the Beast! Home of "California Compliant" AR15 Parts and Magazines and some of the lowest priced guns in the state!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:22 AM
BONECUTTER BONECUTTER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbetts View Post
So to be clear, LEO's cannot PPT off roster handguns to civilians anymore
These LEO's
(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.
(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.
(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.
(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.
(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
(J) A county probation department.
(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.
(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.
(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.
(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.
(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.
(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.
(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:
(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.
(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:31 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbetts View Post
So to be clear, LEO's cannot PPT off roster handguns to civilians anymore
No, only the newly added exempt can't, the others still can.

One problem is that if two people come to you to do a CA PPT, how exactly do you know that the seller is a LEO and whether they fall into the category which either allows them to sell it or does not allow them to sell it? Remember, the person could have received the firearm by various means, such as moving to CA, interstate intrafamilial transfer, buying it originally from a person who moved to CA, etc.

It is possible that the firearm was illegally brought into CA as well.

Unless you know, you don't know. Is it really up to the FFL to investigate the history of the firearm?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-14-2017, 8:50 AM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,622
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

The problem is that it states that the FFL can't do the transfer. That makes it sound like the FFL will have problems if they do, maybe even if they do in good faith (if someone lies for example).
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:01 AM
rbetts's Avatar
rbetts rbetts is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Occupied Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,080
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

So those that can are :

CHP
City Police Departments
County Sheriff Departments
Department of Correction Officers
Federal Sworn Peace Officers (FBI, Marshall, Flight Officer)
__________________


Golden State Tactical <---click here or Here--->Golden State Tactical Store

An Outpost Deep In the Heart of the Beast! Home of "California Compliant" AR15 Parts and Magazines and some of the lowest priced guns in the state!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:06 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
No, only the newly added exempt can't, the others still can.

One problem is that if two people come to you to do a CA PPT, how exactly do you know that the seller is a LEO and whether they fall into the category which either allows them to sell it or does not allow them to sell it? Remember, the person could have received the firearm by various means, such as moving to CA, interstate intrafamilial transfer, buying it originally from a person who moved to CA, etc.

It is possible that the firearm was illegally brought into CA as well.

Unless you know, you don't know. Is it really up to the FFL to investigate the history of the firearm?
Perhaps not. A background check on the firearm is performed on serial numbers. I would think that the exemption to sell to the newly classified would show that in the DROS.

The exempt buyer would be FSC exempt so showing a status as a LEO of some sort, as an LEO their name would be in a data base showing they are some type of LEO and the law would only allow newly purchased off roster guns as part of the the new Penal code.

This all seems like a hassle but, DOJ could track that gun purchased to the newly exempted LEO's and then deny the purchase during the 10 day wait to someone they can't sell that gun to.

They could also decipher if the gun was bought under the new law or if it was obtained through other means like a previous PPT or other means like brought in from out of state ect.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:13 AM
BONECUTTER BONECUTTER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Perhaps not. A background check on the firearm is performed on serial numbers. I would think that the exemption to sell to the newly classified would show that in the DROS.

The exempt buyer would be FSC exempt so showing a status as a LEO of some sort, as an LEO their name would be in a data base showing they are some type of LEO and the law would only allow newly purchased off roster guns as part of the the new Penal code.

This all seems like a hassle but, DOJ could track that gun purchased to the newly exempted LEO's and then deny the purchase during the 10 day wait to someone they can't sell that gun to.

They could also decipher if the gun was bought under the new law or if it was obtained through other means like a previous PPT or other means like brought in from out of state ect.
Theses no way the DOJ has access to check what agency/dept a LEO works for. The DROS exemption is just going to say CA Law Enforcement for all of them.

Think this law was to shut up other Agencies who cried "were police too":

Cool you can buy but not sell. And if you do we can charge you with this crime......
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:20 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
The problem is that it states that the FFL can't do the transfer. That makes it sound like the FFL will have problems if they do, maybe even if they do in good faith (if someone lies for example).
Yes, that is a major problem as it seems to indicate that a FFL has to be an investigator without the ability to determine it and if they refuse to do the CA PPT, then they can have problems as well. Not sure that it would hold up in court, but it would be expensive to find out. As well, the CA DOJ does not know whether it applies or not.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:24 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbetts View Post
So those that can are :

CHP
City Police Departments
County Sheriff Departments
Department of Correction Officers
Federal Sworn Peace Officers (FBI, Marshall, Flight Officer)
Well, it is not that easy since there are many ways the person could have acquired it.

Remember the law states what you can't do, not what you can.

These people can't IF they acquired it using the exemption, but not if they acquired it by other means:

Quote:
(6) Subject to the limitations set forth in subdivision (c), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities or sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training pursuant to Section 832:
(A) The Department of Parks and Recreation.
(B) The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
(C) The Division of Investigation of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
(D) The Department of Motor Vehicles.
(E) The Fraud Division of the Department of Insurance.
(F) The State Department of State Hospitals.
(G) The Department of Fish and Wildlife.
(H) The State Department of Developmental Services.
(I) The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
(J) A county probation department.
(K) The Los Angeles World Airports, as defined in Section 830.15.
(L) A K–12 public school district for use by a school police officer, as described in Section 830.32.
(M) A municipal water district for use by a park ranger, as described in Section 830.34.
(N) A county for use by a welfare fraud investigator or inspector, as described in Section 830.35.
(O) A county for use by the coroner or the deputy coroner, as described in Section 830.35.
(P) The Supreme Court and the courts of appeal for use by marshals of the Supreme Court and bailiffs of the courts of appeal, and coordinators of security for the judicial branch, as described in Section 830.36.
(Q) A fire department or fire protection agency of a county, city, city and county, district, or the state for use by either of the following:
(i) A member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(ii) A member other than a member of an arson-investigating unit, regularly paid and employed in that capacity pursuant to Section 830.37.
(R) The University of California Police Department, or the California State University Police Departments, as described in Section 830.2.
(S) A California Community College police department, as described in Section 830.32.
(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:30 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Perhaps not. A background check on the firearm is performed on serial numbers. I would think that the exemption to sell to the newly classified would show that in the DROS.
Except the CA DOJ does not know exactly how they were exempt, just that a LEO exemption was used and the FFL has NO means of knowing how the person received the firearm unless they play investigator.

Quote:
The exempt buyer would be FSC exempt so showing a status as a LEO of some sort, as an LEO their name would be in a data base showing they are some type of LEO and the law would only allow newly purchased off roster guns as part of the the new Penal code.
If that is how they acquired it, but some LEOs can still sell them.

Quote:
This all seems like a hassle but, DOJ could track that gun purchased to the newly exempted LEO's and then deny the purchase during the 10 day wait to someone they can't sell that gun to.
But the CA DOJ would have to investigate the type of LEO the person is, which I don't know that they have access to that information unless there is a database of LEOs. Some LEOs can buy and sell and others can not, but the FFL does not know how the person got the firearm and whether an exemption was used.

Quote:
They could also decipher if the gun was bought under the new law or if it was obtained through other means like a previous PPT or other means like brought in from out of state ect.
Yes, they would know if it was acquired by other means, but would they tell the FFL of that?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-14-2017, 9:33 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BONECUTTER View Post
Cool you can buy but not sell. And if you do we can charge you with this crime......
Who can they charge? The FFL or the LEO?

The law says that the FFL can't process it:

Quote:
(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.
Not that the LEO can't sell it. The FFL does not have a means of knowing.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:11 AM
BONECUTTER BONECUTTER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
The law says that the FFL can't process it:

Not that the LEO can't sell it. The FFL does not have a means of knowing.
So, is that an easy way for FFL's to not process any off rosters PPT?

Quote:
"To ensure compliance with PC 32000 (C)(1) we will not be able to process private party transfers of non-roster handguns without proof that said firearm was not acquired via PC 32000 (B)(6)"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:18 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Except the CA DOJ does not know exactly how they were exempt, just that a LEO exemption was used and the FFL has NO means of knowing how the person received the firearm unless they play investigator.



If that is how they acquired it, but some LEOs can still sell them.



But the CA DOJ would have to investigate the type of LEO the person is, which I don't know that they have access to that information unless there is a database of LEOs. Some LEOs can buy and sell and others can not, but the FFL does not know how the person got the firearm and whether an exemption was used.



Yes, they would know if it was acquired by other means, but would they tell the FFL of that?
Completely get everything you are saying. What i am saying is that, what i posted is the ONLY way to enforce the law minus the newly exempted LEO stating how they bought the firearm.

DOJ absolutely has a data base of who LEO is and what their position is. I agree the law as written seems to prohibit an FFL from doing the transfer but in a court of law, there is no way the FFL could be convicted on the platform they left us on.

With that being said, it would surely put a newly exempted LEO on the spot for breaking the law that they have sworn to uphold. In other words they must be relying on the honesty of the newly exempted LEO to follow the law.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:27 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BONECUTTER View Post
So, is that an easy way for FFL's to not process any off rosters PPT?
No, because then they can charge you for that. It is just a way to get rid of CA FFLs, either by going out of business or moving out of state.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-14-2017, 10:32 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Completely get everything you are saying. What i am saying is that, what i posted is the ONLY way to enforce the law minus the newly exempted LEO stating how they bought the firearm.

DOJ absolutely has a data base of who LEO is and what their position is. I agree the law as written seems to prohibit an FFL from doing the transfer but in a court of law, there is no way the FFL could be convicted on the platform they left us on.

With that being said, it would surely put a newly exempted LEO on the spot for breaking the law that they have sworn to uphold. In other words they must be relying on the honesty of the newly exempted LEO to follow the law.
Great idea, the FFL has to trust people in order to not violate the law.

I guess you have more trust in the courts being rational than I do. I think that they could and would convict a FFL. The FFL might win in the end, if you ignore the decades it takes and all the money it costs.

I am not sure that they really have a database which shows what the position that the person has.

Based on the wording of the law, those LEOs are not breaking the law by selling such a firearm, only the FFL is if they do the transfer. If the LEO lies and says that they bought it as a PPT or got it from their parent, how do you document that and how do you prove that?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-14-2017, 11:57 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Great idea, the FFL has to trust people in order to not violate the law.

I guess you have more trust in the courts being rational than I do. I think that they could and would convict a FFL. The FFL might win in the end, if you ignore the decades it takes and all the money it costs.

I am not sure that they really have a database which shows what the position that the person has.

Based on the wording of the law, those LEOs are not breaking the law by selling such a firearm, only the FFL is if they do the transfer. If the LEO lies and says that they bought it as a PPT or got it from their parent, how do you document that and how do you prove that?
Why be so obtuese? I agreed with your previous post. I'm stating the absurdity of the law. The inability for an FFL to know what is actually true or not.

The law lends itself to a court of law defining the law. How else would you explain it without assuming the worst for the FFL? Logically, in court our lawyers would ultimately win. Ya, it costs money buy whats your solution?

Last edited by taperxz; 09-14-2017 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-14-2017, 1:33 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Why be so obtuese? I agreed with your previous post. I'm stating the absurdity of the law. The inability for an FFL to know what is actually true or not.

The law lends itself to a court of law defining the law. How else would you explain it without assuming the worst for the FFL? Logically, in court our lawyers would ultimately win. Ya, it costs money buy whats your solution?
You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

Yes, it is abuse and yes the FFL does not know what the truth is.

Why would you not assume it is the worst for the FFL since that is what the law says?

What would they charge a LEO with? It does not say that the LEO can not sell the firearm.

This then points back to making it as bad as possible for the FFL, putting a FFL in a no win situation where they either do an illegal transfer or they illegally refuse to do a CA PPT. That is the worst case since it is no win.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-14-2017, 2:29 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

Yes, it is abuse and yes the FFL does not know what the truth is.

Why would you not assume it is the worst for the FFL since that is what the law says?

What would they charge a LEO with? It does not say that the LEO can not sell the firearm.

This then points back to making it as bad as possible for the FFL, putting a FFL in a no win situation where they either do an illegal transfer or they illegally refuse to do a CA PPT. That is the worst case since it is no win.
How is questioning you about being obtuse a pesonal attack?? Its a mannerism not an adjective of personal attack. Its a reference to your questioning my previous quote.

If an FFL can't transfer the firarm it goes without saying the LEO can't legally sell it under current CA law. Maybe you don't understand that perhaps?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:36 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
How is questioning you about being obtuse a pesonal attack?? Its a mannerism not an adjective of personal attack. Its a reference to your questioning my previous quote.

If an FFL can't transfer the firarm it goes without saying the LEO can't legally sell it under current CA law. Maybe you don't understand that perhaps?
I suspect you are the one who does not understand.

If a FFL were to transfer a non-roster handgun to a person who is not exempt, who is responsible for the violation of the law. The law clearly states that the FFL is the one who can not transfer the firearm in the case where the special class of LEO buys it and attempts to sell it. It does not say that it is illegal for the LEO to sell the firearm, does it?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:46 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
I suspect you are the one who does not understand.

If a FFL were to transfer a non-roster handgun to a person who is not exempt, who is responsible for the violation of the law. The law clearly states that the FFL is the one who can not transfer the firearm in the case where the special class of LEO buys it and attempts to sell it. It does not say that it is illegal for the LEO to sell the firearm, does it?
The buyer and seller are required to follow all CA gun transfer laws too. An illegal transfer is just that illegal. Just as if one were to transfer a gun in CA without the use of an FFL.

In other words the new law is an add on to existing law in regards to exempt handgun sales.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2017, 4:55 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So if you think that the CA DOJ will go after all three parties involved, I have a bridge to sell you. Read the CA PC and see who you think that they would go after.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-14-2017, 5:30 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
So if you think that the CA DOJ will go after all three parties involved, I have a bridge to sell you. Read the CA PC and see who you think that they would go after.
Newsflash.

It's illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person too. We have the luxury of a background check to avoid this.

I stated DOJ will need to monitor this type of sale via the background check on the firearm. If they don't, the law is unenforceable. The FFL can't know or can be lied to. So there is zero intent to break the law on the part of the FFL AND if DOJ has no record of the newly exempted LEO'S status then they can't even enforce the law. Under these circumstances, there is no way an FFL can be convicted of a crime. No intent, no proof of wrong doing on the part of the FFL AND negligence on the part of DOJ to not use the background check of the ALREADY registered firearm.

Your turn

Last edited by taperxz; 09-14-2017 at 5:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-14-2017, 5:39 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Just to add, since the law is so new, it wouldn't surprise me if down the road, we see a transfer become denied by DOJ if a seller were to try this transfer.

The only ID required from a seller is a CA ID. CCW holders are in DOJs data base so I'm sure an LEO is too.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-15-2017, 8:05 AM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,622
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

While there's no legal way for the LEO to sell it (to a normal person), it doesn't appear to me that the LEO is committing any crime if they attempt to sell it (through an FFL). It's the FFL committing the crime.
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-16-2017, 1:59 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Newsflash.

It's illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person too. We have the luxury of a background check to avoid this.

I stated DOJ will need to monitor this type of sale via the background check on the firearm. If they don't, the law is unenforceable. The FFL can't know or can be lied to. So there is zero intent to break the law on the part of the FFL AND if DOJ has no record of the newly exempted LEO'S status then they can't even enforce the law. Under these circumstances, there is no way an FFL can be convicted of a crime. No intent, no proof of wrong doing on the part of the FFL AND negligence on the part of DOJ to not use the background check of the ALREADY registered firearm.

Your turn
Quite funny. You still think that the DOJ won't go after the FFL.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-16-2017, 8:25 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Quite funny. You still think that the DOJ won't go after the FFL.
Quite funny that you are still obtuse.

As I stated earlier, if they did they would lose in court.

Do you read sentences or whole paragraphs?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-17-2017, 8:24 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Quite funny that you are still obtuse.

As I stated earlier, if they did they would lose in court.

Do you read sentences or whole paragraphs?
Do you bother to think at all? You petty personal attacks because you don't like what I am saying is childish. You don't seem to consider the way things really work. It would be different in an ideal world.

You are only guessing that they will lose in court and you know that there is no guarantee of that which numerous examples show that the correct result does not always happen, but even if they do it does not matter since what do you think will happen between the time the charges are files and it is resolved in court? Do you think that the FFL will still be in business? Do you think that the FFL should trust a public defender or have to pay large sums of money for an attorney?

Based on the actual CA PC, they could not charge the LEO, so either they would have to ignore enforcement of the law or they would go after the FFL. Do you really think that they would ignore the law? If you think that they would go after the LEO, what would be the charge since the LEO is not licensed as mentioned in the law? For anyone with any sense, the intent seems quite clear, it is to go after the FFL.

So go and think that nothing will happen to you and if you happen to be made an example, don't come back here and cry about it. I know you won't care if someone listens to you and then has a problem, nor will you step up and help with attorney fees.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

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

Last edited by kemasa; 09-17-2017 at 8:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-17-2017, 8:28 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Just to add, since the law is so new, it wouldn't surprise me if down the road, we see a transfer become denied by DOJ if a seller were to try this transfer.

The only ID required from a seller is a CA ID. CCW holders are in DOJs data base so I'm sure an LEO is too.
You are guessing and unless you have proof that the CA DOJ even has a means of knowing the details of a LEO's employment, then you are just spewing.

"so I'm sure an LEO is too"??? CCW is a bit different and based on your words you don't know that there is even a LEO database, nor what the details might even be, so the reality is that you are just making up things in order to try to defend your position.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-17-2017, 8:29 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkie View Post
While there's no legal way for the LEO to sell it (to a normal person), it doesn't appear to me that the LEO is committing any crime if they attempt to sell it (through an FFL). It's the FFL committing the crime.
At least someone gets it.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-17-2017, 12:44 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Do you bother to think at all? You petty personal attacks because you don't like what I am saying is childish. You don't seem to consider the way things really work. It would be different in an ideal world.

You are only guessing that they will lose in court and you know that there is no guarantee of that which numerous examples show that the correct result does not always happen, but even if they do it does not matter since what do you think will happen between the time the charges are files and it is resolved in court? Do you think that the FFL will still be in business? Do you think that the FFL should trust a public defender or have to pay large sums of money for an attorney?

Based on the actual CA PC, they could not charge the LEO, so either they would have to ignore enforcement of the law or they would go after the FFL. Do you really think that they would ignore the law? If you think that they would go after the LEO, what would be the charge since the LEO is not licensed as mentioned in the law? For anyone with any sense, the intent seems quite clear, it is to go after the FFL.

So go and think that nothing will happen to you and if you happen to be made an example, don't come back here and cry about it. I know you won't care if someone listens to you and then has a problem, nor will you step up and help with attorney fees.
You really need to go back and READ everything I posted.

Just for fun, based on the law, please explain to everyone HOW any DA could prove that the FFL would have knowledge that the seller was selling a gun purchased as an exempt class was an LEO. Off roster PPTs are done everyday and there is NO requirements for a seller to identify what they do for a living.

No DA is going to try to prosecute something that's not prosecutable in a court of law. It would be no different than delivering a gun to a prohibited person who DOJ approved on a background check or delivering a gun to a person who is undetermined.

If it's impossible to determine if that transfer is in violation, there is no crime.

Anyone can be arrested and charged for anything on any given day. Without intent or any way to avoid responsibility, you can't be convicted.

I suppose, on the PPT of any off roster handgun you could have everyone sign an affidavit that they are not restricted from selling the handgun but in your world, that wouldn't help either.

So I guess we are all just screwed and will have to stop doing all PPTs and explain to DOJ why. I'll just now suspect that EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER is employed as a newly exempted class so we cant do PPTs
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-17-2017, 12:52 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

BTW. The only thing childish is how you stomp your feet and declare you are right.

Do you really think there is no record of LEOS on a data base at DOJ who is the chief law enforcement agency in the state and does a 10 day background check prior to delivering a firearm. Perhaps but perhaps not.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-17-2017, 1:19 PM
PolishMike's Avatar
PolishMike PolishMike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tracy
Posts: 6,049
iTrader: 26 / 96%
Default

According to DOJ it is up to the dealer and it is the dealers problem if this is violated. Doesn’t matter if the dealer knew or not just like “I didn’t know the speed limit was 45” defense
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-17-2017, 1:32 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishMike View Post
According to DOJ it is up to the dealer and it is the dealers problem if this is violated. Doesn’t matter if the dealer knew or not just like “I didn’t know the speed limit was 45” defense
Sure, but the speed limit has to be posted too.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-17-2017, 1:37 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 339
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I PPT'd an off roster handgun today from a municipal police department. FFL didn't ask for LE's ID other than drivers license. I expect to pick up the handgun as is normal in 10 days.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-17-2017, 2:15 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
BTW. The only thing childish is how you stomp your feet and declare you are right.
Wow, do you really believe that? Do you really not see what you have posted? I am not the one being childish with the snide comments. You really need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Talk about a person stomping their feet and declaring that they are right, that seems to apply to you.

Without any proof or basis you claim that the CA DOJ can't or won't go after a FFL, Amazing. It must be so nice to be able to see the future and know so much.

Quote:
Do you really think there is no record of LEOS on a data base at DOJ who is the chief law enforcement agency in the state and does a 10 day background check prior to delivering a firearm. Perhaps but perhaps not.
You last line conflicts with the first.

Even if there is a database of LEOs, which is likely, they have to have access to use that in terms of the DROS, but more than that they also have to know the employer and the position. You want to claim all of that exists, but then you say perhaps but perhaps not, so you don't even know what you are saying is true, but you keep pushing it.

You say it is so, so prove it. I don't know if it exists or not, I don't know if it exists that they can even use it with respect to the DROS.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-17-2017, 2:16 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PolishMike View Post
According to DOJ it is up to the dealer and it is the dealers problem if this is violated. Doesn’t matter if the dealer knew or not just like “I didn’t know the speed limit was 45” defense
As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, well, at least when they charge others, but not when it comes to them.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-17-2017, 2:19 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 8,473
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
I PPT'd an off roster handgun today from a municipal police department. FFL didn't ask for LE's ID other than drivers license. I expect to pick up the handgun as is normal in 10 days.
There is no requirement that the FFL determine how the person selling the firearm received it, other than the law which limits the transfer of the firearm if they used the specific LEO exemption for some positions.

I also doubt that many FFLs have considered that CA PC and what it could mean.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

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

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:25 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.