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
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

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

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2013, 1:51 PM
curious relic curious relic is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sutter Creek (Nor Cal)
Posts: 47
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default Confusion about how many FFLs a PPT takes

Hi all,

I would like to sell a couple of rifles from my collection (not C&R) as a private party. I have read and searched the wikis and faqs along with the 2012 edition of C. D. Michel's "California Gun Laws", but every time I think I have it figured out, there is some new footnote or apparent contradiction.

Interstate transfers would seem to be the simplest case, but even that isn't entirely clear. Federal law seems to state that an individual can ship directly to an FFL in another state (long guns only), so I should be able to ship directly to an out of state buyer's FFL directly. But what I don't understand is how PC 28050 and 26700 do or do not apply to interstate transfers where the buyer and seller are private parties.

28050 says all transfers have to go through an FFL licensed per 26700. Does this mean that even outbound interstate transfers have to originate through a California FFL who is licensed per 26700, far more restrictive than the federal law?

And just to further confuse things, a footnote in Michel's book says that an FFL who is not licensed per PC 26700 is considered an individual, not a dealer for purposes of transfers. What does this mean? does it only apply to a California resident who obtains an FFL but has not complied with the additional regulatory burdens of California's additional licensing requirements ?

I can't see how this could possibly be imposed on out of state FFLs, otherwise how could a California FFL ship to an out of state FFL who is not "licensed" as a "dealer" in California? Is this just a back door way to force out of state dealers to either jump through hoops or not do any business with California, inbound or outbound ?

So much for interstate transfers, what about private party transfers between California residents ?

I saw the statements about both buyer and seller having to be present at the transfer dealer, apparently simultaneously ? Is this spelled out anywhere, or is it some arbitrary decision by the DOJ? This is easy at a gun show, but if I sell it online, why can't I deliver it to the buyer's FFL without the buyer present? Would that situation put the transaction into some kind of limbo state?

And there was another statement in a post that if I ship it to the FFL rather than hand deliver it, it is no longer a private party transfer, where does that come from ?

Sorry for the long post, but this is as simple as I could make the questions. This thing really needs some sort of flowchart to figure out how to make these transactions legal.

Given that the FFLs involved on either end can charge whatever they want unless it is a face to face PPT, this could easily add $200 to $300 to the deal with the buyer factoring that into what they are willing to pay. This turns a $300 gun into a $600 gun, no deal there, and even on a $2000 gun its a heavy tax.
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 2:22 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,094
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6

Transfer to an out of state buyer requires an FFL in that buyer's state of residence, and following that state's laws.

Except for registered 'assault weapons', where CA requires a specially licensed FFLs to do shipping (if shipped - personal transport is not affected), CA has no influence on CA to out of state sales.

For private party transactions, two CA residents must appear at the SAME FFL, but not necessarily at the same time, if the FFL will handle it that way. It's a DOJ audit interpretation, so far as I have read, but it is implied in the text of 28050
28050. (a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a
firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to
26915, inclusive, in accordance with this chapter in order to comply
with Section 27545.
(b) The seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm
shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain possession
of that firearm.

(c) The dealer shall then deliver the firearm to the purchaser or
transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, if it is not
prohibited, in accordance with Section 27540.
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 8:52 PM
curious relic curious relic is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sutter Creek (Nor Cal)
Posts: 47
iTrader: 5 / 100%

Hi Librarian,

Thanks for enlightening me on several of my questions.

It sounds like selling interstate is simpler than I thought if I can ship direct to the buyer's FFL. I didn't know how to apply the combination of "interstate transfers must comply with the laws of both states" and "transfers must be done through a dealer licensed per PC 26700", which seemed to indicate a California FFL had to be involved. Is this explicit in the PC, or a DOJ interpretation?

What if the buyer is denied/prohibited in their state? Seems the buyer's FFL should just return it to me since there is no "transaction", but some section of the PC whose number escapes me says something about DROS/background check on me (seller) to make sure I can legally receive the gun. And then it raises the question of the federal prohibition on a FFL shipping to an out of state individual, but see above reference to "no transaction involved" Man, you gotta be a lawyer to understand this stuff !

Selling intrastate to another California resident is tricky if you want to handle it as a PPT. The magic is in the wording of 28050 section b that you highlighted. Apparently part of the definition of a PPT (at least in California) is that the seller has to deliver the gun to the FFL who will deliver it to the buyer, if there are two FFLs involved it is no longer a PPT? And I bet the case of two FFLs involved would raise the sales tax issue?

I still don't understand why shipping the gun to the buyer's FFL instead of handing it to him personally isn't allowed, any references you can point me to?

My takeaway at this point is that the preferred scenarios for PPT transactions, in descending order, are:

1 face to face PPT at a gun show through a transfer dealer.

2 handshake deal at gun show where buyer and seller agree to meet at a transfer dealer convenient to both seller and buyer, cash to seller, gun to FFL obviously this doesn't work if buyer and seller live at opposite ends of the state.

3 Sale to out of state buyer and ship direct to buyer's FFL

4 Sale to buyer in California involving two FFLs

What do you think?
Reply With Quote

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 5:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.