Reality check: Colt Python 4" Blued price in CA

[ar15barrels]

regarding the oregon Python- so your saying there is no way of getting around selling this gun to a ordinary citizen in california, no loop hole whats so ever?

You could defeat the double action sear and temporarily convert it to a single action to use the single-action DROS exemption.
Beyond that or having a law enforcement officer straw purchase it, there's no simple legal manner to sell an off-list python into the state.

[Sam Hainn]

You could defeat the double action sear and temporarily convert it to a single action to use the single-action DROS exemption.
Beyond that or having a law enforcement officer straw purchase it, there's no simple legal manner to sell an off-list python into the state.

UGH! I know you deal in parts and guns, but it's not a straw purchase. This has been discussed here many times. It's 4473ed both times. LEO exempt in-CA buys it from out of state by 4473. LEO decides he/she no longer wants it and sells it within CA to average Joe who is legal to own a gun and completes a DROS/4473 by PPT. A straw purchase is only when there is no 4473 and it's being bought by someone that can legally buy and own gun for a person, to give to that person without a legal 4473/DROS in the transfer because that 2nd person can not own it legally otherwise. However, if he can own it, the purchase by 4473/DROS is legal. It's legal. It's within the law. BATF/CA DOJ/4473/DROS are notified and if the 2nd person can legally buy it by PPT from the LEO as a legal sale. Legal face value when 4473/DROS is done is measured per sale.

I suppose if the LEO did this too often BATF/DOJ might try claim that LEO is profiting as a gun dealer or importer to CA. (That might be bad.)

[ar15barrels]

UGH! I know you deal in parts and guns, but it's not a straw purchase. This has been discussed here many times. It's 4473ed both times. LEO exempt in-CA buys it from out of state by 4473. LEO decides he/she no longer wants it and sells it within CA to average Joe who is legal to own a gun and completes a DROS/4473 by PPT. A straw purchase is only when there is no 4473 and it's being bought by someone that can legally buy and own gun for a person, to give to that person without a legal 4473/DROS in the transfer because that 2nd person can not own it legally otherwise. However, if he can own it, the purchase by 4473/DROS is legal. It's legal. It's within the law. BATF/CA DOJ/4473/DROS are notified and if the 2nd person can legally buy it by PPT from the LEO as a legal sale. Legal face value when 4473/DROS is done is measured per sale.

I suppose if the LEO did this too often BATF/DOJ might try claim that LEO is profiting as a gun dealer or importer to CA. (That might be bad.)

In front of a jury, it would be very easy to define a straw purchase as "a purchase by one individual on behalf of another individual with the express purpose of the first buyer avoiding some portion of the laws that would otherwise stopped the second buyer from purchasing the gun in the first case"

Legal according to the word of the law does not necessarily follow the spirit of the law.

[Sam Hainn]

In front of a jury, it would be very easy to define a straw purchase as "a purchase by one individual on behalf of another individual with the express purpose of the first buyer avoiding some portion of the laws that would otherwise stopped the second buyer from purchasing the gun in the first case"

Legal according to the word of the law does not necessarily follow the spirit of the law.

No. the laws do nothing to stop the second individual from making that purchase as it is presented. It's not a straw purchase. None of the laws would have stopped the second purchaser from buying that gun, whether he got a similar gun from someone already owning it within CA by a PPT or from the LEO by PPT. It was acquired, owned, and sold by the prior owner to the buyer in a legal manner.

Are you trying to say that any PPT or consignment purchase from someone that bought a Colt Python in 1998 is also a straw purchase? The first person bought it legally by 4473 in 1998, then sold it to the second buyer yesterday as a PPT by 4473/DROS. It matters not how much time has passed nor what legal manner was used for the first buyer to acquire the gun, so long as it was legal. The first buyer followed the law to buy it - the second buyer followed the law to buy it. By your definition of straw purchase, any Consignment or PPT in CA is also a straw purchase, though it's legal according to the law

The LEO selling the gun just isn't a straw purchase by any definition on paper, the law, or by the passage of time, due to the law being followed to the letter per purchase. Someone may not like it, or may misconstrue the facts because they want to ban guns, or may be jealous, but a judge would have to look at it for face value, check the processed documentation, that all laws were followed under the requirements of both purchases, regardless of the passage of time, and find for acquittal. And advisement to the jury would likely be that all laws were followed per sale and they should stick to the facts, not sentiment. Guaranteed.