Gun lock scam

[The Gleam]

I've been mulling an idea....

Has anyone ever seen or heard of the "Love Lock" bridge in Paris, France?

http://www.bonjourparis.com/story/paris-love-locks-love-that-wont-die/

They accumulated so many recently that one of the railings actually collapsed!

http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trb-love-locks-paris-20140610-story.html

I would love to find a similar iconic public structure here in California, preferably something that would speak to civil-rights and independence, possibly mid-state or so and very public, so many travelling gun owners could more than likely pass-by or near it than if it were something far north or far south, but in a prominently media-feeding left-leaning city (Los Angeles) whereby gun owners could attach their locks in protest of 2nd Amendment infringements.

It would essentially say "keep your damned locks" and your control off of OUR 2nd Amendment, translating to so many other aspects of gun control that serve to "lock up" our guns.

And the irony would be, just like the "love Lock" bridge in Paris, the local government must occasionally come out and cut the locks off due to the overage. They would essentially be destroying the locks they required us to buy in order to remove them which would also show just how easily and futile such locks are to defeat.

Now - where - where might a good place be....

[The Gleam]

Even Federal law does not mandate that a lock be purchased or a receipt be provided. It just mandates that a lock accompany the handgun when the handgun leaves the store.

However, the safe affidavit still fulfills California requirements for both handguns and longguns.

Correct on the Federal part; accompaniment is all that is required.

But I have not had a single FFL tell me the CA affidavit applies to handguns under the Federal law. And I've bumped into that issue a lot since it's gone into affect and I couldn't find any part of the Federal law that allows for the affidavit to apply in absence of a lock accompanying the handgun when the handgun leaves the store.

[Condorguns]

I thought the receipt was only required if the transferee was providing his own lock not the dealer just giving him one. I give the customer a free lock and only record the make and model on the DROS. I'd have to contest the auditor's interpretation otherwise I'll be in big trouble.

I got slapped for not having receipts copied for our own locks. If FSD purchased then we were told to copy the receipt even if it was us selling it. I did argue it and as usual got nowhere with them. Even worse it was DOJ and not ATF inspection. I really hate DOJ inspections. You never know what crazy thing they will pull out of their bag of tricks this time. ATF is so much easier to deal with.

[Librarian]

Even Federal law does not mandate that a lock be purchased or a receipt be provided. It just mandates that a lock accompany the handgun when the handgun leaves the store.

However, the safe affidavit still fulfills California requirements for both handguns and longguns.

Right. I've had some push-back from FFLs on the exact meaning of 'provided with' in

the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device

While BATFE continues it's intransigence on documents for proof of safe ownership, a safe is a defined acceptable gun storage option, and it is unreasonable to demand a buyer buy a new safe with every handgun (I get to choose from - there's no Federal mandate on which I must use) or bring in my safe to prove I have it.

But 'provided with' can easily mean 'has' - no current purchase requirement is in there.

So, it should be easily defensible to note for the Feds the make and model of a lock, and for CA to have a 'safe affidavit', and to let the gun out the door satisfying both CA and Federal laws.

[Librarian]

Correct on the Federal part; accompaniment is all that is required.

From your keyboard to the FFL community's eyes ...

But I have not had a single FFL tell me the CA affidavit applies to handguns under the Federal law.

As well they shouldn't.

And I've bumped into that issue a lot since it's gone into affect and I couldn't find any part of the Federal law that allows for the affidavit to apply in absence of a lock accompanying the handgun when the handgun leaves the store.

Fedlaw says nothing at all about how any safety device is to be documented. Apparently, that has been left up to the neglect of the BATF.

[gabo]

so shouldn't bringing in a lockbox with key satisfy the requirements as well ? and why do we need to have bought it within 30 days ??

[zerodameaon]

so shouldn't bringing in a lockbox with key satisfy the requirements as well ? and why do we need to have bought it within 30 days ??

Taxes, and you can only do 1 handgun in 30 days, so you can't buy one handgun this month then use that same lock when you buy your next handgun a month later. The whole hand written receipt and selling it and buying it back shoots a hole in the whole requirement though.

[Librarian]

so shouldn't bringing in a lockbox with key satisfy the requirements as well ? and why do we need to have bought it within 30 days ??

Yes; an approved 'safety device' - see http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist/ - is not limited to only gun locks.

Taxes, and you can only do 1 handgun in 30 days, so you can't buy one handgun this month then use that same lock when you buy your next handgun a month later. The whole hand written receipt and selling it and buying it back shoots a hole in the whole requirement though.

Right - the '30 days' thing comes out of the Penal Code - 23635(c). Asking 'why would the legislature do such a thing?' leads only to heartache.

[CSACANNONEER]

Correct on the Federal part; accompaniment is all that is required.

But I have not had a single FFL tell me the CA affidavit applies to handguns under the Federal law. And I've bumped into that issue a lot since it's gone into affect and I couldn't find any part of the Federal law that allows for the affidavit to apply in absence of a lock accompanying the handgun when the handgun leaves the store.

I'm not saying that the safe affidavit works to comply with Federal law. I'm saying that it works to comply with Ca law and the mere presence of a lock without a receipt would satisfy Federal law. Many FFLs think that one thing needs to be used to fulfill both requirements when it doesn't.

[Scratch705]

law doesn't say u have to keep the lock.

i always buy a lock somewhere else, bring it in, then return it on the way home, and just use the cable lock that came with the gun.

i still only have exactly the same amount of locks i have as guns. ppt or new purchase.

[retiredAFcop]

We donate the lock and ring you up for a Lock at a $0 charge on the invoice. We then have a sign that says 'donate unwanted CA DOJ locks here' which people drop locks they don't want into at a later time.

There is no law that says you have to purchase the lock for a certain price, the store can choose to donate one to you and you can then donate a lock back to them on your next visit.

Sounds a lot like a recent experience I had. The shop "threw in" the $8 lock, and once I had the gun secured in a case in my trunk, I returned the lock, asking them to "throw it in" on a future sale.

The letter of the law is followed, everyone is happy.