How does this work?

[Librarian]

WOW that just doesn't make scene . I can't believe that is not still considered a PPT . Has anyone challenged this specific thing in court yet ?

There is no real difference in the sale then a so-called PPT . One person is selling it to another .There is virtually no difference . It was not transferred into CA because it's already here legally . The store never owned it therefore they are not selling it . The LGS would have to hold the firearm for the 10 day wait regardless so what's so special about this specific situation ?

This is NOT a rant but real questions .

PPT is defined in Penal Code - see the sticky in the FFL forum.

[vliberatore]

If the gun is the one that I really want, I'll drive to seller to do ppt.

Don't forget you'd be making the drive 4 times.

[ElDub1950]

WOW that just doesn't make scene . I can't believe that is not still considered a PPT . Has anyone challenged this specific thing in court yet ?

There is no real difference in the sale then a so-called PPT . One person is selling it to another .There is virtually no difference . It was not transferred into CA because it's already here legally . The store never owned it therefore they are not selling it . The LGS would have to hold the firearm for the 10 day wait regardless so what's so special about this specific situation ?

This is NOT a rant but real questions .

LOL You're not actually attempting to apply logic and fairness to CA gun laws are you???

[Metal God]

PPT is defined in Penal Code - see the sticky in the FFL forum.

Thanks just looked it up . I see that once it's law or we are told we can't do something there is no need to question it . Like AWB , good cause , micro stamping , the roster , ten round mag limit . Shall I go on .

My point was not that I did not believe it was true or in the law . I was asking if any body has challenged the requirement that both party's be present at the same FFL

If the seller sent the firearm from a local FFL to the buyers local FFL . With both FFL's doing the required paper work for the individual they were working with . I see no difference in the over all out come , I'm sure it would not be but this just seems like a slam dunk case to me .

[ChaoSS]

WOW that just doesn't make scene . I can't believe that is not still considered a PPT . Has anyone challenged this specific thing in court yet ?

There is no real difference in the sale then a so-called PPT . One person is selling it to another .There is virtually no difference . It was not transferred into CA because it's already here legally . The store never owned it therefore they are not selling it . The LGS would have to hold the firearm for the 10 day wait regardless so what's so special about this specific situation ?

This is NOT a rant but real questions .

Think of it this way, if shipping it was still considered a ppt, it would be much, much easier to get off roster guns into the state, we could just buy them private party from out of state and have them ship to our local ffl.

[Librarian]

Thanks just looked it up . I see that once it's law or we are told we can't do something there is no need to question it . Like AWB , good cause , micro stamping , the roster , ten round mag limit . Shall I go on .

My point was not that I did not believe it was true or in the law . I was asking if any body has challenged the requirement that both party's be present at the same FFL

If the seller sent the firearm from a local FFL to the buyers local FFL . With both FFL's doing the required paper work for the individual they were working with . I see no difference in the over all out come , I'm sure it would not be but this just seems like a slam dunk case to me .

Getting a 'slam dunk' win against what the legislature has written into law is very unlikely.

You have provided the examples of things that have been challenged and not (yet) resolved in our favor, and those are items that should have been challenged before the one that has put a bee in your bonnet.

[Metal God]

the one that has put a bee in your bonnet.

haha , no bee's no bonnet . Some times when just looking at words on a page you don't really get the feel for what the writers really feeling . Sorry if it looked snarky . Now read it as if I have a half smile with a tad bit of sarcasm .

we could just buy them private party from out of state and have them ship to our local ffl.

Would that not be importing into CA an off roster firearm ? In this case the firearm is already in CA and legal to be here . It is legal to sell the firearm through PP sale in CA and this will be a PPT . Now all we're talking about is the state creating an undo burden on the individuals involved in the sale . There is no reasonable reason both party's must be in the same place at the same time . slam dunk

[ChaoSS]

Would that not be importing into CA an off roster firearm ? In this case the firearm is already in CA and legal to be here . It is legal to sell the firearm through PP sale in CA and this will be a PPT . Now all we're talking about is the state creating an undo burden on the individuals involved in the sale . There is no reasonable reason both party's must be in the same place at the same time . slam dunk

You're right, I keep getting my PPT rules mixed up, I was thinking an out of state resident could come into the state and PPT an off roster gun to a CA resident. I was mistaken.