PPT Transfer Fee Overcharge

[enegue]

While I agree with you to an extent about not reporting them to the DOJ, this business has brought it upon themselves. Numerous times they've been called out on their illegal $50 PPT fee and yet they continue to do it. The "F U" attitude of the owner and crew of this particular gunshop when it's brought up that charging $50 for a PPT is against the law is what got them reported.

Come to think of it, how do you propose we deal with this gun shop and its owner regarding their illegal $50 PPT fee since explaining to them and showing them the law on paper (that they themselves printed out) does not work?

Just don't go there and spend your money elsewhere.

[enegue]

It's pretty simple. They own a profitable business which has the stipulation that they do background checks on ppts for a small fee, they know this before becoming ffls in CA. Can't make enough profit to your satisfaction? Then get out of the business. If you instead choose to defraud honest people then enjoy getting reported to the DOJ, and ideally sued. It's that simple.

You claim these shops break the law because the profit margins are so low. Where is your evidence?

What kind of "evidence" do you imagine is available for you to view? Go to a gun shop and ask them how much they make on average per gun sold.

[Calguns77]

What kind of "evidence" do you imagine is available for you to view? Go to a gun shop and ask them how much they make on average per gun sold.

I expect no evidence. You present a claim it's your duty to back it up with evidence not mine.

Malarkey. It's highly doubtful the income from that store is paying the rent. The building (owned by the shop owner's wealthy father-in-law) is a real estate investment and a monthly "contribution" by its owner.

The building's owner is quite elderly and not doing so well these days. It will be interesting to see what happens to the shop (if anything), once he passes.

You understand thats an outlier and not the norm. The majority of gunshops aren't funded by daddys money. That just makes it worse that they're feel the need to rip people off tbh.

[blkside]

In the mean time why doesn't EVERYONE call them with one simple question.

How much is your Face to Face Dros + Fee

After about 1000 calls they will either figure it out or never answer the phone again and lose business...

(805) 545-0322

[jcourson]

Can we see the receipt?

[enegue]

I expect no evidence. You present a claim it's your duty to back it up with evidence not mine.



You understand thats an outlier and not the norm. The majority of gunshops aren't funded by daddys money. That just makes it worse that they're feel the need to rip people off tbh.

Where's your evidence that the majority of gunshots aren't funded by daddy's money? It's your duty to back it up. Haha.

[CSACANNONEER]

What kind of "evidence" do you imagine is available for you to view? Go to a gun shop and ask them how much they make on average per gun sold.

What does their average profit per gun have to do with following the law. You know, the law that CA FFLs WANTED in the first place. Yup, Ca FFLs were HAPPY when the law passed requiring them to do PPTs and being able to charge anything up to $10 to do them. Any FFL that was in business at the time can tell you that it was a plus for them. They got three people to enter their store (the seller once and the buyer twice) without having to pay for advertising and, to top it off, they got to charge for the foot traffic. Any Ca FFL who went into business after 1990 should have known the laws associated with their business and been willing to follow them whether they agreed with those laws or not.

BTW, I know several FFLs well enough to know their mark ups and their average profit per firearm. However, that doesn't take into account their overhead or their ability to properly run a business. Many gun shop owners are simply not good business people and it doesn't make a difference how much or little profit per firearm there is. OTOH, I know a few who do very well selling firearms and related accessories without gouging or breaking the law.

[Exiledviking]

Just don't go there and spend your money elsewhere.

As you stated earlier in this thread:

Not sure how long you've been into shooting but there we're a ton more gun shops 10-15 years ago.

There are only 2 places in SLO for PPTs that I'm aware of and this shop was the one that the buyer wanted to use. When the law requires us to do a PPT thru an FFL, we are limited as to where we can go.
So, again, how do you propose we deal with this gun shop and their illegal $50 PPT fee? Your answer does not address the issue nor my question.

[Calguns77]

Where's your evidence that the majority of gunshots aren't funded by daddy's money? It's your duty to back it up. Haha.

Cute. Haha. You've made amazing arguments in this thread.

Here you go sweetheart:

http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/12149058/majority-of-small-businesses-are-self-funded-use-personal-capital-to-fill-gaps

This financing companies survey shows that only 6% of small and medium businesses got their primary funding from family/friends. Evidence, haha. If you have evidence gunshops are somehow unique and primarily funded by daddy feel free to share with the rest of us. Haha.

[enegue]

Cute. Haha. You've made amazing arguments in this thread.

Here you go sweetheart:

http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/12149058/majority-of-small-businesses-are-self-funded-use-personal-capital-to-fill-gaps

This financing companies survey shows that only 6% of small and medium businesses got their primary funding from family/friends. Evidence, haha. If you have evidence gunshops are somehow unique and primarily funded by daddy feel free to share with the rest of us. Haha.

You actually spent your time digging this up? It was really obvious that it was a rhetorical question. No one owes you any evidence lol

[enegue]

As you stated earlier in this thread:


There are only 2 places in SLO for PPTs that I'm aware of and this shop was the one that the buyer wanted to use. When the law requires us to do a PPT thru an FFL, we are limited as to where we can go.
So, again, how do you propose we deal with this gun shop and their illegal $50 PPT fee? Your answer does not address the issue nor my question.

I would use the other shop. There's no good solution, I'm just saying it's crappy to have to report anything to the DOJ because they're position on civilian gun ownership seems to be that it shouldn't exist. If they shut that FFL down, that won't help anyway.

[enegue]

What does their average profit per gun have to do with following the law. You know, the law that CA FFLs WANTED in the first place. Yup, Ca FFLs were HAPPY when the law passed requiring them to do PPTs and being able to charge anything up to $10 to do them. Any FFL that was in business at the time can tell you that it was a plus for them. They got three people to enter their store (the seller once and the buyer twice) without having to pay for advertising and, to top it off, they got to charge for the foot traffic. Any Ca FFL who went into business after 1990 should have known the laws associated with their business and been willing to follow them whether they agreed with those laws or not.

BTW, I know several FFLs well enough to know their mark ups and their average profit per firearm. However, that doesn't take into account their overhead or their ability to properly run a business. Many gun shop owners are simply not good business people and it doesn't make a difference how much or little profit per firearm there is. OTOH, I know a few who do very well selling firearms and related accessories without gouging or breaking the law.

I agree with all of that. Yup, they wanted it back in the day. Things have changed for the worst for us here since then. I can't blame the shops today for the decision of FFLs decades ago.

Also, there's no relationship between profit margin and the current law - what I was saying is that shops don't make money on PPTs, their profit margins are generally slim with high liability and an uncertain future - this could explain why they're breaking the law. It's not an excuse. Also, being that it's a tough business, there aren't going to be many new gun shops in the near future so I personally wouldn't report to the DOJ, that's my opinion.

[CSACANNONEER]

I agree with all of that. Yup, they wanted it back in the day. Things have changed for the worst for us here since then. I can't blame the shops today for the decision of FFLs decades ago.

Also, there's no relationship between profit margin and the current law - what I was saying is that shops don't make money on PPTs, their profit margins are generally slim with high liability and an uncertain future - this could explain why they're breaking the law. It's not an excuse. Also, being that it's a tough business, there aren't going to be many new gun shops in the near future so I personally wouldn't report to the DOJ, that's my opinion.

What I'm saying is that every current FFL made the decision to do PPTs for no more than $10 when they applied for their FFLs in CA. So, I'm blaming them (and not just the older FFLs) for their decisions. Of course, besides the $10 they get from a PPT, they also get FREE foot traffic crossing their thresholds. Can you name another retailer that receives money from potential customers walking into their shops? I doubt it, most retailers PAY for that. As far as the "slim profit margins", that's what you will hear from just about any business owner but, like any retailer, some transactions are more profitable than others. Sure, some firearms may only bring a 15-20% return but, others bring a 100-300% (or more) return. Of course, many accessories bring 50% or more return. Then, for gun stores, there are other transactions which bring in revenue without any "investment" in stock. I'm sorry if the shops you know don't have the best business models but, I know several mom and pop shops that clear 6 figures a year.

[GM4spd]

What a waste of thread space.

[CSACANNONEER]

I would use the other shop. There's no good solution, I'm just saying it's crappy to have to report anything to the DOJ because they're position on civilian gun ownership seems to be that it shouldn't exist. If they shut that FFL down, that won't help anyway.

"The other shop" opened while I lived in SLO. I put a shotgun on consignment there and, when they had a buyer, they refused to sell it. They ended up returning it to me telling me it was illegal since, it didn't have a SN. Sorry, many long guns manufactured prior to the '68 GCA don't have SNs and they are all perfectly legal to own and sell (even through FFLs). So, "the other shop" clearly didn't know the laws governing their business back then and probably still doesn't.