Buyer failed dros

[LowThudd]

For a previously registered handgun, I would expect that the LE would want a LEGR. Right?

[ShermanOaks]

What if the buyer was denied because of a CA DOJ error? Would you spare any sympathy?

So many salty comments.

Where is the sense of community?

[SloChicken]

What if the buyer was denied because of a CA DOJ error? Would you spare any sympathy?

So many salty comments.

Where is the sense of community?

It has been repeatedly mentioned that if it was a DOJ error, most here would work with the buyer.

That said, most any denial is legit.

[taperxz]

For a previously registered handgun, I would expect that the LE would want a LEGR. Right?

No! We get firearms from newly prohibited persons. They are now prohibited due to their actions, guns confiscated, but allowed to consign them through us and this process is all post Henderson

[kemasa]

There is no paperwork to do when getting a gun from a PD other than writing a storage check and having your FFL on file to get a gun to consign for a prohibited person. I've gotten guns from the PD that were to old to be registered and DOJ had no record of long guns till 2014 from them that were owned by prohibited people. How do you justify your statement?

I have picked up firearms because the police would not release them directly to the person because they were not listed as the owner. The joke is that the firearm was taken from the person and that person authorized the release to me, then it was transferred to them. The firearm was transferred to them prior to the requirement that all private sales go through a dealer, but that did not matter.

[taperxz]

Kemasa, I always respect your posts.

Let me ask your position on this then.

Does the seller have to give the buyer his money back in regards to the OP?

Please answer this question.

I am asking you this with the utmost respect

[kemasa]

Kemasa, I always respect your posts.

Let me ask your position on this then.

Does the seller have to give the buyer his money back in regards to the OP?

The seller does not have to do anything. Have and should are two different things.

The buyer was denied. The seller sold the firearm and did the transfer. If the buyer wants the seller to do anything then the buyer needs to ask nicely and perhaps pay. The seller can do nothing and the buyer loses, so it is in the best interest of the buyer to do what it takes to convince the seller to help.

It is reasonable in my opinion for the seller to be compensated, as well as not returning anything until the firearm sells again. While the seller could refuse to refund anything, that would not be the right thing to do.

On the other hand, it might be easier for the seller to pick up the firearm and refund the money to just be done with the buyer.

[taperxz]

Kemasa, I also want to bring up one more item.

In Free America, the total amount due isn't paid until the NICS CHECK IS COMPLETE. A denied person is only on the hook for the NICS check fee.

I would say this puts a CA buyer and seller in a dubious contract problem.

Wouldn't you agree? Post Henderson?

[kemasa]

Both! The seller for not entering into a proper contract and the seller for being prohibited

Incorrect. The seller did everything that was agreed to. The buyer was denied, not the seller. The buyer likely knew that there was an issue. The buyer should have informed the seller that there might be a problem.

Now the buyer wants to cancel the sale, get a full refund and not pay anything to the seller even though the seller is out time and money (unless the FFL is in walking distance as gas is not free) and the seller has to do more, getting the firearm back, try to sell it again, etc.

[taperxz]

The seller does not have to do anything. Have and should are two different things.

The buyer was denied. The seller sold the firearm and did the transfer. If the buyer wants the seller to do anything then the buyer needs to ask nicely and perhaps pay. The seller can do nothing and the buyer loses, so it is in the best interest of the buyer to do what it takes to convince the seller to help.

It is reasonable in my opinion for the seller to be compensated, as well as not returning anything until the firearm sells again. While the seller could refuse to refund anything, that would not be the right thing to do.

On the other hand, it might be easier for the seller to pick up the firearm and refund the money to just be done with the buyer.

Ok good answer! That would mean an FFL in CA could sell a gun, and deny a refund for the entire purchase?

[taperxz]

Incorrect. The seller did everything that was agreed to. The buyer was denied, not the seller. The buyer likely knew that there was an issue. The buyer should have informed the seller that there might be a problem.

Now the buyer wants to cancel the sale, get a full refund and not pay anything to the seller even though the seller is out time and money (unless the FFL is in walking distance as gas is not free) and the seller has to do more, getting the firearm back, try to sell it again, etc.

How do you know what was agreed to?

We are both in the business. Do you ask PPTers what was agreed upon? Or would sales tax be involved for your involvement in the transaction?

[kemasa]

Kemasa, I also want to bring up one more item.

In Free America, the total amount due isn't paid until the NICS CHECK IS COMPLETE. A denied person is only on the hook for the NICS check fee.

I would say this puts a CA buyer and seller in a dubious contract problem.

Wouldn't you agree? Post Henderson?

Huh? You don't think that the FFL should get paid if the person is denied?

All the money is due.

The agreement was that the seller get the money and go to a FFL with the firearm, do the DROS and hand over the money. All of which was done.

If the buyer wanted to add a condition as to what would happen if they were denied, they could have, then the seller could have refused the sale or agreed to the terms.

What if the seller drove a long distance? What if the seller left the state or country? What if the seller paid a bill with the money or bought something else?

Or how about the seller bought a firearm from you and now wants to cancel it with a full refund so that they can give a refund to the denied buyer? Would you agree to that? It was not their fault that the buyer was denied, but they need the money back.

[kemasa]

Henderson does not apply in my opinion. The transfer did not occur, plus it does not address the added costs to the seller.

Henderson did not address the case where a firearm was paid for and the transfer was not completed. It did not involve added costs to others. It only dealt with the right of a property owner to indirectly get their property back from the government.

[kemasa]

How do you know what was agreed to?

We are both in the business. Do you ask PPTers what was agreed upon? Or would sales tax be involved for your involvement in the transaction?

Unless otherwise said, the agreement is money for a firearm.

Unless the buyer added a clause in case of a denial, there is no agreement on it.

If the seller drove 500 miles, do you think that they should be forced to drive again without any compensation?

Sales tax would only apply if the FFL found the buyer and/or seller or got involved with the sale price.

[kemasa]

Ok good answer! That would mean an FFL in CA could sell a gun, and deny a refund for the entire purchase?

They could. It might be a bad idea. Do you take returns of firearms?

Should the FFL give a full refund of everything?

A dealer sale is a bit different though.