Buyer failed dros

[taperxz]

There is some SCOTUS guidance on this that allows for monetary ownership.
IMO the prohibited person owns it but can't take possession. Thank you Librarian

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/13-1487/#

[LowThudd]

There is some SCOTUS guidance on this that allows for monetary ownership.
IMO the prohibited person owns it but can't take possession. Thank you Librarian

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../575/13-1487/#

Sure, that could set precedent IN COURT, but it will be too late as the FFL has the obligation under CA law to hand over to LE after 30 days.

[IVC]

Under CA law, it does not belong to anyone if it cannot be delivered to either party, ...

Not true - whether it can or cannot be delivered has nothing to do with who owns it. It's like owning a piece of land where you cannot build...

Compare to a car. If I lend you my car, you have possession, but I still own it. If it's impounded, I am still the owner.

[LowThudd]

Not true - whether it can or cannot be delivered has nothing to do with who owns it. It's like owning a piece of land where you cannot build...

Compare to a car. If I lend you my car, you have possession, but I still own it. If it's impounded, I am still the owner.

Yes, but there is no specific law that prevents you from retrieving your car. Savey? There is a specific SOP set in place that dictates the procedure at hand. And no where in the code does it allow for a consignment.

Like I said. Not saying that it is fair, just that it is the law as it stands.

Anyway, you can believe what you like. I can read the PC and understand fine what the intention of our wonderful state is. They consider it abandoned if the seller does not retrieve it. The money issue is between the buyer and seller.

[autopro]

I had a buyer get denied a few years ago. FFL called me 3 days after we did the PPT said I had 24 hours to come pick it up or it would be turned over to LE. Picked it up the next day and never heard anything from buyer. I tried calling and email but got no response.

I would have not had any problem refunding his money. I hadn't spent it yet and the FFL was less than 10 minutes from home.

[taperxz]

Yes, but there is no specific law that prevents you from retrieving your car. Savey? There is a specific SOP set in place that dictates the procedure at hand. And no where in the code does it allow for a consignment.

Like I said. Not saying that it is fair, just that it is the law as it stands.

Anyway, you can believe what you like. I can read the PC and understand fine what the intention of our wonderful state is. They consider it abandoned if the seller does not retrieve it. The money issue is between the buyer and seller.

But you are ignoring federal law and the rights of monetary value on a gun the person actually paid for. Henderson was settled case law less than two years ago so it would trump what the PC is in CA

[LowThudd]

But you are ignoring federal law

State law supersedes Federal law. The state is ignoring Federal law. Not me. lol

If Federal law Superseded State law, we wouldn't need an FFL to do PPTs.

[kemasa]

"Goes back to seller" only means that the seller can pick up the gun from the dealer, not that it belongs to the seller. It still belongs to the buyer.

If the seller picks it up, then the small claim courts can figure out who owes whom money. If the seller doesn't touch it and leaves it at the dealer, it's up to the buyer to figure out what to do with his property.

The firearm is transferred back to the seller. It does not belong to the buyer. The buyer has a money interest, but does not own it. It is like paying for a vehicle but never transferring title, the ownership does not change.

The buyer can do NOTHING. Either the firearm goes to the seller or it goes to the police. The seller is the ONLY one who has the option. The seller can pick it up or let it go to the police.

If the seller lets it go to the police. do you claim that the police would owe the buyer the money since you say that they have his property?

There is also the issue if the buyer is prohibited and if the buyer owns the firearm, then they have an additional problem, don't they?

[MurdaJ]

Sold a weapon last week
Got a call from the buyer, he failed the dros,

Wants all his cash back?

And I am not sure how to handle this problem?

Also do I have to dros the weapon back into my name?

Thanks

So the consensus appears to be that you are under no obligation to refund any money, but what are you going to do? How do you think the buyer will react?

[E92335i]

Lol in short, the buyer is screwed.

[taperxz]

State law supersedes Federal law. The state is ignoring Federal law. Not me. lol

If Federal law Superseded State law, we wouldn't need an FFL to do PPTs.

Hmm. Are you really gonna go there?

Last I heard a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land and I gave you a 2015 ruling from the Supreme Court of The United States of America

Why do you think we are all dying for Peruta to be granted cert????

Keep in mind too that in free America there is no registration or title to a firearm. It's just paid for and assumed the buyers due to simple ownership of giving money.

[LowThudd]

Hmm. Are you really gonna go there?

Last I heard a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land and I gave you a 2015 ruling from the Supreme Court of The United States of America

Why do you think we are all dying for Peruta to be granted cert????

Keep in mind too that in free America there is no registration or title to a firearm. It's just paid for and assumed the buyers due to simple ownership of giving money.

The Supreme court also ruled on "In Common Use" firearms with Heller, yet here we are in the grips of a ban of one of the most common types of firearms today. Similarly, the court ruled on restrictive CCW in Illinois, and yet LA, New Jersey nor New York etc has no such changes occurring.

[taperxz]

The Supreme court also ruled on "In Common Use" firearms with Heller, yet here we are in the grips of a ban of one of the most common types of firearms today. Similarly, the court ruled on restrictive CCW in Illinois, and yet LA, New Jersey nor New York etc has no such changes occurring.

You didn't read what I linked. SCOTUS ALREADY gave us the win on what ownership means. Ca just had not updated the PC but it CANNOT GO TO COURT AND EXPECT A WIN.

The SCOTUS had spoken on what constitutes ownership.

[taperxz]

Lowthudd, I was ready to concede your point till I read the decision again.

When I realized that no registration or title is required for firearms nationally, Henderson won, California doesn't care where the gun goes as long as the person isn't deemed prohibited (see their laws on "undetermined". I think an FFL would have zero problems consigning a gun for prohibited people. I already do consign guns for prohibited people.

[LowThudd]

You didn't read what I linked. SCOTUS ALREADY gave us the win on what ownership means. Ca just had not updated the PC but it CANNOT GO TO COURT AND EXPECT A WIN.

The SCOTUS had spoken on what constitutes ownership.

I never said CA was right, or fair. Only...