New Private Party Transfer Limits?

[Vinnie22]

A local gun shop that I've been using for PPTs told me today that I'm at my limit for PPTs. I was under the impression that PPT limits only apply to selling (5 transactions per year?), so I asked them if the limit is for buying AND selling. They said that the DOJ has been "cracking down", and so PPT limits are now 6 transfers per year including selling AND buying. I tried to research any new PPT laws to confirm, but have not been able to find anything. Has anyone else heard of this?

[Librarian]

No.

It's selling only -

16730.


(a) As used in Section 31815 and in Division 6 (commencing with Section 26500) of Title 4, “infrequent” means both of the following are true:

(1) The person conducts less than six transactions per calendar year.

(2) The person sells, leases, or transfers no more than 50 total firearms per calendar year.

(b) As used in this section, “transaction” means a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of firearms.

Title 4, Division 6 is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...pter=&article=

[edgerly779]

Out the idjit ffl so we do not make the mistake of using them.

[9Cal_OC]

Out the idjit ffl so we do not make the mistake of using them.

This.

Only applies to selling. You can purchase as many as you want via PPT.

[OCEquestrian]

A local gun shop that I've been using for PPTs told me today that I'm at my limit for PPTs. I was under the impression that PPT limits only apply to selling (5 transactions per year?), so I asked them if the limit is for buying AND selling. They said that the DOJ has been "cracking down", and so PPT limits are now 6 transfers per year including selling AND buying. I tried to research any new PPT laws to confirm, but have not been able to find anything. Has anyone else heard of this?

Name that shop....

[edgerly779]

OP is another calgunner hiding his locale.

[12pewpew]

Sounds like they just didn't feel like doing a ppt.

[Vinnie22]

No.

It's selling only - Title 4, Division 6 is here: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...pter=&article=

Thank you for confirming this.

[Yodaman]

Thank you for confirming this.

[Master_Prestige]

OP is another calgunner hiding his locale.

Not really all his itrader is Bay Area so one can only assume the location

[edgerly779]

Not on his avatar so if in bay area then ffl will never get my business.

[Mr. Beretta]

Sounds like they just didn't feel like doing a ppt.

Yup!

[SkyHawk]

Sounds like they just didn't feel like doing a ppt.

But there is no way for them to know how many you have done, unless you did them all there.

Sounds like another bonehead FFL to me, and we are hearing more of these FUD FFL stories every day. I'm not even sure we need to fight CA laws and DOJ anymore, because no matter what we win there will be ever fewer FFLs who know and follow the law.

[Vinnie22]

But there is no way for them to know how many you have done, unless you did them all there.

Sounds like another bonehead FFL to me, and we are hearing more of these FUD FFL stories every day. I'm not even sure we need to fight CA laws and DOJ anymore, because no matter what we win there will be ever fewer FFLs who know and follow the law.

This is correct. I've done several outside of this shop, with no glitches.

[Vinnie22]

Ok so long story.

First strike: I made an appointment with two PPT sellers, and called ahead to see if it was OK for me to put both firearms on the same DROS, since they were in the same day. They told me over the phone that it would be fine, but I'd have to make two back-to-back appointments because of the extra time needed to process the paperwork. Acknowledged and obliged. The first seller came and I did my transfer with him. The second seller came as the first seller was leaving, and they did my paperwork. Then the shop charged me for a second DROS. I said, "I thought you said I could put them both on the same DROS?" They said that it would have only been possible if both sellers were there at the same time because they had already closed out the first transaction. If they had said that first over the phone, I would have easily made an appointment for both sellers to be there together.

Second strike:
I made another appointment to buy couple other guns from my friend, on a day that my first gun was ready for pickup. I called ahead and asked if I needed to make two appointments (one for the pickup, and one for the new PPT). They told me it wasn't necessary, and that I could just do both with one appointment. When I get there to do the PPT and pickup, the manager comes out to tell me that I can't keep tacking on multiple transactions with one appointment, as it throws off the time frame for other appointments. Again, had they told me that over the phone, I would have made two appointments to allow plenty of time to complete both transactions.

Strike three: Original post.

As much as I am peeved about the service and misinformation given by the shop, I am still appreciative that they were willing to do my PPTs by appointment (no waiting in line for hours) at all. Therefore, out of respect for their help, I'll keep their name anonymous. But out of spite, I'll refrain from doing any more business there if I can help it. Just a warning to anyone else in the Northern CA inland area, if you use a LGS that only takes appointments, be prepared for the above.