FFL

[B Strong]

drive down and get it. 400 miles isn't so far.

+1000

I'd have rode down in a second.

[B Strong]

Diesel,

It is NOT a theft! The Riverside FFL is not saying he doesn't have the gun anymore, he is saying he can't ship it. (yes, some underling said it had been shipped, which was not true, but that doesn't mean it is stolen) I have been in LE for 32 years. Based on what has been posted, the legal elements of a theft are not present.

It is a CIVIL matter that would need to be settled in small claims court. There may or may not be administrative violations by the FFL thru DOJ or BATF, but as long as he is holding to the line that he has not received the information he needs to legally ship the gun, he is on solid ground. If the OP's receiveing FFL isn't doing things right, he's going to have difficulty.

The OP probably knows that, which is why he hasn't mentioned the FFL.

On another note, I live in the Inland Empire and if the OP wishes to PM me, I would be happy to see what I could do to help.

Correct.

Having gone through something similar, the local PD and ATF will not become involved in a deal like this - they'll tell you to take it to small claims.

I assert that the best thing to do is get yourself down there in person, and retrieve your piece.

[kermit315]

Correct.

Having gone through something similar, the local PD and ATF will not become involved in a deal like this - they'll tell you to take it to small claims.

I assert that the best thing to do is get yourself down there in person, and retrieve your piece.

Repeatedly saying its not theft wont work......post the statute. I asked Ron to earlier, but never got a response.

[dieselpower]

Repeatedly saying its not theft wont work......post the statute. I asked Ron to earlier, but never got a response.

apparently "these aren't my pants" is a legal excuse that stops an arrest / investigation for drug possession...as does, "I shipped it and can't prove that to anyone.." stops a theft investigation....at least it does in the minds of some people.

[Oceanbob]

Update number 2

As arranged last night I called at 10 AM this morning to get the 'tracking number/confirmation number' from the owner of the Riverside FFL.

(I was told the weapon was shipped last week and the number was 'In the owners car', and he had just left the Store for the day) (Previously a couple of months ago, the number was in the owners office, which was locked) haha

Anyway...I called a few minutes ago and the owner of the Riverside FFL picked up the phone:

1. He said he talked to his lawyer this morning and wouldn't be giving anyone the tracking number.

2. He assured me however the weapon would be arriving TODAY at the San Franciso FFL location without question.

3. I asked if he sold the gun out from under Lawrence...."NO, certainly not" was his reply.

4. He said when the weapon arrived and the 'Buyer' Flaked on purchasing it, he offered to buy if from Lawrence. Lawrence said he just wanted it returned. He still insisted that the San Franciso FFL FAILED to supply him with the needed CDFL number required for him to legally ship the weapon back. I reminded him that the San Franciso FFL has sent at least 3 FAXED copies of their FFL with that number plainly written on those copies...!...he denied getting those previous Faxes months ago; I asked why not just make a call to get the number.?...he had no answer.

5. I also reminded him that the San Francisco FFL at my request FAXED a new copy with the CDFL number LAST NIGHT and I had confirmed with his employee via phone that indeed that FAX did arrive. He said yes, he was looking at it now.

6. But again, he insisted the weapon would TODAY at the FFL in San Francisco an this matter would be resolved.

7. I gotta go to work....and the San Francisco FFL doens't open until 11.

Later tonight I will call and see if Lawrence's HK P2000 has arrived or not.



Wow..what a run-around.

Bob

[zman]

Another great update. I hope there's a happy ending this time.

Oh and it's almost time to reveal the name of the FFL

[stitchnicklas]

in the end this ffl needs outed

[Deucer]

Hopefully the helpful FFL in SF will be "outed" too.

[ZX-10R]

That is money...When it comes to money, escalation, and an all gloves off approach is your best weapon. Along with all proper proof.

You said you were low on funds...Desperation should never supercede rationality.

[LowSpark]

Oceanbob - does the Riverside FFL know that a lot of people on Calguns are following this situation? If he's going bankrupt or out of business he may not care but if he intends to stay in the industry, this might have some sway.

I see torches and pitchforks!

[stitchnicklas]

Hopefully the helpful FFL in SF will be "outed" too.

are you referring as a recommended ffl???

[B Strong]

Repeatedly saying its not theft wont work......post the statute. I asked Ron to earlier, but never got a response.

It's not theft because the owner of the firearm willingly transferred possession of the firearm to the individual in possession.

The fact that the return of the firearm isn't occurring in a timely manner doesn't constitute theft either.

I know from my own experience with a Colt Combat Commander frame given to a 'smith to refinish - he kept it without ever performing the work.

I eventually contacted the local PD and was given the good news - as long as I willingly gave it to the 'smith and he keeps on telling me "it's on it's way" no theft has occurred. If the 'smith or FFL tells the owner to make in his hat, it ain't going back, that's different.

I eventually got my frame back almost a year later, w/o it ever having been touched by the 'smith.

It took me showing up with the original bill of sale, a picture of the firearm, and my carry permit that listed the firearm before schmuck face would release the frame to me - he didn't even have the balls to give it to me himself, he had his "Navy SEAL" employee give it to me, telling me to never come back...

[robcoe]

4. He said when the weapon arrived and the 'Buyer' Flaked on purchasing it, he offered to buy if from Lawrence.

Let me guess, the buy offer was for about 1/2 the asking price.

[dieselpower]

It's not theft because the owner of the firearm willingly transferred possession of the firearm to the individual in possession.

The fact that the return of the firearm isn't occurring in a timely manner doesn't constitute theft either.

I know from my own experience with a Colt Combat Commander frame given to a 'smith to refinish - he kept it without ever performing the work.

I eventually contacted the local PD and was given the good news - as long as I willingly gave it to the 'smith and he keeps on telling me "it's on it's way" no theft has occurred. If the 'smith or FFL tells the owner to make in his hat, it ain't going back, that's different.

I eventually got my frame back almost a year later, w/o it ever having been touched by the 'smith.

It took me showing up with the original bill of sale, a picture of the firearm, and my carry permit that listed the firearm before schmuck face would release the frame to me - he didn't even have the balls to give it to me himself, he had his "Navy SEAL" employee give it to me, telling me to never come back...

and if LEA allowed "these are not my pants" possession of drugs would not be a crime either.

You guys don't seem to get the fact that this is only considered a "non-crime" because LEA are lazy. There is NO COURT in the US that wouldn't find an FFL guilty of THEFT if charges where brought against them...once again...this IS THEFT...its just not treated as theft due to donut eating LEO not wanting to be bothered.

I bring my car to a dealer to trade in for a new car. They refuse to sell me a new car, they refuse to give me my car back...and this is a civil matter...really?

I bring my car to be repaired by a mechanic, he has NO PAPERWORK stating I left the car with him, yet doesn't allow me to get into my car....

This OP sent an FFL a firearm with NO AGREEMENT....not giving it back is a crime. There is no contract, there is no civil case...its a criminal case, but since donuts are more important...no LEO cares.

[kermit315]

It's not theft because the owner of the firearm willingly transferred possession of the firearm to the individual in possession.

The fact that the return of the firearm isn't occurring in a timely manner doesn't constitute theft either.

I know from my own experience with a Colt Combat Commander frame given to a 'smith to refinish - he kept it without ever performing the work.

I eventually contacted the local PD and was given the good news - as long as I willingly gave it to the 'smith and he keeps on telling me "it's on it's way" no theft has occurred. If the 'smith or FFL tells the owner to make in his hat, it ain't going back, that's different.

I eventually got my frame back almost a year later, w/o it ever having been touched by the 'smith.

It took me showing up with the original bill of sale, a picture of the firearm, and my carry permit that listed the firearm before schmuck face would release the frame to me - he didn't even have the balls to give it to me himself, he had his "Navy SEAL" employee give it to me, telling me to never come back...

cool story bro....post the statute. It wasnt given to the FFL, the FFL was to facilitate a transfer. He puts it on his books to track it in and out as per the ATF and I am sure CALDOJ. Ownership never transfers to the FFL. Then, the FFL was paid money to ship the gun back. Lying about shipping the gun back numerous times sure sounds like deceptive practice to me. What is the definition of refusing to return property that doesnt belong to you?