Mandatory Gun Lock for PPT?

[Baconator]

This is the major problem with the FEDERAL law and the STATE law getting confused with one another..

The FEDERAL law states that a lock must be supplied with any handgun purchase. It doesn't' need a receipt. It just must be present for the firearm. The STATE law is the one that required the receipt of a lock within 30 days OR a signing of the safe affidavit. The latter will satisfy STATE law, but FEDERAL law still requires a lock (can be OEM or one of those project childsafe locks) be supplied with the firearms.

If this is the law:
12088.1. (a) All firearms sold or transferred in this state by a licensed firearms dealer, including private transfers through a dealer, and all firearms manufactured in this state, shall include or be accompanied by a firearms safety device that is listed on the Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that firearm by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the firearm, or to the physical characteristics of the firearm that match those listed on the roster for use with the device.

And you don't have to buy a new lock when you buy a new gun from a dealer(because it comes with an OEM one), then why would you have to buy one for a PPT (if it comes with an OEM one)?

[nbkvig2]

read post 3.

@ the OP..so you have bought several firearms with the same lock and same receipt and you don't think thats a violation of law...intresting.

can we get a morals thread on this please...LOL

April 1st when i did a DROS @ the same exact Turner's I bought the lock because I was told since I do not have a receipt for a lock within 30 days, I would have to. Several days ago, I PPT on another firearm, I did not have to buy a lock because it came with OEM lock. I know I said I used the receipt in my original post because in actuality I did tell them I have a receipt of cable lock purchased within 30 days. Anyhow, today would be I guess 2nd attempt of using the same receipt on a PPT to avoid buying another lock. Is it morally wrong to avoid buying locks over and over again? I have way more locks sitting at home than firearms. Like I said, I didn't wanna argue and was gonna buy the lock anyways since they said the receipt won't work.

Edit:

Wow I actually missed the part where you said "violation of law". Next time, please get the whole story before you speculate.

[G1500]

April 1st when i did a DROS @ the same exact Turner's I bought the lock because I was told since I do not have a receipt for a lock within 30 days, I would have to. Several days ago, I PPT on another firearm, I did not have to buy a lock because it came with OEM lock. I know I said I used the receipt in my original post because in actuality I did tell them I have a receipt of cable lock purchased within 30 days. Anyhow, today would be I guess 2nd attempt of using the same receipt on a PPT to avoid buying another lock. Is it morally wrong to avoid buying locks over and over again? I have way more locks sitting at home than firearms. Like I said, I didn't wanna argue and was gonna buy the lock anyways since they said the receipt won't work.

Edit:

Wow I actually missed the part where you said "violation of law". Next time, please get the whole story before you speculate.

It is not morally wrong to use the same lock over and over.

It is ridiculous to have to buy a lock anyways. I have never used a cable lock, nor do I ever intend on using one either.

[rockman]

The 30 day rule is just plain and simple Bull****! If the lock you supply opens and closes, and functions properly, why do you have to purchase a new lock. Just a way for the DOJ to ease the pain of the FFL dealer only getting $10 for the transfer. It allows the FFL dealer to charge any amount they can for a cheap lock just to increase their profit margin on the transaction. If the gun has the factory lock with it, why was that lock deemed ok why is that same lock not ok after 30 days. If this is the case, I guess all our older locks(more than 30 days old are not safe for us to lock up our guns with). This is by far one of the DOJ worst laws.

[CSACANNONEER]

I understand it, but it is not correct.

Don't just say I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. So far, your post doesn't contribute anything to this thread. Can you please explain why my poorly written sentence is incorrect? Are you implying that locks which are provided, without being "purchased", comply with California law? Or, are you saying that locks do not need to be "California approved"?

I know that a lock provided with a handgun does comply with Federal law but, California requires proof of purchase of a "California approved" lock. Doesn't it?

[Baconator]

Don't just say I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. So far, your post doesn't contribute anything to this thread. Can you please explain why my poorly written sentence is incorrect? Are you implying that locks which are provided, without being "purchased", comply with California law? Or, are you saying that locks do not need to be "California approved"?

I know that a lock provided with a handgun does comply with Federal law but, California requires proof of purchase of a "California approved" lock. Doesn't it?

The question I had was why is an OEM lock good for a new purchase but not a transfer? Are there two separate laws? Shouldn't the lock that comes with the gun be california approved?

[Librarian]

See the wiki on Locks - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...es.2C_and_Laws

[Dutch3]

Don't just say I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. So far, your post doesn't contribute anything to this thread. Can you please explain why my poorly written sentence is incorrect? Are you implying that locks which are provided, without being "purchased", comply with California law? Or, are you saying that locks do not need to be "California approved"?

I know that a lock provided with a handgun does comply with Federal law but, California requires proof of purchase of a "California approved" lock. Doesn't it?

I won't argue whether the statement is correct or incorrect, but in my recent experience the OEM lock included with the firearm by the manufacturer was sufficient to satisfy the dealer in releasing the gun.

This was a non-PPT purchase of a new firearm from a sporting goods chain store. The employee removed the lock from the box, recorded the model# on the paperwork and checked it against a list, then returned it to the firearm box, taped up the box, handed it to me and I walked out with it.

Doesn't that meet the requirements of "included with or accompanied by"?

[Baconator]

See the wiki on Locks - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...es.2C_and_Laws

Librarian, the wiki lists the exemptions to section (a)

12088.1. (a) All firearms sold or transferred in this state by a licensed firearms dealer, including private transfers through a dealer, and all firearms manufactured in this state, shall include or be accompanied by a firearms safety device that is listed on the Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that firearm by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the firearm, or to the physical characteristics of the firearm that match those listed on the roster for use with the device.

So if the OEM lock is on the list, shouldn't that suffice? If it is on the list, and works for that gun?

ETA:The Glocks that I have purchased have come with a Regal Brand lock that is on the list. If I sell another brand handgun with that lock, it meets the requirements of section (a) because it is "listed on the Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and is identified as appropriate for that firearm." So why would I need to buy a new lock if the terms of section (a) are met?

[G1500]

Don't just say I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. So far, your post doesn't contribute anything to this thread. Can you please explain why my poorly written sentence is incorrect? Are you implying that locks which are provided, without being "purchased", comply with California law? Or, are you saying that locks do not need to be "California approved"?

I know that a lock provided with a handgun does comply with Federal law but, California requires proof of purchase of a "California approved" lock. Doesn't it?

(a)All firearms sold or transferred in this state by a licensed firearms dealer, including private transfers through a dealer, and all firearms manufactured in this state, shall include or be accompanied by a firearms safety device that is listed on the Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and that is identified as appropriate for that firearm by reference to either the manufacturer and model of the firearm, or to the physical characteristics of the firearm that match those listed on the roster for use with the device.

If not:

(e)The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if all of the following apply:

(1)The purchaser or transferee purchases an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm.

(2)The purchaser or transferee presents the approved safety device to the firearms dealer when picking up the firearm.

(3)The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt to the firearms dealer which shows the date of purchase, the name, and the model number of the safety device.

(4)The firearms dealer verifies that the requirements in (1) to (3), inclusive, have been satisfied.

(5)The firearms dealer maintains a copy of the receipt along with the dealers' record of sales of firearms.

[G1500]

Librarian, the wiki lists the exemptions to section (a)


So if the OEM lock is on the list, shouldn't that suffice? If it is on the list, and works for that gun?

ETA:The Glocks that I have purchased have come with a Regal Brand lock that is on the list. If I sell another brand handgun with that lock, it meets the requirements of section (a) because it is "listed on the Department of Justice's roster of approved firearms safety devices and is identified as appropriate for that firearm." So why would I need to buy a new lock if the terms of section (a) are met?

Because the gun store wants you to buy a lock from them so they can make some more money.

[Baconator]

Because the gun store wants you to buy a lock from them so they can make some more money.

I've not had to buy one, but I have seen many people complain about it. My FFL doesn't play these bs games because I buy stuff from him aside from transfers. I just hate to see people get taken advantage of because either they or the FFL is ignorant of the law. I just want to make sure I know wtf I am talking about before I tell other people (crazy concept right?)

[sacluded]

I did a PPT a couple weeks ago. The guy I bought the gun from included a lock witht he purchase. The FFL wrote "lock" on the receipt for the transfer and said, "there, now you have a receipt for the lock."

[CSACANNONEER]

G1500,

Gottcha. I was wrong about having to list a lock on the receipt. However, I was not wrong about a OEM suppied lock having to be "California approved". AFAIK, Ca, has not approved any manufacturer supplied locks. Yea, even though they are the exact same as locks which have been approved, they have different names on them. Can anyone explain why these do or do not meet Califoria's requirements. I know they satisfy Federal ones.

[halifax]

Most of the OEM locks I've seen say right on the instructions:

California Department of Justice approved firearm safety device that meets the requirements of California Penal Code Section 12088 and the regulations issued there under.