Shipping gun within CA? (cross post)

[JagerDog]

Does this need to be shipped from FFL to FFL?

I have a buyer with CA, but it's quite a distance. His dealer wants it shipped from another FFL. Is this law or policy....or FUD?

I know I can have private parties from outside CA ship to FFL inside CA and it even avoids the DOJ acceptance letter. I also know some dealers don't like receiving from private party.

[ke6guj]

I'm running into the same problem with my local FFL. He thinks that it has to be shipped from an FFL to him because the PPT DROS requires that the seller sign the form. I told him that he could DROS it as a regular transfer like he does for dealer transfers. But then he said that it has to come from a dealer.

then he mentioned stuff like it has to go from FFL to FFL so that CADOJ could "register it in his name" then he would transfer it to me.

[CSACANNONEER]

Sounds like the dealer is trying to justify his policy with made up laws.


Jack, maybe you should move to Thousand Oaks. I know a FFL here who knows and understands the laws.

[drifter2be]

If you are shipping a firearm to an FFL it becomes a normal dealer transfer, and you are not required to ship it from an FFL based on what I found back in November when I was trying to sell a rifle. It may be different if its is a handgun, especially if it is off roster, but I didn't look into that. Then again the FFL may just be trying to cover their own *** because they aren't sure, and unfortunately you will either have to play by their rules or find an FFL that knows the laws. I will try to find the link where I found all my information when I was checking this.

[ke6guj]

Jack, maybe you should move to Thousand Oaks. I know a FFL here who knows and understands the laws.

ha ha.

I'm actually planning on moving where I think I might be able to get my own FFL

[CSACANNONEER]

ha ha.

I'm actually planning on moving where I think I might be able to get my own FFL

07 and SOT, I assume. Yea, you'll be BROKE no matter how much money you make.

[JagerDog]

BTW, this is a long gun and about as far away from "assault rifle" as you can get.

[CSACANNONEER]

BTW, this is a long gun and about as far away from "assault rifle" as you can get.

Muzzleloaders don't need to go through a FFL at all.

[ke6guj]

07 and SOT, I assume. Yea, you'll be BROKE no matter how much money you make.

ha ha

[JagerDog]

Muzzleloaders don't need to go through a FFL at all.

Not QUITE that far removed I guess.

[fiddletown]

Many FFLs understand the law and still won't, as a matter of business practice, accept a gun for transfer directly from the non-licensed transferor. One explanation I've seen is that if the transfer falls through, they can't just return the gun directly to the transferor.

[JagerDog]

Many FFLs understand the law and still won't, as a matter of business practice, accept a gun for transfer directly from the non-licensed transferor. One explanation I've seen is that if the transfer falls through, they can't just return the gun directly to the transferor.

OK....so it seems to be policy vs. any legality. I'm not going to tell anyone how to do business...providing they aren't stating it's law when it isn't.

The above excuse would be pretty weak though. The seller has already been paid. It becomes between the buyer and seller, whether the buyer gets a refund. The transfer dealer isn't out anything. So you start charging "storage" until someone sends shipping $'s back to the sellers FFL of choice. If feet are drug too long, the storage fee eats up the value, a lien is placed, and the gun becomes the property of the FFL. Except for the shipping to an FFL, it's really no different than a PPT that got denied. At least that's how I see it.

[fiddletown]

...The above excuse would be pretty weak though. The seller has already been paid. It becomes between the buyer and seller, whether the buyer gets a refund. The transfer dealer isn't out anything. So you start charging "storage" until someone sends shipping $'s back to the sellers FFL of choice. If feet are drug too long, the storage fee eats up the value, a lien is placed, and the gun becomes the property of the FFL. Except for the shipping to an FFL, it's really no different than a PPT that got denied. At least that's how I see it.

Nope, that's not really the issue. It doesn't matter who's paid whom. The FFL is stuck with a gun on his books that he doesn't own.

[1] Charge a storage fee? Fine, who's going to pay? And if there's no upfront agreement to pay storage the FFL might not even be able to collect through small claims court -- which is a potential expense and royal pain -- all for the few bucks transfer fee.

[2] Place a lien? Liens just don't materialize. There needs to be a basis for a lien. Mechanics liens and certain other common liens arise either from statute or express contract.

[3] And if the dubious storage fees aren't paid, the gun just doesn't magically become the legal property of the FFL. Again, in situations where this sort of thing might take place there's an express contract. But absent a contract, there's a whole lot of legal rigmarole to go through.

[4] And in a face-to-face PPT, the FFL has received the gun personally from the transferor and may return the gun personally to the transferor subject to whatever formalities might be applicable. That's a lot different from shipping a gun to someone.

[5] And there's still the question of ownership of the gun. The gun was bought and paid for. An argument could be made that the gun belongs to the transferee even if the failed DROS prevents him from taking possession. Now the FFL could be in the middle of that nonsense.

[6] So I see the FFL's point. It could be a lot of hassle for whatever he charges for the transfer.

[JagerDog]

Nope, that's not really the issue. It doesn't matter who's paid whom. The FFL is stuck with a gun on his books that he doesn't own.

[1] Charge a storage fee? Fine, who's going to pay? And if there's no upfront agreement to pay storage the FFL might not even be able to collect through small claims court -- which is a potential expense and royal pain -- all for the few bucks transfer fee.

[2] Place a lien? Liens just don't materialize. There needs to be a basis for a lien. Mechanics liens and certain other common liens arise either from statute or express contract.

[3] And if the dubious storage fees aren't paid, the gun just doesn't magically become the legal property of the FFL. Again, in situations where this sort of thing might take place there's an express contract. But absent a contract, there's a whole lot of legal rigmarole to go through.

[4] And in a face-to-face PPT, the FFL has received the gun personally from the transferor and may return the gun personally to the transferor subject to whatever formalities might be applicable. That's a lot different from shipping a gun to someone.

[5] And there's still the question of ownership of the gun. The gun was bought and paid for. An argument could be made that the gun belongs to the transferee even if the failed DROS prevents him from taking possession. Now the FFL could be in the middle of that nonsense.

[6] So I see the FFL's point. It could be a lot of hassle for whatever he charges for the transfer.

Thanks for the bullet points.

A lot of that seems to be trivial to me. Seems more "racket" to keep fellow FFL's busy.

Any sale is between the buyer/seller. The dealer has no obligation to make sure both parties are satisfied should something sour. It's my understanding they aren't acting as a broker/escrow agent. In my limited experience a countersigned contract is not required for a lien to result. So he might have to hold a gun for some time. What's the real cost of that? It's not like they take much room. Storage fees are easy enough to require up front. The seller can include a "contract" for say $5/day after 31 days as a condition of sending the gun. The contract can document various dealer protections.

I guess for avg $50 a pop, I'd take the risk of a little hassle. Seems it works fine for many. But, like I said, any business has the right to their own business model. But yeah, the dealer just may not want to be involved. Seems plenty of gun shops don't really want to be involved with anything called service period.

[fiddletown]

...A lot of that seems to be trivial to me....

Sure it does. You're not the guy who has to do it. And you're not the guy with the federal license on which his livelihood depends. And you're not the guy responsible for satisfying the legal obligations associated with the license.

...The dealer has no obligation to make sure both parties are satisfied should something sour...

No, but he has a gun entered in his bound book, and he'll need to something about that. And whatever he does needs to satisfy the requirements of his FFL and the ATF auditor next time he shows up.

...In my limited experience...

Exactly.

...So he might have to hold a gun for some time. What's the real cost of that?...

But you're not the one paying it.

...Storage fees are easy enough to require up front. The seller can include a "contract" for say $5/day after 31 days as a condition of sending the gun. The contract can document various dealer protections....

Are you volunteering to take care of the paperwork and handle the collections?

...I'd take the risk of a little hassle.....

Then go get your FFL and start doing it.