Can we force PD and Sheriff's to do PPTs again?

[dantodd]

One of the easiest ways to get rid of the requirement to use an FFL for private gun sales may be to get the PDs and Sheriffs to apply pressure for us. Some people live in remote areas, or in areas with few or no gun stores, like San Francisco.

I would contend that for these people having to travel an extended distance to an FFL for private party sales is an undue burden on their right to keep and bear arms. It would seem a reasonable way in which this burden can be relieved is to force PDs and Sheriff Offices to once again perform PPTs.

If we could get this judicially then I suspect that the PDs and Sheriffs would pressure the legislature to do away with the FFL requirement for PPTs. It would certainly save a few pennies for gun owners buying and selling firearms for their collections.

[stix213]

I would love to see the look on their faces when I PPT an AR at my local PD

[AndrewMendez]

Interesting, very interesting. I was not aware, that they used to do them. The distance issue is probably the best argument, but I don't know how we are going to get around the reality, that you bringing a Firearms inside a Police Station.

[NiteQwill]

I remember those days... I saw my first Marlin .22 that way...

[Untamed1972]

I'm not sure how trying to force cash-strapped and under-manned PD's and SO's to take on another task is going to cause them to pressure the .leg to 86 the FFL requirement....unless you're saying that money would be paid to the PD...but the fees are likely not enough to cover the cost of the hassle to them.

Am I missing something?

[Barabas]

It worked once, it can work again. It might even inure some of the anti-firearm LEO's to the idea of their non-badged fellow citizens having and using firearms. If they actually got to see the numbers walking through their lobbies, they might not be so uptight all of the time.

[Maltese Falcon]

These agencies are laying off seasoned personnel or backing up production (crime labs) due to lack of funds and now we get them to do this also? Seems like a stretch...

.

[CHS]

unless you're saying that money would be paid to the PD...but the fees are likely not enough to cover the cost of the hassle to them.

Am I missing something?

Well, they are allowed $10 by law.

If that's not enough to cover the cost of the hassle, maybe the legislature should investigate why FFL's are only allowed to charge that much?

[bwiese]

I think the grief level of this would be offensive to PD/SOs, and pressing for this would be harmful when we can join with them to get other Good Results for Shared Common Intersts in revising CA gun laws.

I don't wanna fight for trivialities when there's much bigger game afoot and we can get Other Folks to join & enlarge the hunting party.

[dantodd]

These agencies are laying off seasoned personnel or backing up production (crime labs) due to lack of funds and now we get them to do this also? Seems like a stretch...

.

That is the point. Get the courts force them to do PPTs because of an undue TMP burden created by too few FFLs. When they are forced to waste money on such trivialities they will complain to the legislature to either fund them for their time OR do away with the need to use an FFL for a private firearm sale.

This would hopefully bring back private firearms sales like most other states allow. It would also remove a significant economic burden, $35 in fees to transfer a $100 gun is inexcusable.

To extend this a little further. What is the state's interest that is being met by a 10 day wait if the same or similar gun could be bought on the street with no wait just because it is used?

[dantodd]

I think the grief level of this would be offensive to PD/SOs, and pressing for this would be harmful when we can join with them to get other Good Results for Shared Common Intersts in revising CA gun laws.

I don't wanna fight for trivialities when there's much bigger game afoot and we can get Other Folks to join & enlarge the hunting party.

I am unaware of any cooperation by law enforcement with the fight to regain our 2A rights. If there are any please let me know. I suspect that any CLEOs that are likely to work with us are going to be in less populated areas where the PPT load would be negligible. It would hurt bigger counties much more and that is where we need pressure and those are the only departments that will have enough clout to get the legislature to re-open free private party sales.

[bwiese]

I am unaware of any cooperation by law enforcement with the fight to regain our 2A rights..

There are areas of mutual interest that have recently opened up requiring 'fixup'. Addressing it for LEOs alone will create a 14th A equal protection violation - that can be used as logic for 'carryalong' of regular folks with LEs in these fixup matters.

[Quiet]

The Riverside Police Department got in trouble a few years back for illegal transfering a couple of handguns to city employees.

An assistant AG said that "The sale of these handguns by the department to these private citizens, albeit city employees, is illegal ... Neither the Riverside Police Department or city of Riverside is licensed to sell or transfer firearms."

So the handguns had to be retrived by the Riverside Police Department and transfered to the city employees via a CA FFL dealer. (Centerfire Firearms in Riverside handled the transfers.)

[dantodd]

Yes Quiet, the law changed a number of years ago.

[HunterJim]

I don't think the Legislature will "force" them, and California courts have refused in the past to force bureaucrats to act when they claimed insufficient resources.

Don't hold breath...jim