Roster loophole question

[JeepFreak]

First, I apologize if I should have been able to find my answer through search. I did search and found quite a few, very promising, interesting discussions like THIS one (although, many are much longer!), I spent hours and hours reading them just to find contradictions or what seemed like it could be outdated information. Sooooo, I'm just going to ask...

I want to buy a Beretta Px4 Storm Compact 9mm. It's brand new, just shipping to dealers, and has no hope of making it on the rooster .

I've got a good friend who just moved from CA to TX. He comes back to visit fairly often and his (non-expired) CA driver's license lists his mother's address on it (where he last lived and where he stays when he visits).

Could he legally purchase the Beretta in TX, bring it to CA, and transfer it to me at a FFL dealer, in person, using his CA DL#? What if he used his military ID?

I don't know what kind of records are produced at the time of the original purchase in TX, but, is there a chance red flags will go up during the transfer to me because the original purchase will have been so recent (read: strawman)?

I know the standard 13 rd (I think) mags are a whole 'nother story...

TIA!
Billy

[jtmkinsd]

First, I apologize if I should have been able to find my answer through search. I did search and found quite a few, very promising, interesting discussions like THIS one (although, many are much longer!), I spent hours and hours reading them just to find contradictions or what seemed like it could be outdated information. Sooooo, I'm just going to ask...

I want to buy a Beretta Px4 Storm Compact 9mm. It's brand new, just shipping to dealers, and has no hope of making it on the rooster .

I've got a good friend who just moved from CA to TX. He comes back to visit fairly often and his (non-expired) CA driver's license lists his mother's address on it (where he last lived and where he stays when he visits).

Could he legally purchase the Beretta in TX, bring it to CA, and transfer it to me at a FFL dealer, in person, using his CA DL#? What if he used his military ID?

I don't know what kind of records are produced at the time of the original purchase in TX, but, is there a chance red flags will go up during the transfer to me because the original purchase will have been so recent (read: strawman)?

I know the standard 13 rd (I think) mags are a whole 'nother story...

TIA!
Billy

It's not a "straw purchase" if you are going through an FFL to obtain a gun. A straw purchase can only happen when someone buys a firearm for another person, who does not do the proper paperwork to possess the firearm. That being said, your scenario is a gray area at best. Will DOJ kick back the DROS for the handgun? Probably not, as far as they know he is still a CA resident, and they don't run the seller unless the buyer is denied. Can he buy a gun in Texas and drive it back here to sell to you? Yes he could if he has Texas ID. BUT, I have a question...does your friend have dual residency, or military orders to a duty station in CA? If not, he is not a CA resident, and therefore cannot legally enter into a PPT in this state. Simply because his license/ID hasn't expired yet does not mean he still has the rights and privileges of a CA resident (note: I use the term "rights and privileges" loosely...as we really have so few). So...in summary...your plan is probably a no-go at best...a crime at worst. And lets not forget...Licensing bureaus are all hooked into the same system...If DOJ runs the license on the seller...and sees the Texas license???

[rabagley]

jtmkinsd is 100% right on the straw purchase. As long as he transfers the gun to you via a second 4473, there's no possibility of a straw purchase.

On the other hand, I don't see anything in the California or federal law which states that the seller has to be a resident of California for a California PPT.

Specifically, on CA law, I see nothing in CPC 12082 which states a requirement that the seller be a California resident. The seller must deliver the firearm to the dealer, provide sufficient identifying information to establish identity, and that's the end of it according to the law. Others have stated that there is no residency requirement for firearm sellers though the FFL may not know the law and may refuse to participate in the transaction.

On federal law, since the transfer is interstate in nature (even though the transfer is happening in the buyer's state which creates some ambiguity) it's basically required to do the transfer via an FFL and get a new 4473, which is covered in the CA PPT process.

There is one glitch in CA law if the buyer turns out to be ineligible and the seller is not a resident. The dealer can't return the handgun directly to the seller without the seller qualifying for a CA transfer, which he won't get because he's not a resident. At that point, the seller would have to pay for shipping and two FFL fees to have the gun sent to an FFL in the state where he resides.

In order to show residency, your friend could provide a current vehicle registration with the address matching his driver's license. He cannot have changed his vehicle registration to TX or the residency check could fail. You said he had a military ID, which means he's military and can have dual residency (arbitrary permanent residence and local post residence) and is also exempt from most "you have 30/60/90 days to register all vehicles" requirements. As a result, he could possibly have the paperwork needed and be perfectly within the legal boundaries to buy the gun in TX and sell it to you in CA.

[jtmkinsd]

As part of the DROS process, the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

In PPTs, the seller is bound by this as well...and unless he maintains dual residency, or has military orders...his CA ID became invalid when he moved out of the state.

Unless there is some way to enter out-of-state ID's into the DROS program I am unaware of, I've yet to actually hear of any other shops processing a PPT in this manner.

[bwiese]

The DOJ is illegally making the PPT require seller have CA ID == CA resident.

Nothing in the law requires this, but the DROS system specification effectively has become law/underground regulation.

It's on the list.

[jtmkinsd]

The DOJ is illegally making the PPT require seller have CA ID == CA resident.

Nothing in the law requires this, but the DROS system specification effectively has become law/underground regulation.

It's on the list.

That's cool...good to know another domino is in line to fall

[JeepFreak]

...his CA ID became invalid when he moved out of the state.

Upon trying to validate this statement, I came across this:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/online/coa/coafaqs.htm (see #14)

That clearly suggests otherwise. In fact, it suggests that one could eventually have a valid CA DL with an out of state address listed on it! (I say eventually because you don't get issued a new DL just because of the change of address.)

I couldn't even find a requirement that one has to be a resident of CA in order to obtain a CA DL. The closest thing I found was a paragraph that says you have to get a CA DL or CA ID if you become a resident of the state (and the residency tests listed on DMV.CA.GOV are pretty illogical).

So... now can somebody confirm that the receiving FFL is required to check/input some other proof of CA residence from the Seller (assuming Buyer is able to take possession)? I saw mention of vehicle registration, a signed lease, mortgage documents, and utility bills at one point, but I think that was for the buyer to prove their CA residency. I'm thinking that further proof is not required of the seller because, as bwiese points out, the CA DL# is really just a shady way of enforcing an underground regulation.

Billy

[BusBoy]

jtmkinsd is 100% right on the straw purchase. As long as he transfers the gun to you via a second 4473, there's no possibility of a straw purchase.

On the other hand, I don't see anything in the California or federal law which states that the seller has to be a resident of California for a California PPT.

Specifically, on CA law, I see nothing in CPC 12082 which states a requirement that the seller be a California resident. The seller must deliver the firearm to the dealer, provide sufficient identifying information to establish identity, and that's the end of it according to the law. Others have stated that there is no residency requirement for firearm sellers though the FFL may not know the law and may refuse to participate in the transaction.

On federal law, since the transfer is interstate in nature (even though the transfer is happening in the buyer's state which creates some ambiguity) it's basically required to do the transfer via an FFL and get a new 4473, which is covered in the CA PPT process.

Can anyone else comment on this?? I too also believed that one did NOT have to be a CA resident to do a PPT in CA if you filed a 4473 for the handgun??

[JeepFreak]

Can anyone else comment on this?? I too also believed that one did NOT have to be a CA resident to do a PPT in CA if you filed a 4473 for the handgun??

Everything that I read (including the post I linked in my first post) suggested that the only thing preventing non-CA residents from doing a PPT in CA was the DROS software. I think it's been outed as an underground regulation and, as bwiese says, "it's on the list"... there are just bigger fires for CGF to deal with at the moment.

In the mean time... I'm hoping to find a way around it.

Billy

[9mmlaw]

The simple and clearly non gray way to do it is have your friend buy it in Texas and do an intra-family transfer to his mother in CA. As they are directly related she can receive non-rostered guns. She, as a CA resident, can decide she does not like the gun and PPT it to you.

Now the mom may not want the hassle etc, but that is a different matter.

[BusBoy]

Everything that I read (including the post I linked in my first post) suggested that the only thing preventing non-CA residents from doing a PPT in CA was the DROS software. I think it's been outed as an underground regulation and, as bwiese says, "it's on the list"... there are just bigger fires for CGF to deal with at the moment.

In the mean time... I'm hoping to find a way around it.

Billy

Thanks JeepFreak

[JeepFreak]

The simple and clearly non gray way to do it is have your friend buy it in Texas and do an intra-family transfer to his mother in CA. As they are directly related she can receive non-rostered guns. She, as a CA resident, can decide she does not like the gun and PPT it to you.

Now the mom may not want the hassle etc, but that is a different matter.

Yeah, I do realize that is an option. Thank you for pointing it out though.
Billy

[snobord99]

jtmkinsd is 100% right on the straw purchase. As long as he transfers the gun to you via a second 4473, there's no possibility of a straw purchase.

This is just plain wrong.

[SJgunguy24]

Everything that I read (including the post I linked in my first post) suggested that the only thing preventing non-CA residents from doing a PPT in CA was the DROS software. I think it's been outed as an underground regulation and, as bwiese says, "it's on the list"... there are just bigger fires for CGF to deal with at the moment.

In the mean time... I'm hoping to find a way around it.

Billy

How bad do you want this gun?

[dantodd]

There is nothing legally preventing a TX resident from transferring a handgun via ppt in ca. AS Bill pointed out the software sites require a CA ID or DL. If your friend has a Texas DL it is possible threw CA DL was voided even though it hasn't expired. I don't know if the DROS system checks seller ID for validity. As others have said this is not a straw purchase. But... As snobord said, it may be illegal. Straw Purchase is a non-technical term but there is statute that prohibits transactions specifically designed to avoid provisions of law, this might fall into that category, but then it might only be the purchase in TX that would be illegal under CA law which CA has no authority over. Probability if any trouble is, I think, exceedingly low.