Cop transfering p320 to a civil frowned upon?? Why??

[MJB]

This is exactly why the safe gun roster is b*******. I'm so tired of intent of the law B's too.

[003]

Because it's basically a straw Man purchase. Cops are buying guns that are illegal for "civilians" to purchase (right or wrong is another debate), with the sole intention of reselling it to a civilian. Yes, it's technically legal, but also goes to sort of prove that LEO that do do it are above the law since by definition, it's also a straw man purchase.

It is not "technically legal". It is a federal crime, as noted a straw purchase.

[OCEquestrian]

Kevin de Leon, is that you?

[OCEquestrian]

It is not "technically legal". It is a federal crime, as noted a straw purchase.

I thought a straw purchase was someone who is NOT a prohibited person legally purchasing a firearm intended to be given to /sold to someone who IS a prohibited person, circumventing the legal transfer of the weapon.

It is my understanding that the police officers who have gotten into trouble with this are those who have legally purchased off roster firearms and then flipped them in a manner that the DOJ was able to make the case that they were in fact operating as unlicensed firearms dealers...and thus prosecuted. I dont think there have been any charges of "straw purchases" made.

Since it has become an issue recently, many departments have put in place work rule prohibitions intended to prevent their officers from doing this...It IS frowned on officially by probably all agencies because it is 1) Officers taking advantage of their position with regard to the roster and the optics are not good for the department or the profession and 2) It represents a circumventing a law meant to impact civilians.. again not good optics.

I dont think officers occasionally selling a off roster weapon he/she has owned and decided to sell should be a problem unless it is a clear pattern of flipping. Personally, I think the roster is BS and anything that puts more off roster firearms in the closed market in California is a good thing. That said, I personally would NEVER ask any of my LEO friends to compromise themselves and buy a off roster gun I wanted. Every off roster gun you can think of CAN be had thru legal channels at a price.

[Rogue187]

The Troll is strong in this thread.

[003]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/dont-lie-other-guy

Don't Lie for the Other Guy:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has partnered with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — the trade association for the firearms industry — in designing an educational program to assist firearm retailers in the detection and possible deterrence of “straw purchases,” the illegal purchase of a firearm by one person for another. The Department of Justice’s Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative has enhanced the program by providing funding to raise public awareness of the criminality involved in purchasing a firearm for a prohibited person.

The goal of the "Don’t Lie for the Other Guy" program is to reduce firearm straw purchases at the retail level and to educate would-be straw purchasers of the penalties of knowingly participating in an illegal firearm purchase. The denial of guns to prohibited persons is critical to the mission of ATF in preventing violent crime and protecting the nation.

More information about the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign can be found at the campaign website: www.dontlie.org.

[sbo80]

I thought a straw purchase was someone who is NOT a prohibited person legally purchasing a firearm intended to be given to /sold to someone who IS a prohibited person, circumventing the legal transfer of the weapon.

That's generally what the intent of the law was to prevent. But the wording of the law doesn't say "only if the receiver is prohibited". The law basically says "anyone". Abramski put the nail in that coffin. If you buy a gun "for someone else" that is a crime. For profit is irrelevant, if the person could have bought it themselves anyway, is irrelevant, the roster is irrelevant. The only way you can do it is for a true "gift".

[pacrat]

That's generally what the intent of the law was to prevent. But the wording of the law doesn't say "only if the receiver is prohibited". The law basically says "anyone". Abramski put the nail in that coffin. If you buy a gun "for someone else" that is a crime. For profit is irrelevant, if the person could have bought it themselves anyway, is irrelevant, the roster is irrelevant. The only way you can do it is for a true "gift".

^^^^ CORRECT^^^^

Pre Abramski, Feds went by original INTENT re PROHIBITED PERSONS.

Post Abramski, Feds go by LETTER OF LAW.

Relevant excerpt from Fed DOJ/ATF form 4473

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)?
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

[ls2monaro]

1. Doj agents monitor this site so keep any questionable tactics/theories/hypothetical situations off here.

2. Keep an eye out in the for sale thread

3. I have a p320 & p365 in my safe that I may part ways with eventually now that I'm part of the sti family.

[Mk2mikedc2]

I also could have read the sticky...I'm a noob.. sorry guys

[Garv]

I also could have read the sticky...I'm a noob.. sorry guys

Poop occurs.

There is a lot of info to absorb here, it takes time.

[BeAuMaN]

Thought I'd mention... related... but AB-2699 was amended recently to generally address Offroster LEO handgun purchases (where previously it was adding a new class of LEO Agencies and giving them a separate exemption list).

Well... we have lots of amendments as of 8/10/2020. AB-2699... evolved. I don't think this bill went the way the author (or at least the agencies asking the author for the exemptions) like they thought it would.

So, as I mentioned originally, this bill adds a new type of LEO exemption where these agencies (like the Franchise Tax Board) can purchase off-roster firearms for their agency-LEOs, but said LEOs can't purchase or sell themselves. It also added local park rangers to the first group of LEOs who can purchase and sell off-roster handguns themselves.

This most recent amendment does the following to not just the new type of LEOs, but also the first group of LEOs:
1.) Specifies that the off-roster exemption is for purchase of a "handgun for use as a service weapon". This is likely to be used to file charges against LEOs purchasing for resale.
2.) Said LEOs must have completed POST firearms portion training before being eligible.
3.) Said LEOs must complete live-fire qualifications as prescribed by their employing entity once every six months.
4.) Creates a civil penalty (fine) not to exceed $10,000 for unlawful sale or transfer of off-roster handguns obtained by LEOs through said exemption.
5.) Creates a DOJ LEO-exemption Offroster Handgun Registry.
6.) Talks about notification requirements when said LEOs or entities sell or transfer one of these handguns, however it says transferring through a dealer satisfies that requirement... I'm a bit foggy on when you can transfer handguns outside of a dealer. Nothing is coming to mind.
7.) Provides that CA DoJ shall annually notify persons/entities with said off-roster handguns about the prohibitions on sale or transfer.

These amendments are all very much about the LEOs arrested within the last... five years?... doing high volume (and sometimes illegal) off-roster firearm sales.
Edit: Reading from the Analysis from the 7/30 Senate Public Safety Committee... it looks to be a lot in line with amendments suggested by the President of Brady's Oakland Chapter, Griffin Dix, who according to the analysis only spoke for them self.

Edit: Having talked in the other thread, most Police/CHP/Sheriff Deputies LEOs fall under Paragraph 4, and as such, I bolded the parts above that apply generally to all Paragraph 4, 6, and 7 LEOs.

[PistolPete84]

Nothing wrong with buying an off roster gun for yourself. After owning it for a year, you decide you want to carry another gun instead. Doesn't matter the reason you don't want to keep the gun anymore.

As for buying the off roster gun specifically with the intent to sell it to someone else, that's a straw man purchase and not legal.

[rue]

Is the P320 not on the roster?

[Milsurp1]

^ When you see a handgun model selling for 3 or 4 times the free state price in the CalGun marketplace you can be fairly certain it is off roster. Or you can search the roster directly on the Cal DoJ site.

No, the 320 is not on the roster.