CHP Early Firearm Release letter not sufficient

[rbetts]

I just had my ATF audit and one of the items we covered was early release of firearms to LEO's. The agent stressed the importance of the domestic violence verbiage in the letter. No verbiage= no release.

To that end, today I had a CHP Form letter that was presented that has no domestic violence verbiage and no mention of the specific firearm. In the past I assumed this wasn't a big deal and took the letter as being OK to release the firearm. But not now and not without the proper verbiage.

Federal: TITLE 27 Sec. 478.134 Sale of firearms to law enforcement officers.
Say the following in part: Law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use who provide the licensee with a certification on agency letterhead, signed by a person in authority within the agency (other than the officer purchasing the firearm), stating that the officer will use the firearm in official duties and that a records check reveals that the purchasing officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. .

Anyone else run up against this? I sure hate to say no, but ATF violations preclude early release to form letter CHP requests

[halifax]

Now that is interesting. Why is there even a Federal regulation for that? I know my ATF regulators has never asked to see the letters only 4473s.

ETA: Seems that regulation is to get out of the 4473 requirement:

are not required to complete Form 4473 or Form 5300.35. The law enforcement officer purchasing the firearm may purchase a firearm from a licensee in another State, regardless of where the officer resides or where the agency is located.

Your ATF auditor seems to be over-interpreting it

[ke6guj]

is this letter to avoid the CA 10-day wait?

if so, then this regulation would not even apply here since you'd still have the LEO fill out a 4473. this letter that ATF is talking about avoids the 4473. you would have this letter in your records instead of the 4473. but since the CA letter is to exempt the LEO from the 10-day wait and not the federal paperwork, not sure why it would apply in your case.

are not required to complete Form 4473 or Form 5300.35. The law enforcement officer purchasing the firearm may purchase a firearm from a licensee in another State, regardless of where the officer resides or where the agency is located.

(b)(1) The following individuals are considered to have sufficient authority to certify that law enforcement officers purchasing firearms will use the firearms in the performance of official duties:

(i) In a city or county police department, the director of public safety or the chief or commissioner of police.

(ii) In a sheriff's office, the sheriff.

(iii) In a State police or highway patrol department, the superintendent or the supervisor in charge of the office to which the State officer or employee is assigned.

(iv) In Federal law enforcement offices, the supervisor in charge of the office to which the Federal officer or employee is assigned.

(2) An individual signing on behalf of the person in authority is acceptable, provided there is a proper delegation of authority.

(c) Licensees are not required to prepare a Form 4473 or Form 5300.35 covering sales of firearm made in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section to law enforcement officers for official use. However, disposition to the officer must be entered into the licensee's permanent records, and the certification letter must be retained in the licensee's files.

OP, did they ding you for this? did you have a signed 4473? if so, I'd probably appeal it.

[JeffM]

Looks like ke6guj has this covered, but on a slightly different yet related note, how are your CHP customers getting letterhead signed by Commissioner Farrow?

On a CA DOJ audit we were dinged for not having the "head of the agency" signing the letters. It was odd because other shops in our area were accepting command staff/designee signatures without being cited during audits (and the DOJ's own online FAQ stated that designee's were acceptable). Then a few years later the DOJ issued this clarification which lined up with the PC:

"IMPORTANT REMINDER
PEACE OFFICER 10-DAY WAITING PERIOD EXEMPTION
WRITTEN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
Proper identification authorizing full-time, paid peace officers [as
defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part
2] exemption from the 10-day waiting period described in Penal Code
Section 26815 must be obtained from the head of agency by which the
purchaser or transferee is employed [PC Section 26950(b)(1)]. The
written certification shall authorize the purchase or transfer, identify the
purchaser or transferee as a peace officer who is authorized to carry
firearms while in the performance of duties, and authorize the exemption
from the 10-day waiting period. Written certifications by persons other
than the head of agency shall not be accepted to waive the 10-day
waiting period."

[rbetts]

The letter is a standard form letter issued by the CHP with fill in the blanks for the Officer info. It does not mention anything about a specific firearm or any DV attestation. It appears to be signed by the commissioner although it could have been a stamp as well.

[mkasda]

DOJ accepts the CHP Commissioner's digital signature.

[rbetts]

Well that takes care of the signature part of the letter.. . . . .