can either spouse ppt if married?

[porkchop98]

Hello all ffls, was curious if married and only One of us drosed during purchase does it matter wich one of use does the ppt if we sell said firearm? Does it have to be the same who purchased or is it "community property"?
Thanks in advance

[NiteQwill]

No, it does not matter who the seller is during the DROS.

[porkchop98]

Sweet, thanks for the quick answer NiteQwill

[dachan]

No, it does not matter who the seller is during the DROS.

Where are you getting this from?

[kemasa]

It one sense it does not matter since it seems that the CA DOJ does not seem to care, but there is really no concept of community property in terms of firearms in CA. It is listed as being owned by one person. Also, there is a form to transfer a firearm to a spouse, which indicates it really should be the person who "owns" the firearm who does the selling.

There might never be a problem having the other person do it, but who knows if that might change.

[lorax3]

It may be community property for purposes of a divorce, but for purposes of transfer it only belongs to one of you at a time.

Unless you submitted an operation of law form and transferred it to your spouse, it would be an illegal transfer from one spouse to the other.

No, it does not matter who the seller is during the DROS.

I'd be careful giving that advice. I've written about this before

More info in the link but

The fact that a transaction is able to pass through the DROS system is not synomonous to being legal and without repercussions

[NiteQwill]

I understand... but in practicality, I have not heard of one being prosecuted (or questioned) when they are the sell/transferor (sp?) of the firearm in question. The DOJ is only concerned that the buyer/transferee is obtaining the firearm in a legal manner.

YMMV.

[kemasa]

A spouse could "loan" the firearm to the other spouse, then one could question whether the loan was for a lawful purpose of not and that could make the loan not legal.

With regards to the link, the seller does not need to fill out a 4473, so a POA would not be an issue for the seller. Then again, the one POA is for dealing with a prohibited person, so it might not work in other cases.

As said, the transfer from the actual seller to a person who will act as the seller for a PPT might be illegal. The question is not really whether you would get caught or not, it is whether it is legal or not, or at least that should be the question.

[kemasa]

I understand... but in practicality, I have not heard of one being prosecuted (or questioned) when they are the sell/transferor (sp?) of the firearm in question. The DOJ is only concerned that the buyer/transferee is obtaining the firearm in a legal manner.

While true, there is always a first one and the question is are you willing to gamble that you won't be the first one? The question before that is whether you want to commit an illegal act.

[CSACANNONEER]

The simple facts are that the AFS is not "registration" (it is merely a way to record certain firearms transactions over the years) and, there is no legal requirement for a firearm to have been DROSed or in any way "registered" to you prior to selling it. So, a firearm does not need any sort of paper trail going to the seller before a sale is made.

[keenkeen]

It may be community property for purposes of a divorce, but for purposes of transfer it only belongs to one of you at a time.

Unless you submitted an operation of law form and transferred it to your spouse, it would be an illegal transfer from one spouse to the other.



I'd be careful giving that advice. I've written about this before

More info in the link but

So is my wife and I have a rifle purchased in 1975 that we would like to sell...which "one" of us is the owner? Why would we need to have "submitted an operation of law form and transferred it"....?

[kemasa]

The simple facts are that the AFS is not "registration" (it is merely a way to record certain firearms transactions over the years) and, there is no legal requirement for a firearm to have been DROSed or in any way "registered" to you prior to selling it. So, a firearm does not need any sort of paper trail going to the seller before a sale is made.

If there is no paper trail, then that makes it easier. The problem is when there is a paper trail and the names don't match up. It would not be hard for the CA DOJ to flag a PPT where there is a name in the AFS and that name does not match the seller. They could then come out and ask how the person got the firearm. So far, they don't seem to be doing that, but will that change? It some respects it does not matter since there are laws regarding transfers and it is a matter of whether you know you are violating the law.

[NiteQwill]

If there is no paper trail, then that makes it easier. The problem is when there is a paper trail and the names don't match up. It would not be hard for the CA DOJ to flag a PPT where there is a name in the AFS and that name does not match the seller. They could then come out and ask how the person got the firearm. So far, they don't seem to be doing that, but will that change? It some respects it does not matter since there are laws regarding transfers and it is a matter of whether you know you are violating the law.

I find that hard to believe. There are (hundreds) of thousands of firearms that do not come up in AFS. Heck, I legally own many firearms that will not show up in AFS under my name or with the serial number. The only traceable route is a 4473 or my bound book (C&R). The DOJ lacks to manpower to go after sellers who are selling/transferring a gun (legally). I would only think that is their only concern.

Sent from my phone, excuse the errors.

[kemasa]

I find that hard to believe. There are (hundreds) of thousands of firearms that do not come up in AFS. Heck, I legally own many firearms that will not show up in AFS under my name or with the serial number. The only traceable route is a 4473 or my bound book (C&R). The DOJ lacks to manpower to go after sellers who are selling/transferring a gun (legally). I would only think that is their only concern.

Huh?

You find it hard to believe that it is easier to have another person than the actual owner to claim to be the seller if there is no paper trail? With no paper trail (no electronic records showing who the actual owner is) it IS easier to do a PPT transfer with a person acting as the seller when they really are not.

Yes, there are many firearms which are not in the AFS. In those cases the CA DOJ would not know who the actual legal owner is.

If the CA DOJ decides that they want to go after PPT sales in which the claimed seller is not the actual owner, then they will do that. Remember, you sign the document under the penalty of perjury. They could decide to do it to make a statement or other political reasons.

You might be willing to take the risk of violating the law and getting away with it, but personally I don't think it is a good risk to take for little gain.

[NiteQwill]

If the CA DOJ decides that they want to go after PPT sales in which the claimed seller is not the actual owner, then they will do that. Remember, you sign the document under the penalty of perjury. They could decide to do it to make a statement or other political reasons.

You might be willing to take the risk of violating the law and getting away with it, but personally I don't think it is a good risk to take for little gain.

I'm curious to which document is signed which states I am in the legal owner of the firearm when selling it (during a PPT)?

Sent from my phone, excuse the errors.