Sent gun in the mail, FFL says i'm breaking the law

[FillmoreRacer]

I've personally used this same ffl in SB. They were a massive PITA to deal with when I bought 22LR AR online (PSA black Friday deal) a few years ago. I visited them prior to the purchase to verify they could do it for me, they said of course, no problem. The gun arrives to them and they don't want to release it to me because, "you should have bought it from us. We can special order something like that for you." After telling them that I only paid $235 for it, they said that price is below their cost on this gun. Then they tried to jack up the prices to complete the transfer (DROS, etc.). I guess they can make up their own prices on a whim and get away with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wireless]

Ugh...

[kemasa]

Quite the thread.

What is interesting is that even if the firearm was shipped illegally, it doesn't matter to the FFL.But what does matter to the FFL is the Federal law which requires the firearm to be logged into the bound book within a specific period of time (there is more time if there is an invoice will all of the information on it). If a FFL receives a handgun by a non-FFL it was illegally shipped, but the FFL still needs to log it in and only the USPS would have an issue with it, which is hard to prove after it has arrived. There is no problem with transferring afterwards, well, until the USPS comes and gets it as evidence :-).

So the FFL should have logged the firearm in by now, or they have violated the law. If they ship it out and did not record the transaction, then they violated the law.

Once received, they can transfer it to the buyer.

As said, it is not illegal for non-FFLs to ship a firearm. A CFLC is only required when a FFL ships to a CA FFL.

One solution is to find a FFL in the area for this FFL to ship to and have the transfer done there. Then it would be interesting to see if they properly logged the firearm.

I have to wonder if contacting the BATF might change things. It would not be good for the FFL to have a firearm in inventory and not listed in their bound book.

[wireless]

Yes it would be interesting, but these people have been okay to me so far. I have no problem with them if they simply don't know it's legal to do. The only problem is if they do educate themselves and then tell me they can't do it or they lie to me about it. At this point I'm pretty neutral on my feelings towards them because I thought the buyer confirmed with the FFL when I should have myself.

[wireless]

Say someone fails a PPT for whatever reason. Does the seller have to undergo a background check and 10 day wait before picking up the firearm? If no, why would this situation be different and I would be subject to 10 day wait.

[kemasa]

Say someone fails a PPT for whatever reason. Does the seller have to undergo a background check and 10 day wait before picking up the firearm? If no, why would this situation be different and I would be subject to 10 day wait.

Yes on the background check, no on the waiting period.

The difference is that the CA PPT has specific requirements, whereas in other cases those requirements don't apply.

In certain situations different rules apply. For example, you can send a firearm to a gunsmith for work and it can be returned to you without additional paperwork. Shipping a firearm to be transferred is different, although some might claim it is not.

[Chewy65]

Has someone (me perhaps) misunderstood the FFL's problem? From what I gleaned from numerous posts, that focus is on whether the rifle could be sent USPS to the FFL and I think the consensus, with which I find no fault, is "yes". However, it was mailed to the FFL by the seller for transfer in a PPT. Doesn't that mean that both the seller and the buyer have to go to the FFL's place of business?

[taperxz]

Has someone (me perhaps) misunderstood the FFL's problem? From what I gleaned from numerous posts, that focus is on whether the rifle could be sent USPS to the FFL and I think the consensus, with which I find no fault, is "yes". However, it was mailed to the FFL by the seller for transfer in a PPT. Doesn't that mean that both the seller and the buyer have to go to the FFL's place of business?

No.

However it is no longer a PPT but a dealer transfer which means the dealer can charge anything he wants for the transfer.

[Chewy65]

No.

However it is no longer a PPT but a dealer transfer which means the dealer can charge anything he wants for the transfer.

But is that the problem the OP is having with the dealer; wanting the transfer done as a PPT and not a dealer transfer? I see that wireless keeps talking about doing it as a PPT and even making the two hour trip. Has he said that the complained of dealer was ready and willing to do a dealer transfer but not for $35?

[kemasa]

And the gun would be treated as if it was a new firearm, subject to sales tax and dealer fees, not as a PPT.

Actually, if the sales is between residents of CA, is an occasional sale and not from a business and you write a letter to document it, it would not be subject to sales tax.

New/Used does not matter when it comes to firearms and sales tax.

[kemasa]

But is that the problem the OP is having with the dealer; wanting the transfer done as a PPT and not a dealer transfer? I see that wireless keeps talking about doing it as a PPT and even making the two hour trip. Has he said that the complained of dealer was ready and willing to do a dealer transfer but not for $35?

Not that I read. It is that the dealer won't transfer it. The fee is not an issue. The driving was to pick it up. At least from what I recall reading.

[wireless]

I was saying that if they didn't send the rifle back in the mail, I was hoping they would let me drive up to santa barbara and do a PPT. I never said anything about it being done as a PPT via mail. I am well aware it's treated like a new firearm transfer which is why I included a bill of sale. edit- I'm not aware of the sales tax exemption you are referring to, but good luck getting any FFL to deal with that BS. The State wants their money.

Good- they sent the rifle back to me and it arrived in 2 days. They did not charge me for the shipping, because after "talking to ca-doj", they do not have to transfer the rifle. So ya, they were a pain in the *** and misinformed but their customer service was good.


Bad- They told my buyer that I had to ground off the bayonet lug before he could buy it.

[kemasa]

...
I am well aware it's treated like a new firearm transfer which is why I included a bill of sale. edit- I'm not aware of the sales tax exemption you are referring to, but good luck getting any FFL to deal with that BS. The State wants their money.

Any FFL should be able to deal with the sales tax issue in that it is exempt as calling the CA BOE would tell them. The letter that the CA BOE sent out dealt with firearms coming from out of state, not in-state. I also have a letter in regards to sales tax with C&R firearms coming from out of state when the buyer has a C&R FFL. If you want to pay money that you don't have to, that is your choice, but I am trying to give you and others the information to know that sales tax might not be required.

I am a FFL and I deal with it.

Good- they sent the rifle back to me and it arrived in 2 days. They did not charge me for the shipping, because after "talking to ca-doj", they do not have to transfer the rifle. So ya, they were a pain in the *** and misinformed but their customer service was good.

They do not have to do transfers for any firearms which are shipped to them.

I would not personally say that refusing to do a valid transfer is good customer service.

I also wonder if they followed the law and logged the firearm in and out properly :-).

Bad- They told my buyer that I had to ground off the bayonet lug before he could buy it.

That does not sound like good customer service either.