My FFL will not allow me to use a California-approved Firearm Safety Device (cable lock) that I purchased for a PPT on Monday for a second PPT done on Friday (today). The cable lock, sold to me by the FFL, was purchased within the last 30 days (actually, the last four days). I have the receipt showing the purchase of the cable lock, and the date. However, there is no description of the particular lock that was sold to me. By description, I mean it only states "Cable Lock," with no reference to the manufacturer/model/serial number.
Can the Firearm Safety Device/cable lock only be used for one firearm or one transaction? Do I really have to pay the FFL another $10+ for a second cable lock within 30 days of purchasing the first cable lock? Seems excessive to me (never mind that the cable lock seems to me to be worth quite a bit less than $10).
AND IF NOT...
How do I insist/convince the FFL that paying for a second lock is not necessary?
Sounds like I'll just have to pay it to get my firearm, but I was curious. They choose not to do PPT's on the week-ends, but they are open on Mondays (unlike the friendlier FFL in town). It is a minor inconvenience but I will certainly take my business elsewhere if they are enforcing a law/regulation that does not exist.
Apologies if my answer is in some other post (I did search for it, but you know how search results go...).
Can the Firearm Safety Device/cable lock only be used for one firearm or one transaction? Do I really have to pay the FFL another $10+ for a second cable lock within 30 days of purchasing the first cable lock? Seems excessive to me (never mind that the cable lock seems to me to be worth quite a bit less than $10).
AND IF NOT...
How do I insist/convince the FFL that paying for a second lock is not necessary?
Sounds like I'll just have to pay it to get my firearm, but I was curious. They choose not to do PPT's on the week-ends, but they are open on Mondays (unlike the friendlier FFL in town). It is a minor inconvenience but I will certainly take my business elsewhere if they are enforcing a law/regulation that does not exist.
Apologies if my answer is in some other post (I did search for it, but you know how search results go...).

Comment