Use Same Lock For Two PPT's In Same Week?

[OCArmory]

Yep they would just use the safe affidavit for the state and the non CA approved lock for the fed requirement.

[Librarian]

I A lock must be provided for that transaction if it is a pistol sale.

I beg to differ, but I understand that doing business as if that were true makes things simpler.

Federal law requires the safety device.

Federal law defines 'safety device' at 18 USC 921(a)(34)

a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device
that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and
that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a
combination, or other similar means.

(C) shows us that the gun buyer has a choice of what safety device to have.

It cannot be the case that if a customer chooses a safe for his/her safety device, the transferring FFL must 'provide' or 'sell to' the buyer a safe with each handgun purchase.

'Hey, spend $550 on this nice new Glock and I'll have to sell you this $5000 Amsec ..."

See also http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...es.2C_and_Laws

[kemasa]

I beg to differ, but I understand that doing business as if that were true makes things simpler.

Federal law requires the safety device.

Federal law defines 'safety device' at 18 USC 921(a)(34)
(C) shows us that the gun buyer has a choice of what safety device to have.

It cannot be the case that if a customer chooses a safe for his/her safety device, the transferring FFL must 'provide' or 'sell to' the buyer a safe with each handgun purchase.

'Hey, spend $550 on this nice new Glock and I'll have to sell you this $5000 Amsec ..."

See also http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...es.2C_and_Laws

The problem is that the guidelines have not been provided by the Feds as required and a BATF attorney said that means that the FFL can provide a safe, not that the customer has one.

[OCArmory]

I don't get what you are saying here. The OP asked about his lock issue. Yes at the time of pistol purchase I could sell him any other device that meets the federal requirement including a safe. The point is a safety device must be provide for that transaction

I beg to differ, but I understand that doing business as if that were true makes things simpler.

Federal law requires the safety device.

Federal law defines 'safety device' at 18 USC 921(a)(34)
(C) shows us that the gun buyer has a choice of what safety device to have.

It cannot be the case that if a customer chooses a safe for his/her safety device, the transferring FFL must 'provide' or 'sell to' the buyer a safe with each handgun purchase.

'Hey, spend $550 on this nice new Glock and I'll have to sell you this $5000 Amsec ..."

See also http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...es.2C_and_Laws

[Librarian]

The point is no, you as FFL are not required to sell or give a lock to a handgun buyer to satisfy federal law.

S/he must have one - the safe at home would qualify, but so would any old trigger lock or lock box the buyer might bring in.

That BATFE has been persistently incompetent on the point for ten years or so does not change the plain text of the law.

ETA - this turns on what you think 'provided' means in 18 USC 922 (z)

(z) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device.—
(1)In general.—
Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun.

Some people (apparently including BATFE) seem to want to insert extra words 'provided [by the transferring FFL] with', but that isn't in the law, and that is not the only meaning for 'provided'. See for example the Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock ...
... and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, ...

My 'simpler' comment refers to the necessity to satisfy BATFE auditors, who no doubt are under the mis-impression provided to them by their management.

[OCArmory]

I disagree with your interpretation. As this is a FFL forum and having been through several audits I would remind other FFLs that the ATF also disagrees with your interpretation and could result in violations during an audit.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-does-child-safety-lock-act-2005-csla-require-licensee

[Tyke8319]

Librarian:

Ah...I see your point. "as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun." makes no mention of the "dealer" providing a security device. It just defines a "secure gun storage or safety device".
As you state, BATFE apparently expanded the wording to suit the current political climate.
But, that doesn't get around the fact that during an audit I would NOT want to have to convince an unwitting auditor their official stance on the law as written
was a bunch of hooey and "you can't ding me for that" argument and expect to win.

[kemasa]

Librarian:

Ah...I see your point. "as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun." makes no mention of the "dealer" providing a security device. It just defines a "secure gun storage or safety device".
As you state, BATFE apparently expanded the wording to suit the current political climate.
But, that doesn't get around the fact that during an audit I would NOT want to have to convince an unwitting auditor their official stance on the law as written
was a bunch of hooey and "you can't ding me for that" argument and expect to win.

There is no guidelines as required from the BATF, that is the problem as the law is badly written.

An audit is not a problem since there is no requirement to document what was done and as long as the FFL says nothing, nothing can be done. It is only about trying to follow the law. The only problem would be if the BATF was there at the time the firearm leaves.

[timeexposure]

Ok, so what I gather is the FFL I used simply insists I purchase a $10 lock, thereby satisfying the BATFE/Fed law (by having a FSD attached to the gun), and satisfying the DOJ law (by providing a CA-approved FSD). This way, they are assured of meeting the requirements of both agencies with one action/sale, and not having to account for filing safe affidavits or documenting FSD's.
The FFL is covering their ***** and making a small profitable sale at the same time. The customer (me) feels inconvenienced and resents spending an additional $10 (on top of $25 DROS and $10 fee), when I could instead sign a safe affidavit for DOJ and bring the same lock I bought Monday (or last year or found in the case with the gun) for BATFE/Feds.
I like to support the local FFL's but I think I'll be going across town to the other FFL, and avoid the extra $10 cost.

[Tyke8319]

And the gas across town and back costs????

[timeexposure]

And the gas across town and back costs????

Round trip is $9.49.
Or 40 cents if I DON'T stop for a 1/2 lb. bacon cheeseburger combo along the way.

[Dutch3]

The same lock can be used for multiple deliveries, provided it was purchased within 30 days of the delivery.

[timeexposure]

The same lock can be used for multiple deliveries, provided it was purchased within 30 days of the delivery.

My FFL actually refused to give me the original receipt for the lock on Monday, stating they had to include it with their paperwork for the gun I picked up that day. What I have is a photocopy of the receipt.
This is why I thought maybe it had something to do with the spirit of the Child Safety Act, that EACH firearm required its own lock. That almost makes sense, if the gun owner doesn't otherwise have a safe place to secure it (safe/lockbox, etc.).
How much you wanna bet the FFL won't allow me to use the lock with the photocopied receipt when I pick up another gun ( purchased used via PPT) in a couple days?
They won't.
That's why it will be my last PPT with their store.
Funny thing is, when I have done PPT's in the past, three sellers and two buyers REFUSED to do the paperwork at this FFL due to their personal experience with the store. Reasons included incompetence, arrogance, poor customer service, and extreme dislike for the store owner.
Guess I was just trying too hard to justify their practices...Sad, really, because the staff I have dealt with there have been friendly and helpful (they see me a lot!).

[Dutch3]

My FFL actually refused to give me the original receipt for the lock on Monday, stating they had to include it with their paperwork for the gun I picked up that day. What I have is a photocopy of the receipt.
This is why I thought maybe it had something to do with the spirit of the Child Safety Act, that EACH firearm required its own lock. That almost makes sense, if the gun owner doesn't otherwise have a safe place to secure it (safe/lockbox, etc.).
How much you wanna bet the FFL won't allow me to use the lock with the photocopied receipt when I pick up another gun ( purchased used via PPT) in a couple days?
They won't.
That's why it will be my last PPT with their store.
Funny thing is, when I have done PPT's in the past, three sellers and two buyers REFUSED to do the paperwork at this FFL due to their personal experience with the store. Reasons included incompetence, arrogance, poor customer service, and extreme dislike for the store owner.
Guess I was just trying too hard to justify their practices...Sad, really, because the staff I have dealt with there have been friendly and helpful (they see me a lot!).

Sounds like the management has a bad attitude.

My experience; Friends of NRA dinner. Everyone buying a seat at a certain table received a handgun. All of the transfers were processed via the same local FFL. One lock was purchased, and that same lock and receipt was used for pickup of all of the firearms (8 as I recall).

That being said, I do have a pile of purchased but unused locks. I'd guess we all do. Sometimes, the required lock purchase provides comic relief. Once, when picking up a stripped AR lower, I asked if I could buy a trigger lock and if they could show me how to use it.

More recently, I bought an old Winchester Model 67 rifle. Single shot bolt action, no magwell. Removing the bolt requires first disassembling the action from the stock. They told me I had to buy a cable lock. I said, 'OK, can you show me how to use it?' Response, '...Uhhhhh....No...'

[kemasa]

My experience; Friends of NRA dinner. Everyone buying a seat at a certain table received a handgun. All of the transfers were processed via the same local FFL. One lock was purchased, and that same lock and receipt was used for pickup of all of the firearms (8 as I recall).

Not legal. It is amazing what risk some people will take. Are you sure the guns did not come with a lock?

That being said, I do have a pile of purchased but unused locks. I'd guess we all do.

So sell a lock to a friend and write up a receipt or sell them to a FFL.

BTW, the lock needs to work with the firearm. Blame the government for the stupid laws.