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

[NYT]

So my FFL considers the sale of the $10 cable lock as the way in which they are able to satisfy the BATFE requirement to provide a firearm safety device (which also satisfies the requirement by the CA DOJ). By choosing to do this, the FFL is not doing anything wrong or illegal. In fact, they are certain they are covering their butt with regard to the CA DOJ and BATFE.
They could choose to accept a safe affidavit and allow me to use the OEM cable lock, and they would still meet the requirements of the CA DOJ and BATFE in doing so. The fact that they do not is simply the way they choose to do business, and they are not breaking any law by doing it. In the interest of collecting the gun after the 10 day mandatory waiting period, myself and most who have chosen to use this FFL to process the PPT will pay $10 for a cable lock so they can leave with their gun.
Thank you to all who have provided the information I needed. My soon-to-be former FFL is doing nothing wrong or illegal. They are covering their interests with regard to meeting the requirements by the CA DOJ and BATFE. They choose not to do as some other FFL's do, even if the requirements are met.
All I can do is choose to do business elsewhere. After I collect my last PPT-gun and pay $10 for a cable lock, I will not be doing business there again. End of story (although, if others wish to continue the debate, I cannot stop it)!

that is 100% correct, you as the customer have your right to take your business elsewhere. the issue however is one of us, your fellow calgunners, might mistakenly choose to do a ppt at this ffl. ten bucks might not be a big deal for most of us, but for some, its just another added fee that they would rather not incur.

this is the only reason i think it reasonable to declare who the ffl is, so we your fellow gun enthusiasts, will know to steer clear.

[kemasa]

In case you haven't figured it out yet, it is not about figuring how integrity challenged unscrupulous FFLs can lie to customers about what the FSD and CSLA statutes say. So they can pad their bottom line a few bucks.

Just made up lies from your since you really have no idea as to why they are doing it, but because you are the ultimate Judge of all things, you have decreed that it is what it is due to your delusions.

It is about following the laws as written.

Yes, it is. Too bad that you don't get that and instead you ignore things, make up things and claim that things are not what they are. I posted the actual CA PC below to show that you don't know what you are talking about.

Which again have all been posted here verbatim. Just as they have been many times before. It is you who repeatedly refuse to accept legal definitions of words "ACTUALLY" used in the relevant statutes.

Not true at all, quite the opposite. You claimed "present" was all that was required based on the letter, yet "present" was not even mentioned in the letter. How do you explain that? You ignore Code sections and claim that an exemption to one means that it is exempt from everything else.

Funny about your ignoring the "audit issues" in your response. Perhaps you did that because it shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

You blame ATF for lack of guidelines as cover for the duplicitous practices of some unscrupulous FFLs gouging and lying.

More made up lies by you. The lack of guidelines means that it is harder for the FFLs to know what to do, which if you had any sense you would realize that.

Then dismiss actual guidelines from the head of ATF Firearms Division.

That letter is NOT actual guidelines. You do like to imagine things are something other than reality. It is just a letter and really does not say much of anything.

Claiming they don't count because, THEY MAY SOMEDAY CHANGE! How embarrassing for you.

How embarrassing for you since it is not guidelines and it does not say what you claim it does.

Simple! It doesn't say you can't, so you can. Only a "weenie" would be dumb enough to think otherwise. Unless you want to again foolishly try and prove a negative?

Sigh. Again you ignore what the law says. While it is true that it does not say that you can not share a lock, it says that the person has to purchase a lock, which if they don't purchase the lock, then it does not apply. You are ignoring what the law actually says and claiming that it means something completely different than it says.

First I suggest you read the OP for a prime example of the business practices you promote as ethical. Even thought they are "extra legal". Then, for dozens more just like it.

Where did I promote it as ethical? Just another made up lie from you. I said that you don't know why they are doing what they are.

There is NO WORDING in the Ca FSD law that says only the transferee, buyer, receiver, or person being gifted, has to be the person who purchases the FSD. And there are no statuatory limitations as to how many "PERSONS" can use the same lock to legally facilitate firearms transfers, during the 30 days. And the statute specifically says "PERSONS" [ plural ].

Actually, it does. It lists the requirements, such as the receipt and that they have to purchase the lock, which means your made up claim that the lock can be shared is bogus.

Please point to where "person" is mentioned in the statute, much less persons. Another false claim by you. It is getting old calling you on all of your false claims.

All the extra crap you imply, or infer are in the statutes being discussed, exist only in your profit fixated imagination. All the obsfucations, deflections, and lame, many times disproven statements grow weary after you repeat them ad nauseam.

Actually not, it was almost word for word what the CA PC is. This means that you are ignoring the actual CA PC.

You do a disservice to the CG'rs that come here looking for "honest" answers.

You are not giving honest answers, you are making up things. I asked where "present" was mentioned in the letter and you ignored that because it isn't there. You are making up things to justify your delusions, but it is not real.

Which the OP has gotten from myself and Librarian.

Bye

Yeah, you keep saying bye, but you keep coming back with your delusions. To compare yourself to Librarian is absurd, you are not even close to him when it comes to providing useful information.

Here is the actual CA PC so you can point out there "persons" are in there.

Penal Code - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370]
( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

TITLE 4. FIREARMS [23500 - 34370]
( Title 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

DIVISION 2. FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES, GUN SAFES, AND RELATED WARNINGS [23620 - 23690]
( Division 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

23635.



(b) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if both of the following apply:

(1) The purchaser or transferee owns a gun safe that meets the standards set forth in Section 23650. Gun safes shall not be required to be tested, and therefore may meet the standards without appearing on the Department of Justice roster.

(2)

(c) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if all of the following apply:

(1) The purchaser or transferee purchases an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm.

(2) The purchaser or transferee presents the approved safety device to the firearms dealer when picking up the firearm.

(3) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt to the firearms dealer, which shows the date of purchase, the name, and the model number of the safety device.

(4) The firearms dealer verifies that the requirements in paragraphs (1) to (3), inclusive, have been satisfied.

It says "purchaser" or "transferee", which is singular, except for people like you who have multiple personalities. Again, where does it say "persons" as you claim it does?

Please explain how the CA PC requires that the purchaser or transferee purchases a lock that it means that the purchase can be used by multiple people. The second person would not have purchased a lock, so the exemption would not apply to them.

[kemasa]

I'm still not convinced the FFL is doing anything wrong, technically speaking.

Under the intent of the CA PC, it is reasonable to assume that a lock purchase would only apply to a single firearm purchase.

Under the actual wording of the CA PC, it could be claimed that the purchase of a lock could be used for any number of firearms purchased within a 30 day period.

The reality is that a FFL is not going to want to take a chance that a CA DOJ auditor notices that there are multiple copies of the same lock receipt used for multiple firearm purchases and decides that this is unacceptable.

Buy another lock from a friend with the date of purchase, the name and the model number of the lock on the receipt. I am sure you have extra locks, as well your friends have extra locks. Nothing requires that the lock be new or from a retail location.

[kemasa]

How do we convince Pacrat to actually become a FFL so that then we can start a pool on how long he stays in business, with a bonus pool as to whether he ends up in jail?

[taperxz]

How do we convince Pacrat to actually become a FFL so that then we can start a pool on how long he stays in business, with a bonus pool as to whether he ends up in jail?

I'm in for $20

[NYT]

Under the intent of the CA PC, it is reasonable to assume that a lock purchase would only apply to a single firearm purchase.

Under the actual wording of the CA PC, it could be claimed that the purchase of a lock could be used for any number of firearms purchased within a 30 day period.

The reality is that a FFL is not going to want to take a chance that a CA DOJ auditor notices that there are multiple copies of the same lock receipt used for multiple firearm purchases and decides that this is unacceptable.

Buy another lock from a friend with the date of purchase, the name and the model number of the lock on the receipt. I am sure you have extra locks, as well your friends have extra locks. Nothing requires that the lock be new or from a retail location.

did i miss something? i thought the op stated that since he bought the lock previously, he could not use the same lock when picking up his recently ppt'd handgun.

since when was it law that an ffl had to copy a lock receipt? i only ask because i have never needed to provide a receipt for a lock.

[kemasa]

did i miss something? i thought the op stated that since he bought the lock previously, he could not use the same lock when picking up his recently ppt'd handgun.

That was what his question was about. He wanted to use the same lock for multiple firearms, but the FFL he used would not do it.

since when was it law that an ffl had to copy a lock receipt? i only ask because i have never needed to provide a receipt for a lock.

As stated above:

Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012

[taperxz]

did i miss something? i thought the op stated that since he bought the lock previously, he could not use the same lock when picking up his recently ppt'd handgun.

since when was it law that an ffl had to copy a lock receipt? i only ask because i have never needed to provide a receipt for a lock.

The lock receipt is kept with the DROS paper work to back up what was selected on the DROS form is accurate. An FFL must choose on the DES if the lock was OEM or purchased. We actually have to tell DOJ when submitting DOS. We keep a copy of the receipt as proof.

[code_blue]

They choose not to do PPT's on the week-ends, but they are open on Mondays (unlike the friendlier FFL in town).

Not the main point of this thread, but am I the only one that noticed the violation of law here?

If they are open for business as an FFL, they are mandated by CA statute to perform a PPT of a pistol unless they do not stock pistols themselves.

[taperxz]

Not the main point of this thread, but am I the only one that noticed the violation of law here?

If they are open for business as an FFL, they are mandated by CA statute to perform a PPT of a pistol unless they do not stock pistols themselves.

Not a violation if the proper procedures are not followed by letter of the law with all parties.

[code_blue]

Not a violation if the proper procedures are not followed by letter of the law with all parties.

I understand that part (parties missing documentation, etc...), but in the context of the OP, the FFL appears to blanket refuse PPT's during normal business hours on weekends. That's a violation.

Not trying to derail from the primary topic of the thread, but it appears that this FFL just does what they want without following the actual letter of the law.

[kemasa]

I understand that part (parties missing documentation, etc...), but in the context of the OP, the FFL appears to blanket refuse PPT's during normal business hours on weekends. That's a violation.

Not trying to derail from the primary topic of the thread, but it appears that this FFL just does what they want without following the actual letter of the law.

Do you know what the letter of the law is?

If the customer does not follow the letter of the law, the FFL is not violating the law.

[timeexposure]

Do you know what the letter of the law is?

If the customer does not follow the letter of the law, the FFL is not violating the law.

First, thank you for your contribution to this thread.
I confess I'm confused on this part.
I gather there is a law that states an FFL may not pick and choose the days they will process a PPT, presuming they are open for business? If this is true, how is it this particular FFL is not in violation of that law?
Side note: I did not ask, but unless I missed it today, there is no longer a sign that states they do not do PPT on the weekend. So I don't know if the store continues to refuse to do PPT on the weekend.
No matter anymore since I'll be traveling the extra 2.2 miles to the other FFL in town. The one that doesn't insist you buy a firearm safety device if there's already one in the box.

[taperxz]

First, thank you for your contribution to this thread.
I confess I'm confused on this part.
I gather there is a law that states an FFL may not pick and choose the days they will process a PPT, presuming they are open for business? If this is true, how is it this particular FFL is not in violation of that law?
Side note: I did not ask, but unless I missed it today, there is no longer a sign that states they do not do PPT on the weekend. So I don't know if the store continues to refuse to do PPT on the weekend.
No matter anymore since I'll be traveling the extra 2.2 miles to the other FFL in town. The one that doesn't insist you buy a firearm safety device if there's already one in the box.

Read the law and be enlightened

[kemasa]

First, thank you for your contribution to this thread.
I confess I'm confused on this part.
I gather there is a law that states an FFL may not pick and choose the days they will process a PPT, presuming they are open for business? If this is true, how is it this particular FFL is not in violation of that law?
Side note: I did not ask, but unless I missed it today, there is no longer a sign that states they do not do PPT on the weekend. So I don't know if the store continues to refuse to do PPT on the weekend.
No matter anymore since I'll be traveling the extra 2.2 miles to the other FFL in town. The one that doesn't insist you buy a firearm safety device if there's already one in the box.

You are required to put the request to do the PPT in writing. If you don't follow the law and put it in writing, then ...

Librarian knows the code section and I am too lazy right now to look it up :-).