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

[pacrat]

Once again, here on CG, where people should know what they are talking about, there is enough male bovine excrement masquerading as "legal facts" regarding the Ca FSD and Fed CSLA of 2005 to fertilize a hay field.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdfaqs#1

What is the Firearm Safety Device (FSD) law?
Generally, all firearms (other than federally defined antiques) purchased in California must be accompanied with an FSD that has passed required safety and functionality tests and is listed on the Department of Justice Roster of Approved Firearm Safety Devices. The current roster is available on the Bureau of Firearms website at http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist.

Are there any exceptions to the Firearm Safety Device (FSD) requirement?

Yes. The FSD requirement does not apply to the following:

Persons who can demonstrate the purchase of a Department of Justice-approved safety device in the 30 days prior to taking possession of the firearm by presenting the device to the firearms dealer and providing the firearms dealer with a receipt showing the purchase date and model name of the device.

If you own an approved safe, ALL FIREARMS TRANSFERS ARE EXEMPT FROM CA FSD REQUIREMENTS. No matter what some lying turd at AMMO BROS TELLS YOU.

In Dutch3's one lock for 8 guns scenario. It would be perfectly legal, if done in proper order. Simply because the legal statutes, in Ca Law, states "accompanied" and Fed law says "provided/present". Neither states it must be "one lock" per transfer or purchaser. And neither even says that the lock be actually on the gun. So if each winner carried their pistol out of the dinner accompanied by THE LOCK. Placed it in the locked trunk of their car. All Ca/Fed statutes would be satisfied. He could then wlk back inside and give it to the next guy.

The link that OCA posted is an innaccurate summary of the actual statute and has no legal onus. No matter what some ATF weenie claims.

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

What does the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (CSLA) require of a licensee?

When selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to any person other than another licensee, any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer must provide a secure gun storage or safety device to that person for the handgun.

Even taking into consideration the innaccuracy of it. It still does not claim that a FFL must sell the transferee a CSL. He could simply loan him one, long enough to walk to his car.

Many unscrupulous FFL subvert the stated statutes of FSD and CSL in order to bump their bottom line a couple of lousy bucks. Then lie to their customers and blame it on Ca-DOJ and ATF for their integrity challenged business practices.

Back to fallacies promoted by FFLs in regards to CSLA.

Librarian's post above, as usual, aptly states actual statute of CSLA 2005. Without the ATF website disingenuous embellishments.

Below you will find quoted the very last written statement from ATF regarding Ca-FSD and Fed CSLA. Back in Dec of 2008. ATF has remained mute as far as any further definitive interpretations of CSLA-2005

Even the Head Honcho from ATF Firearms Division, agreed that having a CSL "PRESENT" at time of transfer is GTG from Fed regs. And again, he does not say who supplies, provides, or presents the CSL.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8056389&postcount=59

Official response from ATF when I asked them about the CA Safe Affidavit:

U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Washington, DC 20226
DEC 8, 2008
903010:LHB
5300

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx:

This is in response to your letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In your letter, you asked if the California State Form, Affidavit Stating Ownership of an Acceptable Gun Safe or Lock Box. is an acceptable form for customers in lieu of purchasing an 800+-pound full safe.

As you may know, a major mission of ATF is enforcement of the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), its subsequent amendments, and other Federal firearms laws. A significant part of the GCA concerns the requirements pertaining to the manufacture, importation, distribution, possession, and sale of firearms.

Section 921 (a)(34)(C) of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) defines a secure gun storage or safety device as 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 designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, combination, or other similar means. 18 U.S.C. 922(z), regarding secure gun storage or safety device, states in part that 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, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun at the time of the firearm sales transaction.

The form used by the State of California Department of Justice with the standards set forth by section 977.50 of the California Code of Regulations may comply with California laws but does not comply with the laws and regulations set forth by ATF. This form is not an ATF form and is not an acceptable form in lieu of presenting a secure gun storage or safety device at the time of each firearm sales transaction.

We regret that our response was not more positive. If you should have any further questions, we invite you to review our Web site at www.atf.gov. You may also contact our office at (202) 648-7090.

Sincerely yours,


Raymond G. Rowley
Chief, Firearms Programs Division

TYKE said,

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 need to argue. Print out the inaccurately paraphrased website "summary". The actual statute, and the letter I provided from his boss. And let him compare the 3. If he insists that the people who wrote the law and his boss are wrong. I'm sure there is an appeals process, where he doesn't want you pointing out to his bosses what an inept wanker he is.

[kemasa]

Once again, here on CG, where people should know what they are talking about, there is enough male bovine excrement masquerading as "legal facts" regarding the Ca FSD and Fed CSLA of 2005 to fertilize a hay field.

Quite true, so why exactly are you posting? Your post shows that you don't know what you are talking about and you are making things up, as well as false information since you are claiming that the law is something other than it actually is.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdfaqs#1

You do realize that that is not the CA PC, don't you?

Did you read what it says?

Ownership may be demonstrated by displaying to the firearms dealer: 1) a receipt indicating purchase of, or an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, stating that the purchaser owns a gun safe; and 2) an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, stating the gun safe meets the standards set forth in DOJ regulations.

See the requirement which is more than just having a safe?

If you own an approved safe, ALL FIREARMS TRANSFERS ARE EXEMPT FROM CA FSD REQUIREMENTS. No matter what some lying turd at AMMO BROS TELLS YOU.

Not quite correct. You still have to follow the CA PC, which has requirements. Do you know what that is? Yes, it is being a bit picky, but you deserve it since a person is not just magically exempt just because they own a safe.

In Dutch3's one lock for 8 guns scenario. It would be perfectly legal, if done in proper order. Simply because the legal statutes, in Ca Law, states "accompanied" and Fed law says "provided/present". Neither states it must be "one lock" per transfer or purchaser. And neither even says that the lock be actually on the gun. So if each winner carried their pistol out of the dinner accompanied by THE LOCK. Placed it in the locked trunk of their car. All Ca/Fed statutes would be satisfied. He could then wlk back inside and give it to the next guy.

Really? It would be perfectly legal if it is done in some magical order? What you are suggesting is falsification of records and violating the CA PC. The thing is that you don't know why that is.

The CA PC states "accompanied"? Hmmm, my reading of it says a bit more than that which the one lock for eight people does not meet.

You also have NO idea if the person took the firearm and the lock to their vehicle and then returned the lock back to the FFL, but it still would not mean that all CA PC has been satisfied.

In the example where the receipt is used for multiple people, did the purchaser or transferee purchase an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm? No, because they did not purchase the approved safety device as someone else did and the receipt is not from any purchase they made, which means that you are wrong.

Next, did the purchaser or transferee present the approved safety device when picking up the firearm? Not likely since they would have to be given the lock, then it would have to be handed back to the FFL

Next, did the purchaser or transferee present an original receipt to the firearms dealer which has the date of purchase, the name and the model number of the safety device? Not likely since most likely the FFL had the receipt and did not hand it to the person so that they could hand it back, plus it is not their receipt.

Did the FFL verify that all of the above occurred? Not likely.

The link that OCA posted is an innaccurate summary of the actual statute and has no legal onus. No matter what some ATF weenie claims.

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

What does the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (CSLA) require of a licensee?

Even taking into consideration the innaccuracy of it. It still does not claim that a FFL must sell the transferee a CSL. He could simply loan him one, long enough to walk to his car.

You are correct in that it does not say that they must sell it, but please show where it says that a loan would be acceptable or is that just a weenie claim?

It says:

...
unless the transferee is provided with
...

I guess you are a judge who can rule on this, but if that is not the case, then you need to look at the wording. Would a loan meet the meaning of the law in which it is required that the transferee be PROVIDED WITH? Not likely. Their already having said item also does not seem to meet the requirement in the Federal Code either.

Many unscrupulous FFL subvert the stated statutes of FSD and CSL in order to bump their bottom line a couple of lousy bucks. Then lie to their customers and blame it on Ca-DOJ and ATF for their integrity challenged business practices.

More made up crap from you. Please provide proof that any FFL is unscrupulous and that they did it in order to bump their bottom line, as well that they lie about the reason why and that they have integrity challenged business practices.

You are not a FFL, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and that has been shown MANY times. Typically the FFL is doing what they are in order to try to comply with the laws. You may not agree with their view of what the requirements, but since you are not the one who is on the hook, your view does not matter in the least. I might also point out the rules for this forum and it seems to me that you are insulting FFLs with your false statements, which could be an issue for you.

Back to fallacies promoted by FFLs in regards to CSLA.

Librarian's post above, as usual, aptly states actual statute of CSLA 2005. Without the ATF website disingenuous embellishments.

Below you will find quoted the very last written statement from ATF regarding Ca-FSD and Fed CSLA. Back in Dec of 2008. ATF has remained mute as far as any further definitive interpretations of CSLA-2005

The BATF has not published the guidelines, as they are required to do, which is a problem. Without those guidelines, everyone has a problem.

Even the Head Honcho from ATF Firearms Division, agreed that having a CSL "PRESENT" at time of transfer is GTG from Fed regs. And again, he does not say who supplies, provides, or presents the CSL.

And what he says does not matter too much since what counts is the Federal Code as his view could change and you might not be informed about it. The law does not say present, it says provided. The word provided has a meaning.

Could you point out where he says that "present" is acceptable? Seems like you are seeing things since the letter that you posted

...
unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun at the time of the firearm sales transaction.

I don't see the word "present" in that sentence.

The only search for "present" in the letter is this:

This form is not an ATF form and is not an acceptable form in
lieu of presenting a secure gun storage or safety device at the time of each
firearm sales transaction.

So it really seems like your claim is false.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8056389&postcount=59

The letter really does not say much of anything other than the CA form is not acceptable.

...
There is no need to argue. Print out the inaccurately paraphrased website "summary". The actual statute, and the letter I provided from his boss. And let him compare the 3. If he insists that the people who wrote the law and his boss are wrong. I'm sure there is an appeals process, where he doesn't want you pointing out to his bosses what an inept wanker he is.

This also shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

What are the documentation requirements? Nothing.

This means that there is nothing to say during an audit because the FFL is not required to have a single thing for the Feds. As I have been told, there is only ONE way in which the FFL can have a problem with this Federal Code, but since you already know everything I don't need to tell you what that is.

[kemasa]

Oh, in case you have not figured it out yet, it is not about what you can get away with, it is about trying to follow the laws.

[M1NM]

I think you can take your old lock in. A safe afidavit would satisfy the state storage rule and the lock would satisfy the ATF. It's a fed rule for the lock not a state one and the purchased within 30 day rule is a state one. Just go to Walmart and buy a lock for $5. The dealer will take your receipt or a copy for his records that the gun didn't leave his store without a lock.

[Librarian]

Just by the by - what do FFLs in gun-rational states do to satisfy the federal requirement for safety devices for handguns?

[Scratch705]

Yeah, they have a way around that too. The lock is "discounted" (from what I don't know), and there is no return allowed for discounted items.
This FFL has earned quite a reputation on Yelp...
I like the staff, but I don't think I can feel good about giving them my business anymore. After buying five new guns from them, untold number of boxes of ammo, and (literally) hundreds of range rentals (lanes and guns), this new lock crap may be the final straw.
But I digress...
Still looking for an answer to my original question. Maybe the store is acting in accordance with the law, and I just misinterpreted it?

ummm don't buy lock from the gun store. buy it from wal-mart, target, office depot, etc.

i've been doing this for all my PPTs and no problems yet. i just use the factory cable lock that all pistols are provided with and even for long guns when i need to afterwards. those factory locks are perfectly fine to use. this whole lock law, was CA's attempt at taxing gun owners, just like DROS fees.

[pacrat]

Oh, in case you have not figured it out yet, it is not about what you can get away with, it is about trying to follow the laws.

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.

It is about following the laws as written.

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.

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

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

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

You are correct in that it does not say that they must sell it, but please show where it says that a loan would be acceptable or is that just a weenie claim

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?

More made up crap from you. Please provide proof that any FFL is , unscrupulous and that they did it in order to bump their bottom line, as well that they lie about the reason why and that they have integrity challenged business practices.

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.

Persons who can demonstrate the purchase of a Department of Justice-approved safety device in the 30 days prior to taking possession of the firearm by presenting the device to the firearms dealer and providing the firearms dealer with a receipt showing the purchase date and model name of the device.

In the example where the receipt is used for multiple people, did the purchaser or transferee purchase an approved safety device no more than 30 days prior to the day the purchaser or transferee takes possession of the firearm? No, because they did not purchase the approved safety device as someone else did and the receipt is not from any purchase they made, which means that you are wrong.

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 ].

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.

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

Which the OP has gotten from myself and Librarian.

Bye

[taperxz]

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).

I'm sorry but i have to call you out on this as a possible fabricated story.

Unless everyone got a used firearm at your table you did not need to buy or share a lock. All/Most new handguns come with a lock of some sort from the manufacturer.

I doubt very seriously that 8 handguns had no locks with them in the box.

[Chewy65]

A FFL has good reason to fear the loss of license should it not provide a Secure Gun Storage or Safety Device. Take a look at BATF Questions & Answers.

What does the Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (CSLA) require of a licensee?

When selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to any person other than another licensee, any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer must provide a secure gun storage or safety device to that person for the handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 922(z)(1)]

While paragraph (1)'s command that "the transferee is provided" standing alone is arguably less than clear in its meaning as to who must provide the lock, exception (2)(D) to paragraph (1) allows for the licensee to provide on within 10 days if one is temporarily not available for reasons "beyond control of the licensee", such as a backorder.

(2)Exceptions.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—
. . . .
(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun.

See 18 USC 923(e):

The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke any license issued under this section if the holder of such license has willfully violated any provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation prescribed by the Attorney General under this chapter or fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees (except that in any case in which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee, the dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of the requirement to make available such a device). The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke the license of a dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing ammunition. The Secretary’s [1] action under this subsection may be reviewed only as provided in subsection (f) of this section.

It seems pretty clear that the CGA is referring to the dealer providing the device and not the customer.

[ef9boy88]

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...quire-licensee

So let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying here. I walk in to PPT an LC9, it has the FACTORY Ruger lock with it, you will still "have" to sell me another $10 lock (which by the way I typically see for $5 and have several that my local PD gave for free when all this started.) Because it has to be provided in the transaction?

[taperxz]

So let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying here. I walk in to PPT an LC9, it has the FACTORY Ruger lock with it, you will still "have" to sell me another $10 lock (which by the way I typically see for $5 and have several that my local PD gave for free when all this started.) Because it has to be provided in the transaction?

No, only if the handgun did not come with an OEM lock.

[NYT]

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...).

is the ffl "just guns"? i have had a similar experience with them in the past. i now do all my transfers at the gun range a few blocks away.

i did get the dirty from one of their employees, he straight up told me that its a way to make a bit more money from ppt transfers as they dont get a lot out of them.

[timeexposure]

is the ffl "just guns"?

At this point, I would rather not say who the FFL is. The word "just" is not part of the FFL's store name.
I'm still not convinced the FFL is doing anything wrong, technically speaking.

[NYT]

At this point, I would rather not say who the FFL is. The word "just" is not part of the FFL's store name.
I'm still not convinced the FFL is doing anything wrong, technically speaking.

without a doubt theyre doing something wrong from my pov as a possible customer. whether this practice is ok with you is the question.

[timeexposure]

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)!