Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[kemasa]

Just to add, since the law is so new, it wouldn't surprise me if down the road, we see a transfer become denied by DOJ if a seller were to try this transfer.

The only ID required from a seller is a CA ID. CCW holders are in DOJs data base so I'm sure an LEO is too.

You are guessing and unless you have proof that the CA DOJ even has a means of knowing the details of a LEO's employment, then you are just spewing.

"so I'm sure an LEO is too"??? CCW is a bit different and based on your words you don't know that there is even a LEO database, nor what the details might even be, so the reality is that you are just making up things in order to try to defend your position.

[kemasa]

While there's no legal way for the LEO to sell it (to a normal person), it doesn't appear to me that the LEO is committing any crime if they attempt to sell it (through an FFL). It's the FFL committing the crime.

At least someone gets it.

[taperxz]

Do you bother to think at all? You petty personal attacks because you don't like what I am saying is childish. You don't seem to consider the way things really work. It would be different in an ideal world.

You are only guessing that they will lose in court and you know that there is no guarantee of that which numerous examples show that the correct result does not always happen, but even if they do it does not matter since what do you think will happen between the time the charges are files and it is resolved in court? Do you think that the FFL will still be in business? Do you think that the FFL should trust a public defender or have to pay large sums of money for an attorney?

Based on the actual CA PC, they could not charge the LEO, so either they would have to ignore enforcement of the law or they would go after the FFL. Do you really think that they would ignore the law? If you think that they would go after the LEO, what would be the charge since the LEO is not licensed as mentioned in the law? For anyone with any sense, the intent seems quite clear, it is to go after the FFL.

So go and think that nothing will happen to you and if you happen to be made an example, don't come back here and cry about it. I know you won't care if someone listens to you and then has a problem, nor will you step up and help with attorney fees.

You really need to go back and READ everything I posted.

Just for fun, based on the law, please explain to everyone HOW any DA could prove that the FFL would have knowledge that the seller was selling a gun purchased as an exempt class was an LEO. Off roster PPTs are done everyday and there is NO requirements for a seller to identify what they do for a living.

No DA is going to try to prosecute something that's not prosecutable in a court of law. It would be no different than delivering a gun to a prohibited person who DOJ approved on a background check or delivering a gun to a person who is undetermined.

If it's impossible to determine if that transfer is in violation, there is no crime.

Anyone can be arrested and charged for anything on any given day. Without intent or any way to avoid responsibility, you can't be convicted.

I suppose, on the PPT of any off roster handgun you could have everyone sign an affidavit that they are not restricted from selling the handgun but in your world, that wouldn't help either.

So I guess we are all just screwed and will have to stop doing all PPTs and explain to DOJ why. I'll just now suspect that EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER is employed as a newly exempted class so we cant do PPTs

[taperxz]

BTW. The only thing childish is how you stomp your feet and declare you are right.

Do you really think there is no record of LEOS on a data base at DOJ who is the chief law enforcement agency in the state and does a 10 day background check prior to delivering a firearm. Perhaps but perhaps not.

[PolishMike]

[taperxz]

Sure, but the speed limit has to be posted too.

[DolphinFan]

I PPT'd an off roster handgun today from a municipal police department. FFL didn't ask for LE's ID other than drivers license. I expect to pick up the handgun as is normal in 10 days.

[kemasa]

BTW. The only thing childish is how you stomp your feet and declare you are right.

Wow, do you really believe that? Do you really not see what you have posted? I am not the one being childish with the snide comments. You really need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. Talk about a person stomping their feet and declaring that they are right, that seems to apply to you.

Without any proof or basis you claim that the CA DOJ can't or won't go after a FFL, Amazing. It must be so nice to be able to see the future and know so much.

Do you really think there is no record of LEOS on a data base at DOJ who is the chief law enforcement agency in the state and does a 10 day background check prior to delivering a firearm. Perhaps but perhaps not.

You last line conflicts with the first.

Even if there is a database of LEOs, which is likely, they have to have access to use that in terms of the DROS, but more than that they also have to know the employer and the position. You want to claim all of that exists, but then you say perhaps but perhaps not, so you don't even know what you are saying is true, but you keep pushing it.

You say it is so, so prove it. I don't know if it exists or not, I don't know if it exists that they can even use it with respect to the DROS.

[kemasa]

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, well, at least when they charge others, but not when it comes to them.

[kemasa]

I PPT'd an off roster handgun today from a municipal police department. FFL didn't ask for LE's ID other than drivers license. I expect to pick up the handgun as is normal in 10 days.

There is no requirement that the FFL determine how the person selling the firearm received it, other than the law which limits the transfer of the firearm if they used the specific LEO exemption for some positions.

I also doubt that many FFLs have considered that CA PC and what it could mean.

[kemasa]

You really need to go back and READ everything I posted.

No, I don't, but you do.

Just for fun, based on the law, please explain to everyone HOW any DA could prove that the FFL would have knowledge that the seller was selling a gun purchased as an exempt class was an LEO. Off roster PPTs are done everyday and there is NO requirements for a seller to identify what they do for a living.

You are assuming that is a requirement, as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse and the intent is not always required, just that it was done. Explain why the law says what it does? Why does it say that the FFL can not transfer it when you say above that the FFL won't know?

No DA is going to try to prosecute something that's not prosecutable in a court of law. It would be no different than delivering a gun to a prohibited person who DOJ approved on a background check or delivering a gun to a person who is undetermined.

You mean like the case I heard about years ago where they were charging a woman for having an illegal so-called a-salt weapon which actually was a SKS? You might like they would not drop the case, likely because they knew they could get sued, and instead was pushing her to plead guilty to a lessor charge?

It is very different since there is a system in place to check the background of a person, whereas there is NOT a system to determine how the seller got the firearm, as least not for the FFL. So please tell me why the law says that the FFL can not transfer it when it is clear that the FFL can't know?

If it's impossible to determine if that transfer is in violation, there is no crime.

The CA DOJ and investigate and determine it and there is a crime.

In a related matter, you might want to consider sales tax issues. The CA FFL has to submit the correct sales tax amount. It does not matter if the receipt is not valid, if the BOE (now renamed) finds that it was false, the FFL still owes the correct amount. It does not matter that the FFL has no way of knowing, the FFL is still responsible. So tell me again how that when it is impossible to determine there can be no crime.

Anyone can be arrested and charged for anything on any given day. Without intent or any way to avoid responsibility, you can't be convicted.

Really? You can't be convicted? That fantasy is good to know. Too bad it is not the way things actually work, plus even if you are not convicted you can be out a lot of money and have lost your business.

I suppose, on the PPT of any off roster handgun you could have everyone sign an affidavit that they are not restricted from selling the handgun but in your world, that wouldn't help either.

Quit making things up. I suspect that would help, although it is not perfect, it is better than nothing.

In your world the FFL can never be convicted, so why worry about it, right?

So I guess we are all just screwed and will have to stop doing all PPTs and explain to DOJ why. I'll just now suspect that EVERY SINGLE CUSTOMER is employed as a newly exempted class so we cant do PPTs

All PPTs? Why? If the firearm is on the certified list, clearly you would not have an issue with that. Oh, you just want to make a strawman argument to knock it down and ignore the actual issue.

Or you could do what you want to do and just stick your head in the sand, ignore it and claim that there is nothing that they can do.

[taperxz]

Jeezus. You have to much time in your hands lol

You know EXACTLY what I mean.

We both have ver valid points. You just like to argue. I'm trying to solve a potential problem and you help nothing.

I ask again, who's side are you on?

[kemasa]

Jeezus. You have to much time in your hands lol

You know EXACTLY what I mean.

We both have ver valid points. You just like to argue. I'm trying to solve a potential problem and you help nothing.

I ask again, who's side are you on?

More snide comments from you.

I assume that you mean what you say. You say that the FFL can never be convicted, which you say means that the FFL can never be charged, which is FALSE. This is not a valid point by you.

You are trying to solve a problem? Really? By saying it isn't a possible problem???

You should ask yourself which side you are on since saying that it is nothing to worry about is not doing anyone any favors and certainly not helping anyone.

As you say, YOU need a life.

[kemasa]

Oh, yes, I noticed you did not want to address the issues that I raised with what you said. Typical.

[taperxz]

Tell us all Kemasa. What are you going to do about this situation? In your infinite wisdom, what should gun store owners do to protect themselves from breaking this law when the potential to not know who the seller is or where they work?

Or are we destined for court? All of us. It's gonna happen to someone and it will happen when they couldn't have known.