Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[taperxz]

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

It to hard to go line for line on a phone

[kemasa]

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.

You just can't resist snide comments, can you?

Is it infinite stupidity to just claim it is not an issue?

The first step is to be aware that it can be an issue, rather than ignoring it.

I am not the one who claims to know everything, you are. You know that the FFL can not be charged, so there is nothing to worry about, so why are you asking me what should be done about something which is say is absolutely not a problem?

[kemasa]

It to hard to go line for line on a phone

That is funny since it is false, plus you didn't even try, you ignored every issue as I suspect you don't want to address any of them as it would harm your position.

[taperxz]

You just can't resist snide comments, can you?

Is it infinite stupidity to just claim it is not an issue?

The first step is to be aware that it can be an issue, rather than ignoring it.

I am not the one who claims to know everything, you are. You know that the FFL can not be charged, so there is nothing to worry about, so why are you asking me what should be done about something which is say is absolutely not a problem?

I never said an FFL can't be charged. I said it's probably destined for court.

I said it would be tough for a DA to convict if there was no intent and no way to know the sellers emplyment status

[taperxz]

That is funny since it is false, plus you didn't even try, you ignored every issue as I suspect you don't want to address any of them as it would harm your position.

I'm on an IPhone. It's impossible to. Comprehensively line item the way you did on a phone.

When I get back from my ranch and am on a computer I can articulate what I'm saying easier

[kemasa]

I never said an FFL can't be charged. I said it's probably destined for court.

I said it would be tough for a DA to convict if there was no intent and no way to know the sellers emplyment status

You said:

No DA is going to try to prosecute something that's not prosecutable in a court of law.

So how is that saying that it is probably destined for court if no DA is going to try to prosecute something that's not prosecutable in a court of law? That does not seem to be your saying that it is destined for court, quite the opposite.

You are now saying that it would be tough to get a conviction, which is quite different than what you said before. It is also just your opinion that a conviction is unlikely, but if the DA shows the law, documents that the firearm was illegal to transfer, then do you really think that a jury won't convict?

People get convicted based on breathalyzers. Do some research on that. The breath can give an indication of what the blood alcohol content is, but the machines use a general number to do the conversion, which is not accurate for everyone, yet people get convicted, in part because you are not allowed to bring up the issues with the machines. The same is true for radar guns and lidar (which calculates the speed based on the distance change).

I recall hearing a case where the person was found guilty, but was a bogus case. Unfortunately I don't remember the details, but then again, it seems that you are saying such things never occur.

I am glad you have faith in the so-called justice system. Remember that.

[kemasa]

I'm on an IPhone. It's impossible to. Comprehensively line item the way you did on a phone.

When I get back from my ranch and am on a computer I can articulate what I'm saying easier

Impossible? No. I have done it, but then again I have done the impossible numerous times, or so I have been told.

[taperxz]

Impossible? No. I have done it, but then again I have done the impossible numerous times, or so I have been told.

Youre probably right but convincing you that I agree with you in part as well as disagree isn't worth going through the trouble since I'm at my ranch, watching football and hunting deer over the next week.

I just don't want to take the effort while on vacation.

In fact I wouldn't reply to you now except for the fact that the 49ers just plain suck

[ap3572001]

Ok.
LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought WITHOUT USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ???

[kemasa]

Youre probably right but convincing you that I agree with you in part as well as disagree isn't worth going through the trouble since I'm at my ranch, watching football and hunting deer over the next week.

I just don't want to take the effort while on vacation.

In fact I wouldn't reply to you now except for the fact that the 49ers just plain suck

I honestly don't think that you even know what I am saying.

Have a good vacation.

[kemasa]

Ok.
LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought WITHOUT USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ???

First off, the law does not apply to all LEOs, only some. It seems that CA does not think everyone is the same, not even LEOs. Some are better and more entitled than others, the politicians being the most entitled, at least in their own minds.

If the LEO mentioned about is one of the newly added category with the limitation, then in the first case it is illegal to transfer and the second case it is not. That is the only difference. It is the government, it does not have to make sense. The wonderful politicians don't like people figuring out ways around their stupid and unconstitutional laws, so they keep trying to make changes to prevent it.

[PolishMike]

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.







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.

[rbetts]

No wonder your post counts are so high. . . .Both of you. . . . Sheesh!! Why not use PM's for your panty clumping. It would be the polite thing to do for the rest of us. . . .

[Chewy65]

Ok.
LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

LEO has an off roster handgun (that they bought WITHOUT USING THEIR EXEMPTION) and they PPT it to NON LEO.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ???

The state simply determined that it does not want the LEO exemption to be used to circumvent the roster.

[kemasa]

No wonder your post counts are so high. . . .Both of you. . . . Sheesh!! Why not use PM's for your panty clumping. It would be the polite thing to do for the rest of us. . . .

Nope, not the reason, but thank you for your interest. Feel free to ignore anything that you like. It is nice to know that you speak for everyone else. I guess I missed that election, but perhaps it was just in your mind and I prefer to stick with reality.