Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[taperxz]

Except the CA DOJ does not know exactly how they were exempt, just that a LEO exemption was used and the FFL has NO means of knowing how the person received the firearm unless they play investigator.



If that is how they acquired it, but some LEOs can still sell them.



But the CA DOJ would have to investigate the type of LEO the person is, which I don't know that they have access to that information unless there is a database of LEOs. Some LEOs can buy and sell and others can not, but the FFL does not know how the person got the firearm and whether an exemption was used.



Yes, they would know if it was acquired by other means, but would they tell the FFL of that?

Completely get everything you are saying. What i am saying is that, what i posted is the ONLY way to enforce the law minus the newly exempted LEO stating how they bought the firearm.

DOJ absolutely has a data base of who LEO is and what their position is. I agree the law as written seems to prohibit an FFL from doing the transfer but in a court of law, there is no way the FFL could be convicted on the platform they left us on.

With that being said, it would surely put a newly exempted LEO on the spot for breaking the law that they have sworn to uphold. In other words they must be relying on the honesty of the newly exempted LEO to follow the law.

[kemasa]

So, is that an easy way for FFL's to not process any off rosters PPT?

No, because then they can charge you for that. It is just a way to get rid of CA FFLs, either by going out of business or moving out of state.

[kemasa]

Completely get everything you are saying. What i am saying is that, what i posted is the ONLY way to enforce the law minus the newly exempted LEO stating how they bought the firearm.

DOJ absolutely has a data base of who LEO is and what their position is. I agree the law as written seems to prohibit an FFL from doing the transfer but in a court of law, there is no way the FFL could be convicted on the platform they left us on.

With that being said, it would surely put a newly exempted LEO on the spot for breaking the law that they have sworn to uphold. In other words they must be relying on the honesty of the newly exempted LEO to follow the law.

Great idea, the FFL has to trust people in order to not violate the law.

I guess you have more trust in the courts being rational than I do. I think that they could and would convict a FFL. The FFL might win in the end, if you ignore the decades it takes and all the money it costs.

I am not sure that they really have a database which shows what the position that the person has.

Based on the wording of the law, those LEOs are not breaking the law by selling such a firearm, only the FFL is if they do the transfer. If the LEO lies and says that they bought it as a PPT or got it from their parent, how do you document that and how do you prove that?

[taperxz]

Great idea, the FFL has to trust people in order to not violate the law.

I guess you have more trust in the courts being rational than I do. I think that they could and would convict a FFL. The FFL might win in the end, if you ignore the decades it takes and all the money it costs.

I am not sure that they really have a database which shows what the position that the person has.

Based on the wording of the law, those LEOs are not breaking the law by selling such a firearm, only the FFL is if they do the transfer. If the LEO lies and says that they bought it as a PPT or got it from their parent, how do you document that and how do you prove that?

Why be so obtuese? I agreed with your previous post. I'm stating the absurdity of the law. The inability for an FFL to know what is actually true or not.

The law lends itself to a court of law defining the law. How else would you explain it without assuming the worst for the FFL? Logically, in court our lawyers would ultimately win. Ya, it costs money buy whats your solution?

[kemasa]

Why be so obtuese? I agreed with your previous post. I'm stating the absurdity of the law. The inability for an FFL to know what is actually true or not.

The law lends itself to a court of law defining the law. How else would you explain it without assuming the worst for the FFL? Logically, in court our lawyers would ultimately win. Ya, it costs money buy whats your solution?

You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

Yes, it is abuse and yes the FFL does not know what the truth is.

Why would you not assume it is the worst for the FFL since that is what the law says?

What would they charge a LEO with? It does not say that the LEO can not sell the firearm.

This then points back to making it as bad as possible for the FFL, putting a FFL in a no win situation where they either do an illegal transfer or they illegally refuse to do a CA PPT. That is the worst case since it is no win.

[taperxz]

You might want to refrain from personal attacks.

Yes, it is abuse and yes the FFL does not know what the truth is.

Why would you not assume it is the worst for the FFL since that is what the law says?

What would they charge a LEO with? It does not say that the LEO can not sell the firearm.

This then points back to making it as bad as possible for the FFL, putting a FFL in a no win situation where they either do an illegal transfer or they illegally refuse to do a CA PPT. That is the worst case since it is no win.

How is questioning you about being obtuse a pesonal attack?? Its a mannerism not an adjective of personal attack. Its a reference to your questioning my previous quote.

If an FFL can't transfer the firarm it goes without saying the LEO can't legally sell it under current CA law. Maybe you don't understand that perhaps?

[kemasa]

How is questioning you about being obtuse a pesonal attack?? Its a mannerism not an adjective of personal attack. Its a reference to your questioning my previous quote.

If an FFL can't transfer the firarm it goes without saying the LEO can't legally sell it under current CA law. Maybe you don't understand that perhaps?

I suspect you are the one who does not understand.

If a FFL were to transfer a non-roster handgun to a person who is not exempt, who is responsible for the violation of the law. The law clearly states that the FFL is the one who can not transfer the firearm in the case where the special class of LEO buys it and attempts to sell it. It does not say that it is illegal for the LEO to sell the firearm, does it?

[taperxz]

I suspect you are the one who does not understand.

If a FFL were to transfer a non-roster handgun to a person who is not exempt, who is responsible for the violation of the law. The law clearly states that the FFL is the one who can not transfer the firearm in the case where the special class of LEO buys it and attempts to sell it. It does not say that it is illegal for the LEO to sell the firearm, does it?

The buyer and seller are required to follow all CA gun transfer laws too. An illegal transfer is just that illegal. Just as if one were to transfer a gun in CA without the use of an FFL.

In other words the new law is an add on to existing law in regards to exempt handgun sales.

[kemasa]

So if you think that the CA DOJ will go after all three parties involved, I have a bridge to sell you. Read the CA PC and see who you think that they would go after.

[taperxz]

So if you think that the CA DOJ will go after all three parties involved, I have a bridge to sell you. Read the CA PC and see who you think that they would go after.

Newsflash.

It's illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person too. We have the luxury of a background check to avoid this.

I stated DOJ will need to monitor this type of sale via the background check on the firearm. If they don't, the law is unenforceable. The FFL can't know or can be lied to. So there is zero intent to break the law on the part of the FFL AND if DOJ has no record of the newly exempted LEO'S status then they can't even enforce the law. Under these circumstances, there is no way an FFL can be convicted of a crime. No intent, no proof of wrong doing on the part of the FFL AND negligence on the part of DOJ to not use the background check of the ALREADY registered firearm.

Your turn

[taperxz]

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.

[Junkie]

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.

[kemasa]

Newsflash.

It's illegal to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person too. We have the luxury of a background check to avoid this.

I stated DOJ will need to monitor this type of sale via the background check on the firearm. If they don't, the law is unenforceable. The FFL can't know or can be lied to. So there is zero intent to break the law on the part of the FFL AND if DOJ has no record of the newly exempted LEO'S status then they can't even enforce the law. Under these circumstances, there is no way an FFL can be convicted of a crime. No intent, no proof of wrong doing on the part of the FFL AND negligence on the part of DOJ to not use the background check of the ALREADY registered firearm.

Your turn

Quite funny. You still think that the DOJ won't go after the FFL.

[taperxz]

Quite funny. You still think that the DOJ won't go after the FFL.

Quite funny that you are still obtuse.

As I stated earlier, if they did they would lose in court.

Do you read sentences or whole paragraphs?

[kemasa]

Quite funny that you are still obtuse.

As I stated earlier, if they did they would lose in court.

Do you read sentences or whole paragraphs?

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.