Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[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.

[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 ???

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[kemasa]

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

[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.

[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]

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.