Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[taperxz]

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

[PolishMike]

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.