Processing PPT from Exempt to Non-Exempt

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[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.

[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.

[BONECUTTER]

The law says that the FFL can't process it:

Not that the LEO can't sell it. The FFL does not have a means of knowing.

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

"To ensure compliance with PC 32000 (C)(1) we will not be able to process private party transfers of non-roster handguns without proof that said firearm was not acquired via PC 32000 (B)(6)"

[kemasa]

Cool you can buy but not sell. And if you do we can charge you with this crime......

Who can they charge? The FFL or the LEO?

The law says that the FFL can't process it:

(c) (1) Notwithstanding Section 26825, a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) and a person who is not exempt from the requirements of this section.

Not that the LEO can't sell it. The FFL does not have a means of knowing.

[kemasa]

Perhaps not. A background check on the firearm is performed on serial numbers. I would think that the exemption to sell to the newly classified would show that in the DROS.

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.

The exempt buyer would be FSC exempt so showing a status as a LEO of some sort, as an LEO their name would be in a data base showing they are some type of LEO and the law would only allow newly purchased off roster guns as part of the the new Penal code.

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

This all seems like a hassle but, DOJ could track that gun purchased to the newly exempted LEO's and then deny the purchase during the 10 day wait to someone they can't sell that gun to.

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.

They could also decipher if the gun was bought under the new law or if it was obtained through other means like a previous PPT or other means like brought in from out of state ect.

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

[kemasa]

So those that can are :

CHP
City Police Departments
County Sheriff Departments
Department of Correction Officers
Federal Sworn Peace Officers (FBI, Marshall, Flight Officer)

Well, it is not that easy since there are many ways the person could have acquired it.

Remember the law states what you can't do, not what you can.

These people can't IF they acquired it using the exemption, but not if they acquired it by other means:

[kemasa]

The problem is that it states that the FFL can't do the transfer. That makes it sound like the FFL will have problems if they do, maybe even if they do in good faith (if someone lies for example).

Yes, that is a major problem as it seems to indicate that a FFL has to be an investigator without the ability to determine it and if they refuse to do the CA PPT, then they can have problems as well. Not sure that it would hold up in court, but it would be expensive to find out. As well, the CA DOJ does not know whether it applies or not.