For FFLs, about PPTs...

[juvethefish]

I would like to purchase a couple of guns from a friend. The problem is that the guns belonged to her now-deceased fiance. My friend is unsure if the guns are registered (but I assume that they were considering their spouse was active military).

I know I will have to go through a FFL at some point, but how would I go about obtaining these firearms legally?

Thanks in advance.

[FortCourageArmory]

Well, the most obvious obstacle I see is the firearms don't legally belong her. She doesn't have the authority to dispose of them unless she is the executor of his estate.

[halifax]

Fiance? If no one is contesting her right to "inherit" them and no one has reported the handguns stolen, she could sell them to you via a face-to-face transfer through an FFL dealer.

I'm only a dealer, not a lawyer though.

[kemasa]

The firearms could be transfered in many ways, but that does not make it legal. If the FFL knew the story, they should not conduct the transfer as she does not legally own the firearm.

If you want to do it legally, then the person's next of kin needs to allow it and the court/estate would need to transfer the firearms. If the person had no family, then legally the property would belong to the state.

[tenpercentfirearms]

The legal way is messy. The easiest way is to simply have her take them in as if she were the owner and PPT them. The less you tell the dealer the better.

I get the impression the DOJ really doesn't care about technicalities too much as long as guns are getting registered.

[kemasa]

Do you really think that it is a good idea to promote violating the law? Yes, the legal way is messy, but it is the way that it should be done.

In this case the CA DOJ may not care as it does not matter to them who legally owns it, but if the rightful parties find out and can prove that the FFL knew what the deal was, the legal liability would be great, as well as possible criminal charges from the local DA.

[Super Spy]

If there are legal heirs and they cooperate that would be the cleanest. If not the idea of the state getting anything is utterly reprehensible.....keep your moth shut and do as 10% suggests.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Do you really think that it is a good idea to promote violating the law? Yes, the legal way is messy, but it is the way that it should be done.

If you say so. Knowing what I know now about our state laws and the government, sometimes it is foolish to follow the law and smarter to just use common sense and get the job done. Of course your legal matters are your business and everyone must choose their own actions and face the consequences.

In this hypothetical situation, I am assuming that the deceased didn't have a problem with the fiance disposing of the firearms or at least she checked with the family. It would be a good idea for the purchaser to make sure this is the case.

[kemasa]

I think that you are missing the point in some respect. It is a bad idea to promote violating the law on a public forum, especially when your name is your business domain name.

You do know what happens when you assume things, don't you?

[tenpercentfirearms]

I think that you are missing the point in some respect. It is a bad idea to promote violating the law on a public forum, especially when your name is your business domain name.

You do know what happens when you assume things, don't you?

Again, if you say so. I don't mind telling people their options. I tell them what is legal and what is not. If they decide to do something illegal, I have nothing to do with it.

In the end, no one gives a damn except people on the web who think someone gives a damn.

[kemasa]

Except for the anti-gun people who come across posts where you suggest illegal acts and use it against the pro-gun side. I am sorry that you don't understand this and that it is important to consider this.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Except for the anti-gun people who come across posts where you suggest illegal acts and use it against the pro-gun side. I am sorry that you don't understand this and that it is important to consider this.

[kemasa]

How about you proving that anti-gun people have not printed out messages from forums and talked to elected officials and got them to change the law due to that?

It is not about PPT and dead lovers, it is about how firearms people are viewed and the clear sign that you don't care about the law.

And now, the proof that you choose to not read. You state "That is something you don't understand as a non-dealer who does not deal with the DOJ." This is a completely FALSE statement. Do I really need to point out the obvious to you which shows that it is false?

Why does it amaze you that there are a-salt weapons out there which are not registered? It does not suprise me at all. Did the CA DOJ send out a letter to everyone who has ever filled out a DROS form? Nope. Has the CA DOJ sent out a letter to everyone in the state, including people as they move into the state? Nope. So, how exactly would a person know that they are supposed to register the firearm unless they keep on on things in forums, email lists, etc. Many people don't know because they have not been informed of the change/addition to the CA Penal Code.

[tenpercentfirearms]

How about you proving that anti-gun people have not printed out messages from forums and talked to elected officials and got them to change the law due to that?

It is not about PPT and dead lovers, it is about how firearms people are viewed and the clear sign that you don't care about the law.

There you go again. I just did an exhaustive Internet search and found no evidence that anti-gunenrs have used web discussion board technicalty discussion to influence new legislation. Done. Now you are wrong and look dumb until you give an example that proves me wrong. When will you learn?

So how are we being viewed here? The guns are being run through the PPT process in compliance with general law. The anti gunners are going to run out and say that the proper executor of the estate didn't do it so that proves we can't be trusted to have guns as an invididual right to keep and bear arms? Are you listening to yourself.

NO ONE CARES ABOUT THIS BS! Only you and only me because I am bored. Everyone else is out shooting, getting laid, or watching a movie. Even the anti-gunners don't care about this. They just want to see all guns go away. They know they won't be able to convince America the reason why guns should go away is certain gun people did a PPT instead of going through the estate. Hell Feinstein even backed down from the AWB because she knew what a fight it was going to be. Are you telling me our discussion here of an extremely technical nature is going to convince legislators and the general public that we are out of control and lead to new legislation?

Get serious. No one cares about these hypotheticals except us and we only care because it is Saturday and too hot to go Geocaching.

[kemasa]

You are good!! You can do an exhaustive Internet search and find everything. You really should consider loaning out you services to law enforcement. Imagine being able to show that no one ever printed out something from a forum and used it. I bet you can even find Jimmy Hoffa!! Can you tell me what search engine you used to find out all this information? I gotta try it and see what I can find!! Then again, if you can't tell me what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, then perhaps your search was bogus.

The reality that you are wrong and I suspect that you are not even telling the truth about doing an exhaustive Internet search. You are willing to say or do anything in order to try to support your position.

What do you call it when someone takes property which is not theirs and sells it?

I am sorry that you don't get that promoting illegal acts is not a good idea.