DROS at 2 different FFL's

[foxtrotuniformlima]

I think I know the answer to this but decided to ask anyway.

If you already have a long gun DROS started with an FFL and want to buy another long gun from a different FFL, do you have to start another DROS or can the second FFL piggy back on the first ?

[ke6guj]

new DROS. Two FFLs can't share one DROS.

[BONECUTTER]

^^^What he said.

You could always have it transfered to the first FFL to add on your 4473. But you will pay a fee for it.

[kemasa]

It was mentioned that the first DROS was already submitted, so there is nothing that can be done to avoid a second DROS. The DROS for a long gun asks how many firearms are to be transfered.

Also the 4473 has a new box in which it is asked how many firearms are to be transfered, which makes it harder to add additional firearms.

So, the answer is no.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It was mentioned that the first DROS was already submitted, so there is nothing that can be done to avoid a second DROS. The DROS for a long gun asks how many firearms are to be transfered.

Also the 4473 has a new box in which it is asked how many firearms are to be transfered, which makes it harder to add additional firearms.

So, the answer is no.

On gun numbers. The DROS does ask for the number of firearms. The DOJ has told me by phone you can reduce that number, but you can't increase the number. I asked why the inconsistency and didn't get a good answer. I said I think it is because you just want more DROS money.

So I ignore the DOJ on that one and simply go by federal law. Guns can be added and subtracted at will until the dealer signs the 4473. That isn't until the end of the ten day wait.

So in my store, we can add or subtract long guns all you want until I sign the 4473.

However, there is absolutely no mixing of two different FFLs. That is clear.

[kemasa]

if you add a firearm after the start of the waiting period, then you are not doing the proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold, which is a violation of the law. I am not sure that the BATF would like that either.

Reducing firearms is acceptable since the person can decide to not get a firearm. Adding is a different story and has different issues.

it is also important to realize that this is a public forum and that it is possible that the CA DOJ and anti-gun people are actively reading this, so it could be used against you and/or FFLs in general. Saying that you are ignoring the DOJ and perhaps breaking the law in a public forum is not a good idea.

[BONECUTTER]

if you add a firearm after the start of the waiting period, then you are not doing the proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold, which is a violation of the law. I am not sure that the BATF would like that either.

Reducing firearms is acceptable since the person can decide to not get a firearm. Adding is a different story and has different issues.

it is also important to realize that this is a public forum and that it is possible that the CA DOJ and anti-gun people are actively reading this, so it could be used against you and/or FFLs in general. Saying that you are ignoring the DOJ and perhaps breaking the law in a public forum is not a good idea.

I'm not aware of any such law. As said, the number of firearms thing is DOJ made up junk. They can not provide any reason why you can not modify it after the fact and mostly its just a "we want more money thing".

By your logic if someone buys a CMMG lower "proper waiting period for that firearm based on when exactly it was sold" and comes back 10 days later and wants to change to a stag the FFL broke the law.

Guess if you wanted to be parionoid when DROSing everyone you will just say 10 to be sure. Until they show this is illegal FFL's will continue to add after the fact. Like Wes said, Until the FFL signs out the 4473 its not done and can be viewed as a work in progress.

[kemasa]

Are you not aware of the law regarding the 10 day waiting period in CA? It is based on the purchase of said firearm, not the purchase of another firearm. Replacement is far different than adding an additional one.

If you don't like it, which I don't, then do something about it rather than just breaking the law. There are many stupid laws, not just with respect to firearms. Are you complaining to your representatives in order to try to get it fixed? You should be able to submit a DROS for a handgun and also have included long guns. Perhaps if enough FFLs push this issue it will be changed.

The DROS submission is quite broken, especially when it comes to charges for multiple handguns, but you can push them to get them to charge the correct amount. Been there, done that.

There is the ability to exchange a firearm for various reasons. Nice strawman, but it really does not apply in this case. For example, if you sold a firearm and it turned out to be defective, you can replace it with another one (different serial number, etc.).

Always saying "10" is also a bad idea since then you are giving false information to the CA DOJ, unless you always sell 9 junk guns, which then the receipt will need to match unless it is free (sales tax).

A couple of questions:

Are you an attorney?

Do you really want to claim that your reading of the law will stand up not only in court, but in the eyes of the CA DOJ & BATF?

Do you really want to play games and go through all that?

Do you really think that the CA DOJ does not read these forums?

If you are so sure of your "opinion", then call the CA DOJ and get it in writing. I would love a copy of that so that I could make changes like that legally. Otherwise, don't play fast and loose with the rules/laws and not expect to get burned. I am not willing to risk my business nor my freedom for such peanuts. Perhaps it will get you more customers in the short term, but what about the long term?

[BONECUTTER]

Are you not aware of the law regarding the 10 day waiting period in CA?

Yes, don't be silly.
They wait 10 days so where is the problem?
There is nothing in writing from the DOJ saying you can not add.
There are no laws broken otherwise the countless FFL's who do this would all be shut down.
If we listened to what the DOJ said OLL's would still not be sold here.
If you think you will get the to put anything in writing you are dreaming. They don't even put stuff in writing for DA's and Law enforcement agencies.
I could call them 5 time and get a different answer everytime.
I will keep doing what the law says I can.

No one is telling you to do something you don't feel comfortable with.

[kemasa]

If you sell a firearm on Monday, where does it say in the law that you can add a firearm sold on Wednesday? If you sell a firearm two days later and "add" it to the first one, then the waiting period on the second one will only be 8 days, not 10. That is violating the law. How can you claim that there was the required 10 day waiting period if you "add" an additional firearm, yet keep the 10 day waiting period for the original firearm? Quite clearly, if you add a firearm on the 9th day and release it the next day, there was no 10 day waiting period on *that* specific firearm. Yes, it is stupid and yes, you should be able to do that, but the current laws just don't support that position.

As to the countless FFLs who do this would be shutdown, I suspect that if the CA DOJ gets wind of this, they might start inspecting with this in mind. All they need to do is to get a printout of the number claimed and the compare that with the 4473 and bound book. Then, those countless FFLs may get shutdown. This is not a justification, just like claiming that it is not fair for a cop to give you a speeding ticket because "everyone" else was speeding.

No laws are being broken because everyone is doing it? They have just not been caught yet, just like the other speeders. When you get caught for doing that, please try that excuse and let me know how it works for you.

The law says that when you sell a firearm you need to submit the DROS and the waiting period is based on that. The law is quite clear on that. There is nothing in the law which says that you can add, which would be required in this case.

Ok, you say "I will keep doing what the law says I can", so show me where it SAYS that you CAN do that. I have never seen any law which says that you can do that and I have seen the law say what the requirements are, which goes against what you are saying. So, please show me where the law says that you can do that.

As for the OLL, there has to be a basis for the claim. I have talked to the CA DOJ about OLL in order to confirm that it is legal and it is. So, I am not sure of what you are talking about there.

One thing that I don't think that you are considering is that when you are inspected they look at general things. It is possible and quite likely that they would not catch all mistakes or violations. But, if they happen to read in a public forum that you are doing something which is not legal, then they will inspect with that in mind. In this case, checking the receipts and other paperwork will show what is going on and that will cause a problem for you. Also, a sting operation would work well in this case.

It is clear that you are missing my point. First, you don't want to do anything which will make FFLs look bad. Second, you really do want to admit to violating the law in a public forum. You really need to have a solid basis for what you are doing and as far as I can tell, you have no basis in law for doing what you are doing and therefore you are risking a lot. There is NO way I am going to do what you suggest (it would not even save me any money, only my customer, but I get all the risk) and further, I would greatly prefer your not harming the pro-gun cause by making suggestions which you can not support by the law. It really does not matter whether the DROS entry asks for the count or not as that will most likely be only used only to convict you. What matters is when the firearm was actually sold and the submittion of the DROS and the waiting period.

[BONECUTTER]

As Wes already said, Federal wise you are free to add and sutract even after say a NICS check has been done. Until you sign it it's not done.

There is nothing in CA law that says you can't that I have ever seen. If you find something feel free to post it and prove everyone wrong.

And FYI if you asked DOJ years ago about OLL they would tell you not to touch it that it will all be banned in two weeks.

[kemasa]

The 4473 says that you can add firearms until the seller signs it, so for the BATF it should be fine.

CA laws says that you have to submit a DROS when selling a firearm (under certain condition, ignoring transfers to other FFLs, etc.). It also specifies a waiting period after the sale of a firearm. Adding an additional sale of a firearm at the last minute violates that. For it to be legal, you would need to see something in the CA law which allows for that. Look at the law yourself regarding the requirements in selling a firearm and see where you can justify adding a firearm at the last minute.

I asked the CA DOJ years ago about OLL and did not get the answer that you did. Perhaps I asked differently. It was mentioned that they might add additional firearms to the list, but that would have caused issues since then there would have to be a grace period for those that currently owned them to register them. As far as I could tell, then did intend to add more, but the law became an issue if they had done that.

[BONECUTTER]

For it to be legal, you would need to see something in the CA law which allows for that.

I think this is where you and I disagree. Thats fine.

To charge me for something illegal there would have to be a law against it.

There is not law on the book that says its legal to UOC.....but, because there is not law against it....its legal.

To stay within the law you read what you can't do, there is no book of all the things you can....sadly.

[kemasa]

If there was no law regarding the transfers, then it would be legal, but the law states what the requirements are in order to transfer a firearm, which is why it would be required to specifically allow adding firearms after the DROS was submitted. If you do what you say, then you are not following the law regarding the transfer of a firearm.

It *should* be as you say, but that is not what seems to be in the CA Penal Code.

You are correct in other matters where the law can only prohibit acts and does not makes acts legal.

[BONECUTTER]

Can you site this code?

ATF says I can, CA doesn't say I can't.

And FYI when I called the DOJ about this years ago they said I was OK. Now, they say something different....how am I not surprised.