DROS at 2 different FFL's

[halifax]

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.

kemasa,

I think you will find that here on CGN underground regulations are frowned upon. The DROS software is one implementation of regulations that isn't written to account for all that is not illegal. If the state says you must use their software but it doesn't allow you to do something that is not illegal then that is an underground regulation of sorts. For example, there is nothing illegal about adding long guns to a handgun sale but the DROS software doesn't allow for it. Poorly written software should not dictate what is or isn't legal; so many FFLs do it anyway because it really isn't illegal.

[kemasa]

Halifax,

I agree with you in regards to the DROS software. It does not always do what is proper and legal, but that is a different issue. In the past, there were separate forms for handguns and longguns, so perhaps that is where some of the issues come from. Multiple handgun sales is a serious problem and typically I have to call to get it corrected, which is a waste of my time, but there is a point to be made, so I always call and push them.

It is possible to try to justify one handgun and multiple long guns on a single DROS. That is far more unclear since the sale occurs at the same time and there is really the need for only one background check. One issue is that you are selecting either a handgun purchase OR a long gun purchase and they don't allow for the option of selecting both and their has never been that option as far back as I know. Even in the days of paper forms (still have my set of forms), there were two different forms and if you sold a long gun and a handgun, then two forms had to be submitted. I am not sure if that is detailed in the law.

But, what you say has nothing to do with adding long guns days after the initial DROS submission. The Feds, as far as I am aware, don't care about the number of firearms or the type, it is just a background check. The DROS, unfortunately, does more than just that. The DROS basically registers handguns, but I understand that it illegal. This has been a longstanding issue, but I doubt that it will ever be corrected.

[kemasa]

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.

See:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12070-12086

The CA DOJ said before that you can add firearms days after the initial sale?

[BONECUTTER]

See:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12070-12086

The CA DOJ said before that you can add firearms days after the initial sale?

Im familiar with that PC. It makes not mention of multiple purchases. It just says no firearm can be released until after 10 days of the application to purchase (read 4473) it makes no mention or DROS or any specific firearm. The 4473 says it can be modified until it is signed.

And yes the DOJ gave me the ok and the phone conversation went like this:
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ****. If I made and error and DROS 1 long gun when the gentleman really bought two and he is now here to pick up can I release it or do I have to submit a new DROS for the second rifle.
DOJ: You can release it there is no limit on multiple long gun purchases.
Me: Do I need to be concerned that the DROS form says one and the 4473 says two.
DOJ: No, you just need to make sure they forms have not been signed out and they don't take possession of the firearm or a new DROS will be needed. Handguns would need a separate DROS regardless.

Do I think I would get that same answer today.....maybe...depends on the person answering.

I understand some separate being overly cautious. Its fine. In this industry there is Legal, Safe, and Lawyer Safe. Of course Lawyer Safe would probably advise you to find something new. Playing safe is never a bad idea.

[tenpercentfirearms]

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.

Cite a specific penal code section that prohibits this. If you can't then it isn't breaking the law. Thank you for the warning and hopefully you have some code to back up your statements and not just what you think the law says.

See:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 12070-12086

The CA DOJ said before that you can add firearms days after the initial sale?

Sorry, you paint with a broad brush. Again, post a specific reference that shows adding guns to a 4473 or even a DROS is illegal. The best I can tell the number of long guns DROSed is plain and simple bean counting. That is it.

[kemasa]

And yes the DOJ gave me the ok and the phone conversation went like this:
Me: Hi, I'm calling from ****. If I made and error and DROS 1 long gun when the gentleman really bought two and he is now here to pick up can I release it or do I have to submit a new DROS for the second rifle.
DOJ: You can release it there is no limit on multiple long gun purchases.
Me: Do I need to be concerned that the DROS form says one and the 4473 says two.
DOJ: No, you just need to make sure they forms have not been signed out and they don't take possession of the firearm or a new DROS will be needed. Handguns would need a separate DROS regardless.

Do I think I would get that same answer today.....maybe...depends on the person answering.

Actually, I think that you would get the same answer today, based on specifically what you said. This is far different than what was suggested by others. You stated that you made a mistake in selecting the number of long guns, but that ALL were purchased on the original date. That is big difference than the person buying another firearm just before the transfer is completed and adding that additional firearm to the original purchase.

A clear case of apples and oranges.

[kemasa]

Cite a specific penal code section that prohibits this. If you can't then it isn't breaking the law. Thank you for the warning and hopefully you have some code to back up your statements and not just what you think the law says.
Sorry, you paint with a broad brush. Again, post a specific reference that shows adding guns to a 4473 or even a DROS is illegal. The best I can tell the number of long guns DROSed is plain and simple bean counting. That is it.

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

[halifax]

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

You keep saying he is breaking the law (I guess I am too) but can't cite the specific law. If it exists, I too will stop adding long guns.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Hmmm, if I don't take the time to go through the penal code and point out the specifics of how you are supposed to transfer a firearm, then it is not illegal? If that is how you want to deal with the law, then you are heading for a problem.

You are missing the point about the number used in the DROS. It is not bean counting. It can be used to show that you violated the law, especially with the comments that you have made in public. You can put any number in there and it really does not make any difference. As was stated by others, you can make a mistake and not put the correct number in there, but if you sell a firearm later and try to add it to a previous sale and DROS, then it can be used a evidence that you actually initially sold some number of firearms and then later added to it.

Do you happen to know the purpose of the drunk checkpoints? It is a scam really since the police have officers around the area to pull of those who violate the law in an attempt to avoid the checkpoint, which is why they often have cones very far back. In doing this, there is no issue as to whether the stop/search is legal as it does not actually involve the checkpoint.

So in other words you think I am violating the law by adding guns to a DROS, but you can't show which penal code section I am violating. You do realize that you have no credible arguement here right? So trying to advise me that I am heading into a problem when you have shown no clear evidence that I am violating any laws is pretty much pointless. So you have no point in the first place for me to miss.

Throw in some info about checkpoints and boy you think you are on a roll.

So again, either show in the law where you cannot add additional guns to a DROS or understand that if it is not prohibited by the state, you are entitled to free will. I do not need the government's permission to do anything, unless it is specifically prohibited.

What you are doing is spreading FUD until you can prove otherwise.

[kemasa]

In other words, you don't want to look at the Penal Code and figure it out yourself and you want to keep violating the law until someone delivers the specific section on a silver platter and even then, I suspect that you will reject it. Your claims that of what I can or can not show is false.

Can you show me that what you are doing does not violate any of the Penal Code sections and actually follows all of the required Penal Code Sections? The answer to that is no, you can not, because it seems that you have not looked at the penal code and if you do, I suspect that you will view it as you want to in order to justify your position.

The Penal Code specifies exactly how you are to do a firearms transfer. That means that if you do not follow that procedure, then you are not following the law. 12077 specifies how firearms are to be transfered and lists what needs to be sent for a handgun and separately lists what needs to be sent for a non-handgun. It specifies what a transaction is. It specifies the information to be sent specifically, so if you were to do a handgun and a non-handgun at the same time, it would not follow the procedures required as the information submitted would only be what is required for one. It says what "shall be", which does not mean that you could send additional information and have it qualify. The law is a bit strange that way.

As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

If you add a firearm, that is NOT a single sale, it is multiple sales unless it happens at the same time, that is a secondary sale.

Also, 12077 (d) (4) states what exactly a transaction is, which does NOT include handguns, which means that the sale at the same time of a handgun and a non-handgun are, in fact, considered separate transactions. If you try to group a handgun and non-handgun together, that would mean you are do following 12077. It also means that violates 12077 (d) (4) since you are not submitting the required transaction per 12077 (c) (1) and instead using a separate transaction per 12077 (b) (1).

[halifax]

In other words, you don't want to look at the Penal Code and figure it out yourself and you want to keep violating the law until someone delivers the specific section on a silver platter and even then, I suspect that you will reject it. Your claims that of what I can or can not show is false.

You came in here claiming that what some dealers were doing was illegal. It would make sense that you would need to be the one to provide the proof.

Can you show me that what you are doing does not violate any of the Penal Code sections and actually follows all of the required Penal Code Sections? The answer to that is no, you can not, because it seems that you have not looked at the penal code and if you do, I suspect that you will view it as you want to in order to justify your position.

Well why not? You are. Laws are always open to interpration. Ask any lawyer.

The Penal Code specifies exactly how you are to do a firearms transfer. That means that if you do not follow that procedure, then you are not following the law. 12077 specifies how firearms are to be transfered and lists what needs to be sent for a handgun and separately lists what needs to be sent for a non-handgun.

Yes it does and everything required for a firearm transfer other than a handgun is included in the requirements for a handgun transfer. (Note that recording the number of firearms that are not handguns is NOT a requirement).

It specifies what a transaction is.

Yes it does. "a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns"

And a transfer of firearms is not completed until transferor signs and dates the 4473. Only then is it a done-deal. In CA there is a minimum 10-day waiting period, so the window for a single transfer in CA is at least 10-days.

It specifies the information to be sent specifically, so if you were to do a handgun and a non-handgun at the same time, it would not follow the procedures required as the information submitted would only be what is required for one.

Again, everything required for a firearm transfer other than a handgun is inclusive in the requirements for a handgun transfer.

It says what "shall be", which does not mean that you could send additional information and have it qualify. The law is a bit strange that way.

What additional required information needs to be sent? Remember number of long guns is NOT a requirement.

As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

Yes, "any number of firearms that are not handguns" means multiple handguns require multiple record of sale documents. Nothing in here to forbid any number of long guns and a single handgun from being a single transaction.

If you add a firearm, that is NOT a single sale, it is multiple sales unless it happens at the same time, that is a secondary sale.

But it is a single transfer.

Also, 12077 (d) (4) states what exactly a transaction is, which does NOT include handguns, which means that the sale at the same time of a handgun and a non-handgun are, in fact, considered separate transactions. If you try to group a handgun and non-handgun together, that would mean you are do following 12077. It also means that violates 12077 (d) (4) since you are not submitting the required transaction per 12077 (c) (1) and instead using a separate transaction per 12077 (b) (1).

Again, I'm not seeing that language as forbidding a single handgun and any number of long guns on a single transfer.


IF the intended purpose of these laws is to prevent otherwise prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms and to register handguns then it follows that:

• A single Long Gun DROS provides the required background check for multiple long guns and the 10-day window provides for additional long guns to be added before the transfer is complete.
  
  
• A single Handgun DROS provides the required registration for the handgun AND the required background check for multiple long guns. Again, the 10-day window provides for additional long guns to be added before the transfer is complete.

THEN the spirt of the law has not been violated.

[kemasa]

Ok, let me explain my view and why I am bothering to reply.

First off, it does not matter what some person on some forum does or does not
prove. Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own actions. If the CA
DOJ claims that it is in violation, then you had better have a drop dead case
proving that you are correct, not just something you did not happen to see. It seems to me that some of the responses to this really amount to an attack, such as the claim that I am spreading FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urination_device or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD_(food) ? :-). It has not been proven that what I am saying is false and I have backed up my statements and my view does not conflict with the CA DOJ, whereas the attacker's view does conflict with the CA DOJ and they have not provided any proof that what they are saying is correct. The fact is that those who are suggesting to others that such things are legal will not be standing behind them should they get in trouble. I personally don't want to see FFLs lose their licenses.

Next, in the case of firearms transfers, there are laws regarding it and therefore when it specifies how the transfer is to be done, it tends to remove the concept of "if it does not say something" then you can do it. The law does not say that you can not paint over the forms nor that you can not store the forms on your property and bury them in some manner in which is makes it difficult for the records to be inspected as required. The law does not say that you can't make it difficult. However, as you say, when you look at the spirit of the law and how a judge would view that, you could have a serious problem. It is also not wise to tease a tiger, as has been shown. You also can not close your eyes and say that because you don't see anything, then you can do it.

This means that when you try to claim that it is legal to include a longgun with a handgun or add a longgun at a later time, which is contrary to what the CA DOJ says, then you need to provide proof that it is actually reasonable with respect to what the law states. For example, in the case of OLL, if it is not listed by name and it does not have the features, then it is not banned. It is not even semi-auto since you could produce a bolt or pump action upper for it. That would make the statement that OLL are not legal to be incorrect, as has been shown by the lack of action on the part of the CA DOJ to enforce the a-salt ban on OLL. You need to look at the laws, not what you think it should be.

Now, perhaps I have a warped sense of humor, but in the small view of things, I think that it would be a bit funny for a person to post that they are not following the law, that they are ignoring what the CA DOJ says in a public forum and have the state take action against them. Based on the nature of this forum, I suspect that law enforcement, including the CA DOJ, keep an eye on what is posted here. Especially, when you have people saying that they are doing what the CA DOJ says is not legal. It is also important to remember that your FFL requires that you also follow state and local laws. To make such statements is like standing in the middle of the target on a bombing range.

The problem that I have is when I look at the big picture. If said person could go to jail, fined and/or put out of business without any adverse effect on others, then it would be fine. Unfortunately, the fact is that the media will run a story stating that a firearms dealer was closed down due to illegally transfering firearms and/or not following the required waiting period, which makes all firearms dealers look questionable in the public eye and it also reflects poorly on firearms owners. Also, those in charge of enforcing the laws may make changes which will make it harder on all the other dealers. Imagine the inspection being changed so that ALL records have to be viewed and confirmed to ensure that a dealer does not do the action which is being described. They CA DOJ will be at your place for days. Why do you think that you have to spell out the number of firearms being transfered on the current 4473? No doubt it is because some FFLs were adding firearms after they signed it, which is illegal.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink. It says nothing about what happens if the horse drowns.

It is amazing how someone chooses to read things. As for adding a firearm, 12077 (d) (4) states "One firearm transaction shall be reported on each record of sale document. For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns." Playing with words and claiming that it is a single "transfer", does not make the single "transaction" and single "sale" to go away. This specifically states that the transaction can NOT include a handgun. That clearly prevents you from adding a longgun to a handgun transaction as it is TWO separate transactions, although you might consider it a single transfer. It also states that it is a single sale. The spirit of the law does not allow you to claim that a second independent sale is actually one sale. You can not select the bits and pieces that you want to ignore or warp into what you want it to be.

Based on this, how exactly can you claim that a single transaction can include a longgun AND a handgun???? Somehow I suspect you will still try to make that claim. I doubt that even the judge at your trial will convince you otherwise, sooner or later it will end up there, unless you plead guilty. Remember the jury will not be your FFL peers, but the random public, some of which are anti-gun.

Yes, if the law was reasonable, then you could do all of the things that you are suggesting and I agree that it the way it should be viewed, but that is not the way the law works (check out jury nullification and see how often that is mentioned to juries). In fact, there should not be any waiting period if you already own a firearm, especially if you own many firearms. The law SHOULD be what you say it should be, but the fact is that is NOT what is written. What is WRITTEN is what can be enforced.

The intended purpose of the law really does not matter. In the case of .50BMG ban, there is actually a problem with the law. I am sure that if you were to follow the letter of the law, you would not appreciate be charged by violating the spirit of the law.

You are claiming what the intended purpose of the laws, but what if the intended purpose was to harass firearms buyers, collect more money, etc., then your "spirit" of the law would completely fail as it would violated what was really intended.

I will keep an eye out for your story in the media :-).

[ke6guj]

such as the claim that I am spreading FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_urination_device or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD_(food) ? :-).

Umm, maybe the first suggestion when you search for FUD at wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_u...inty_and_doubt

[kemasa]

Ummm, maybe it is called "humor". Notice the ":-)".

[kemasa]

LOL. I just looked. The Penal Code makes no mention of any of that anywhere. So there you go. I looked and it doesn't exist.

Now it is your job to prove I am wrong. Man you are a debating genius!

Already did. I also bet that you did not actually look at all of the Penal Code.

Nice personal attack, but it does not help your position.