DROS at 2 different FFL's

[tenpercentfirearms]

This is just a simple attack and it is false:

"I get the feeling you aren't willing to do anything without government permission. "

I am not willing to gamble my freedom or my business with strange readings of the penal code. Quite clearly the penal code is difficult to read. That means that in the controlled area of firearms, it is best to not make things up if you want to stay in business and/or keep your freedom.

If you want to define what a "single sale" in some way, then perhaps you should check with the CA DOJ to see how they define it, just to make sure that you are not making a mistake.

I rest my case. I read the penal code and know what it says about a transaction. Didn't you just tell me that a gun dealer needs to know how to read the penal code if they want to stay in business? Now you are saying the code is too confusing and it is best to just ask the DOJ what they think. I call that asking for permission. What if they just feed you a line of BS with no basis in the law? You will just follow exactly what your master says. I am reading the code and becoming smarter.

But seriously, lets let bygones be bygones. I am not even running long guns on a handgun DROS. That was all hypothetical for me. I might be changing long gun numbers, but I still feel comfortable doing so as you have yet to show where the penal code defines a transaction is over and the 4473 is clear on when it is over. That is one I would be more than happy to fight them on, if they want. I doubt they care.

This debate just serves to help us be more educated and be smarter dealers for it. I think we have spent enough time on it today.

[kemasa]

The problem is (d) is not clarifying what a hangun transaction is. It only states that a transaction cannot include handguns. Can you fathom that the code is poorly written? Yes, you cannot include handguns on long gun transactions. However, you state, "For handguns, each firearm is a transaction." Where does it state that? It simply doesn't. They definie a long gun transaction, but they do not define a handgun transaction. Since they do not define a handgun transaction, then we could interpret that a handgun transaction could also satisfy a long gun transaction. I think that is the part you are missing.

Read the first sentence in (d).

The second sentence, it does NOT state that a transaction can NOT include a handgun at all. It states that it is to be considered a single firearm transaction if it is a single sale AND does not include handguns. Than means that each and every handgun is considered a separate firearm transaction, but that it is considered a single transaction for non-handguns if all of the conditions are met.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Read the first sentence in (d).

The second sentence, it does NOT state that a transaction can NOT include a handgun at all. It states that it is to be considered a single firearm transaction if it is a single sale AND does not include handguns. Than means that each and every handgun is considered a separate firearm transaction, but that it is considered a single transaction for non-handguns if all of the conditions are met.

Yes it does. It clearly says, "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 want take out some of the extra wording. "For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single sale...of any number of firearms that are not handguns." Or, "For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single loan of any number of firearms that are not handguns." Or, "For purposes of this subdivision, a "transaction" means a single transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns."

12077(d)(4) does not apply to handguns. Therefore handgun transaction are not definied. If they were, then they would probably state you cannot run a long gun transaction on a handgun transaction. However, since they did not, no such prohibition applies.

Final statement, the penal code is a flipping mess! As you have stated, dealers should err on the side of caution and do what they feel is best. If you don't want to change the DROS long gun number and make customers re-DROS, no problem. If you just cross out the number and make sure the 4473 is correct, go for it.

In the end I bet you a beer no one but us gives a damn and this will never come up on an audit, even if I told them to look at it!

[ke6guj]

IThis debate just serves to help us be more educated and be smarter dealers for it. I think we have spent enough time on it today.

This.

It appears that both sides are set in what they believe. Don't let this get personal guys. Wouldn't want to lose anybody.

[kemasa]

I rest my case. I read the penal code and know what it says about a transaction. Didn't you just tell me that a gun dealer needs to know how to read the penal code if they want to stay in business? Now you are saying the code is too confusing and it is best to just ask the DOJ what they think. I call that asking for permission. What if they just feed you a line of BS with no basis in the law? You will just follow exactly what your master says. I am reading the code and becoming smarter.

But seriously, lets let bygones be bygones. I am not even running long guns on a handgun DROS. That was all hypothetical for me. I might be changing long gun numbers, but I still feel comfortable doing so as you have yet to show where the penal code defines a transaction is over and the 4473 is clear on when it is over. That is one I would be more than happy to fight them on, if they want. I doubt they care.
...

I said that the penal code is difficult to read and that it is best to ask if you have questions. To jump to the conclusion that I have to ask permission and to use the wording "master" is insulting, not to mention perhaps racist.

i call and ask. If what they say does not make sense, I will look at the law and ask again and push the issue. I have had to explain to a BATF agent why it could be a problem if the person paying for a firearm was not the person filling out the forms (strawman purchase).

You can not use the 4473 definition of a transaction. As you well know, each handgun purchase is considered a transaction under CA law, but you can (under certain conditions) put multiple handgun purchases on a single 4473. That means you have multiple CA transactions on a single Federal 4473 transaction.

In order to add longguns, you need a clear understanding of what the penal code means when it says a single sale, loan or transfer. For example, if you go into a fast food place and order a burger, then go back to the counter and decide to order fries, that is two separate sales. I strongly suspect that the CA DOJ and local DA would consider a sale of another firearm on another day to be a separate sale. You could justify it if it was on the same day, but not later. I am not trying to push this issue with you to be mean or anything other than trying to keep you out of trouble. I really don't want to see another FFL go down in flames. If you can get a clear understanding of what a single sale is, because it is written in the law, and if it fits with what you do, then that is great and we all can benefit by that definition. On the other hand, if you end up in jail and/or out of business, who does that help? The rest of us will have to pay taxes to support you while you are in jail.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I said that the penal code is difficult to read and that it is best to ask if you have questions. To jump to the conclusion that I have to ask permission and to use the wording "master" is insulting, not to mention perhaps racist.

If you want to make it racist, that is your choice. You are grasping at straws.

i call and ask. If what they say does not make sense, I will look at the law and ask again and push the issue. I have had to explain to a BATF agent why it could be a problem if the person paying for a firearm was not the person filling out the forms (strawman purchase).

Then we are on the same page.

You can not use the 4473 definition of a transaction. As you well know, each handgun purchase is considered a transaction under CA law, but you can (under certain conditions) put multiple handgun purchases on a single 4473. That means you have multiple CA transactions on a single Federal 4473 transaction.

Actually I did not know that each handgun purchase is considered a transaction uner CA law. Please quote the penal code where it staes that. Are you saying I cannot sell a guy a matching set of Ruger Vaquero pistols on the same day and let him DROS them separately in order to comply with the one handgun every 30 day rule? Where does it prohibit that? Again, you are making assumptions based on common sense or some sort of perceived logic. When dealing with the penal code, assume nothing! It must be written down specifically.

In order to add longguns, you need a clear understanding of what the penal code means when it says a single sale, loan or transfer. For example, if you go into a fast food place and order a burger, then go back to the counter and decide to order fries, that is two separate sales. I strongly suspect that the CA DOJ and local DA would consider a sale of another firearm on another day to be a separate sale. You could justify it if it was on the same day, but not later.

I don't sell burgers. I sell guns. What a burger place does has nothing to do with me. However, to play your silly little game, what if I keep an open tab? Does Tahoe Joes run your credit card after you order your steak, or can you have desert and have it added on too?

What commn sense, McDonalds, or what you think should happen has nothing to do with the sale of firearms. It is this simple. Show us a defnition of what the CA DOJ thinks is a single sale. Period. It is that simple. So far you have nothing. I have what the feds say. Who is the jury going to follow?

I am not trying to push this issue with you to be mean or anything other than trying to keep you out of trouble. I really don't want to see another FFL go down in flames. If you can get a clear understanding of what a single sale is, because it is written in the law, and if it fits with what you do, then that is great and we all can benefit by that definition. On the other hand, if you end up in jail and/or out of business, who does that help? The rest of us will have to pay taxes to support you while you are in jail.

Again, do you think I am going to go to jail for adding long guns onto a DROS? Where in the penal code does it specify the penalty phase of this? It doesn't. Worst case scenario I lose my license. Big deal. Again, your underlying tone of fear of the DOJ is why I challenge you. You are not comfortable doing anything without their permission. You have to get a 100% before you will do it. That is fine. You might be smarter for it. I personally will just stick to reading the law and making my own interpretations.

The single sale is not over until I sign the 4473. Until we see penal code that says differently, that is what a reasonable person would assume based on federal guidelines. What a DOJ agent makes up over the phone does not count.

[grimmreaper]

hey good job wes i am going to come up tomorrow for some burgers!

[kemasa]

If you want to make it racist, that is your choice. You are grasping at straws.

How is one to view your "master" comment? It denotes slavery.

Actually I did not know that each handgun purchase is considered a transaction uner CA law. Please quote the penal code where it staes that. Are you saying I cannot sell a guy a matching set of Ruger Vaquero pistols on the same day and let him DROS them separately in order to comply with the one handgun every 30 day rule? Where does it prohibit that? Again, you are making assumptions based on common sense or some sort of perceived logic. When dealing with the penal code, assume nothing! It must be written down specifically.

We have been through this already. Why do you submit two DROS if it is a single transaction? The transaction is submitting the DROS and since you do it twice, it would be two transactions. It would be a single sale though.

I don't sell burgers. I sell guns. What a burger place does has nothing to do with me. However, to play your silly little game, what if I keep an open tab? Does Tahoe Joes run your credit card after you order your steak, or can you have desert and have it added on too?

It is a single sale, just like if a customer were to walk around your store and pick things up. I doubt that you would let them leave with items and come back later and pay.

What commn sense, McDonalds, or what you think should happen has nothing to do with the sale of firearms. It is this simple. Show us a defnition of what the CA DOJ thinks is a single sale. Period. It is that simple. So far you have nothing. I have what the feds say. Who is the jury going to follow?

The Feds do not speak of a single sale and their definition of a transaction is different.

Again, do you think I am going to go to jail for adding long guns onto a DROS? Where in the penal code does it specify the penalty phase of this? It doesn't. Worst case scenario I lose my license. Big deal. Again, your underlying tone of fear of the DOJ is why I challenge you. You are not comfortable doing anything without their permission. You have to get a 100% before you will do it. That is fine. You might be smarter for it. I personally will just stick to reading the law and making my own interpretations.

Each penal code lists what the violation is, infraction, misdemeanor or felony. There are situation in which it can vary. Certain violations can be charged as a misdemeanor OR felony, the DA's choice. In some cases you need to track down what it would be as you need to find the start of the code section. Do you think that you can violate the law and have nothing happen to you? Sometimes you will get a warning, other times they like to make an example of you.

You can go to jail for a misdemeanor, but that is less than a year.

Think again if you think that the worst case is just losing your license. There have been people who have gone to jail for illegal firearms transfers. Intent is an important aspect. A simple mistake is one thing, but if they think that you intentionally and willfully violating the law, then they tend to come down harder.

The single sale is not over until I sign the 4473. Until we see penal code that says differently, that is what a reasonable person would assume based on federal guidelines. What a DOJ agent makes up over the phone does not count.

The 4473 says NOTHING about a single sale, so how do you tie that into it? The 4473 transaction is different than CA too, so that does not apply either.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, you win. You do not base any of your definitions on law, but your own personal intepretations absent of any citations. You like to compare gun transactions to burger transactions. You also seem to think that you can violate the law because the government thinks you violated the law, and not by any actual violation of a written law. You do not understand the concept of the separation of powers that if the state does not regulate against it, then the federal rules apply and vice versa.

Yes your attitude of only doing what the government allows you to do is like servitude or slavery. If you think slavery is racist, then that is your problem as not just blacks have ever been slaves and I won't be baited into your false logic that my mocking your desire to please your masters somehow has something to do with race. Slavery in a modern context only has to do with freedom, unless you choose otherwise. And that is your choice and a side bar for you to try and gain traction after your (b), (c), (d) debacle.

Your point has been made and I have found it lacking as I have clearly stated with references to code. We can move on now.

[Rudolf the Red]

Nobody has asked me to do this yet. As far as I am concerned, It's a new sale. Pure CYA on that one. As kemasa said, the only time and $ savings is to the customer. I am not cheaper than other places, just better. My clients understand the hoops I jump through to provide them the service that I do. That's why they come back. I always counsel long arm buyers to get all they want at once to save money on DROS. Handguns are one per month anyway.

[kemasa]

Actually I did not know that each handgun purchase is considered a transaction uner CA law. Please quote the penal code where it staes that. Are you saying I cannot sell a guy a matching set of Ruger Vaquero pistols on the same day and let him DROS them separately in order to comply with the one handgun every 30 day rule?

This brings up an interesting question. This is perhaps another aspect to this, but I need to confirm it, so let us say that instead of the Ruger Vaquero, it is a Ruger GP100, just to be clear.

Do you consider this a single sale? The firearms are transfered on different days, so the leave you place on different days. At least the number of CA firearm transactions would match the number of number of Federal firearms transactions :-).

Now, let us change this a bit, but just a little. The buyer has a C&R FFL and a CA certificate of eligibility, but the firearm stays the same Ruger GP100.

Is this a single sale? The firearms would be transfered on the same day and leave your store on the same day, so it should be. But with respect to CA, you would need to submit two DROS, which means that it is two CA firearm transactions. Do you fill out two 4473 so that it matches in terms of firearm transactions or do you only fill out one? If you fill out one, then you have a single sale, two CA firearm transactions and a single Federal firearm transaction.

Another question on a "single sale":

If a customer comes in and buys and pays for 5 Ruger 10/22 rifles, but you only have 2 in stock and the customer wants to pick up the rifles asap as they come in and are available, so you submit a longgun DROS and order 3 more rifles. After 10 days the customer comes in to pick up the first two rifles. After 20 days from when the customer first came in, two more of the rifles comes in and after a total of 40 days, the last rifle comes in.

How many sales were there?

How many firearm transactions were there?

How many DROS would you need to submit based on this?

How many 4473 would you need to submit based on this?

If the customer were willing to wait to pick up the rifles as long as possible, how many DROS would need to be submitted? How many 4473 would need to be submitted?

Based on what you have said, it seems like you would consider this three sales since the customer would leave three times with merchandise, but it is in fact a single sale.

[kemasa]

Ok, you win. You do not base any of your definitions on law, but your own personal intepretations absent of any citations. You like to compare gun transactions to burger transactions. You also seem to think that you can violate the law because the government thinks you violated the law, and not by any actual violation of a written law. You do not understand the concept of the separation of powers that if the state does not regulate against it, then the federal rules apply and vice versa.

You are quite confused. You do not understand what a single sale is. The Feds do not define it nor do they use that term, so you can take anything on the 4473 and apply it to that term.

I do not think that you can violate the law because the government thinks you violated the law. That is completely false. You just don't understand the penal code which applies.

I pointed to the specific sub-section of the penal code (12077) where it clearly (at least to some) states that each firearm is a separate transaction, with the exception that multiple non-handguns when done as a single sale, loan or transfer is considered to be a single firearm transfer. If you submit two DROS, then it is clearly two firearm transactions.

I am sorry you did not understand the concept of sales when I used the burger example, but it is a completly false statement that I think that firearm transactions are like burger transactions. When it comes to sales, it is the same though. You can buy two burgers at the same time and it is a single sale. If you buy them separately, then it is two separate sales. I could try to explain more, but it is pointless.

Yes your attitude of only doing what the government allows you to do is like servitude or slavery. If you think slavery is racist, then that is your problem as not just blacks have ever been slaves and I won't be baited into your false logic that my mocking your desire to please your masters somehow has something to do with race. Slavery in a modern context only has to do with freedom, unless you choose otherwise. And that is your choice and a side bar for you to try and gain traction after your (b), (c), (d) debacle.

Your attitude is offensive and wrong. You have no idea of who I am and what I feel. I already pointed out to you that when I was inspected by the BATF, the agent claimed that I had to turn in all my records prior to my move, but I investigated, contacted others and proved that the agent was wrong.

The government is not my "master" and that is just a personal attack on me with no basis in reality. I do follow the law as I don't want to risk my business or my freedom. You can play fast and loose with the law, perhaps you will get away with it, perhaps not.

Yeah, I made a mistake on which sections dealt with handguns and which were longguns, but it is a minor point and I can at least read and understand 12077 (d)(4). I also know that in the state of California that each handgun is a separate firearm transaction and that multiple non-handguns sold at the same time is considered a single firearm transaction.

Your point has been made and I have found it lacking as I have clearly stated with references to code. We can move on now.

Your claim of what a single sale is completely without merit and makes no sense. Using that definition will cause problems for you sooner or later.

[kemasa]

Nobody has asked me to do this yet. As far as I am concerned, It's a new sale. Pure CYA on that one. As kemasa said, the only time and $ savings is to the customer. I am not cheaper than other places, just better. My clients understand the hoops I jump through to provide them the service that I do. That's why they come back. I always counsel long arm buyers to get all they want at once to save money on DROS. Handguns are one per month anyway.

Actually, any one is free to answer the question as to their views on what a single sale is. Personally, I think it might help if others stepped up and expressed their opinion on the matter.

I don't consider it CYA, it is just a separate sale from the first one. I might consider it a single sale if the customer did not leave, but I prefer to have it all decided before submitting the DROS. As was stated, the number of longguns listed on the DROS is only used as evidence against you for the most part. If you ordered an additional firearm, then it would help to show that it was actually a single sale and could be combined.

I have had customers buy multiple rifles and say that they are thinking about buying another rifle, so I have told that it is best to wait until they decide and do all of them at once in order to save money on the DROS. I try to save the customer money, but not by my doing something wrong. I tell my customers the same thing as Rudolf the Red, which ends up with me storing firearms for them (no, I do not charge them).

Handguns are only one per month (30 days) under certain conditions. If the person has a C&R FFL and a CA certificate of eligibility, then they are exempt from the one gun per month, even if it is not a C&R firearm.

[kemasa]

Here is something to think about tenpercentfirearms:

You say that you don't see how the penal code allows handguns to be sold (numerous times). That means that either (A) you are not reading the section correctly or (B) it is actually illegal to transfer handguns and you need to stop doing it to avoiding breaking the law until you can determine how to legally transfer handguns.

If it is (B), then you will have made many anti-gun people happy since they have wanted to ban handguns and it will show that you are smarter than all the lawyers in California.

If it is (A), then you need to figure out where you went wrong.

Since it seems to be legal to transfer handguns, it tends to point in the right direction. I am willing to give you a hint: 12077(d)(4) is split up into two parts. The first sentence and the second sentence. The first sentence really just applies to handgun transactions and the second applies just to non-handgun transactions. If you look at it that way, then handgun transfers are legal.

In other silly comments, you state that you must not be breaking the law because you have not been caught. In similar (non) logic, that means that murder is legal if the person who committed the murder has not been caught, especially if they have talked to the police (similiar to your inspections). Now, if the person who killed another goes on trial and it is found to not be murder, manslaughter, etc., then they have not actually violated the law.

[glockwise2000]

Could someone hand over the popcorn? This is interesting.

I hope this only stands as words cause we don't want to lose any of you. A lot of people needs your services.