DROS at 2 different FFL's

[kemasa]

Interesting. Adding additional text to your previous post, but then you don't bother to talk about what you said you were going to.

The fact is that you don't want to change your view. What did Fineswine say? Facts will not change my opinion or something like that.

Just keep doing what you are doing and when/if you get charged, lose your license, etc., then we can talk about who was right and who was wrong (assuming that you still have Internet access).

Why not call the CA DOJ and tell them directly that you are ignoring them and that you are going to keep doing the transfers that way until they can prove to you that they are right and you are wrong?

[tenpercentfirearms]

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.

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!

So lets forget all of the previous posts and sum this up simply. Penal Code Section 12077(d)(4) states, "(4) 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."

To sum up, each DROS can only contain a single sale of any number of firearms that are not handguns. However, a single sale is not definied nor is the time frame of that sale definied in the penal code. Thankfully, federal regulations state, "Additional firearms purchases by the same buyer may not be added to the form after the sller has signed and dated it. A buyer who wishes to purchase additonal firearms after the seller has signed and dated the form must complete a new ATF Form 4473. The seller must conduct a new NICS check."

So a single sale of any number of firearms is terminated when a seller signs the 4473. As a result, additional long guns can be added until the transaction is complete at the time of the seller signing the 4473.

A person could claim that the transaction is terminated when the DROS form is submitted and the final number is on the DROS software for number of long guns. However, there is no evidence in penal code or code of regulations that supports this claim. Additionally is the transaction complete when no response has been received from DROS on the eligibility of the purchaser to own firearms? Second, there is a 30 day limit to an open DROS. If the transaction were over at the time of DROS submittal, then there would be no ten day wait and no 30 day expiration of DROS. It logically and lawfully makes more sense that the transaction is terminated as the federal 4473 states, when the seller signs the document.

In fact, DROS software should simply allow a dealer to edit and change the number of long guns sold as long as the seller has not signed the 4473. As has been stated in other threads, the DOJ should not be allowed to create legislation or regulation based on software limitations.

Prove that is wrong.

Second, the language is confusing and states that a transaction are firearms that are not handguns. That clearly means that one firearm transaction per DROS cannot include handguns. Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns? Or does it exempt handguns from the single transaction requirement? Does it prohibit you from adding any number of firearms to a hangun DROS?

I think the only thing that is clear is the penal code was poorly written in regards to handgun DROS being used as a long gun DROS. However, again, the 4473 is clear that a handgun, long gun, and other firearm can be included on the same 4473. If the DROS software simply had a section for handguns that said, "Additional long guns on this transaction" and had a number section there, would we be having this argument? Again, software limitations seem to rule this thread as the penal code does not prohibit it and the 4473 is actually quite clear on how to proceed.

Just keep doing what you are doing and when/if you get charged, lose your license, etc., then we can talk about who was right and who was wrong (assuming that you still have Internet access).

Why not call the CA DOJ and tell them directly that you are ignoring them and that you are going to keep doing the transfers that way until they can prove to you that they are right and you are wrong?

So how many audits do I need to go through and how many years of not being charged until you admit you are wrong? If the DOJ brings any of this up at an audit, I will fight it. And that is a big if as most of this is simply explained as "I accidently put one gun instead of two".

Again, most of this is so trivial no auditor gives a damn as long as you are trying to do your job. That is what some people don't understand about the DOJ. They are not a super-monster regulating beauracracy with all knowing and seeing powers and abilities. Most of this crap is so hard to prove that is why a dealer can do what they can do. It is also why the DOJ won't try and bust your balls over it.

[kemasa]

No, I am not taking bits and pieces. Point out where I am doing that. I am looking at the complete sections. Putting a handgun on a longgun transaction is not prevented by 12077d4. What prevents that is 12077c1. What 12077d4 prevents is adding a longgun to a handgun transaction. The penal code does not mention how many longguns can be added to a handgun transaction because a longgun transaction can NOT include a handgun, as stated, which makes it a separate transaction. You MUST report ALL transactions. If a longgun transaction can not include a handgun, then how exactly could you have one transaction which includes both? It does say that.

As to your claim of handguns and longguns, your comments don't really make sense. "Does that mean handguns can be mulitple transactions?" Yes, each handgun is a separate transaction, so that is multiple transactions. Did you mean to say can it be a single transaction? If so, the answer would be no, since you can not include all of the required information for each handgun.

12077 (d) (4) makes mention of a single sale. If you add an additional firearm,
do you go back and modify the original sales receipt, including the one that
you give the customer?

Please explain to me what makes a sale a different sale. It seems that under your view, once you have sold a customer something, it could all be considered the same single sale.

I think you are getting confused with what the BATF 4473 FirearmS Transaction is vs. what the CA firearm transaction is. In this case it does not matter what the Feds consider the end of the transaction to be. Apples and Oranges. Please show me proof that what the Feds considered the transaction to be is the same as what CA considers the transaction to be. I might consider a firearms transaction to include multiple handguns, since from my point of view it is a single sale, but CA considers each handgun sale to be a separate transaction and requires a separate DROS. It seems to me that under your view, you should be able sell a second handgun, perhaps not submitting a separate DROS, but in any case add that to the original 4473 and claim it to be one transaction since the Feds say that the transaction is not done until you sign it. That would present a problem with recording the waiting period on the DROS form, if you don't wait 10 days.

As to how long, it is the case where it can only be proven positively (when you are charged), not negatively because you are not caught. Tell you what, you call the CA DOJ and tell them what exactly you have been doing, give them the proof of what you are doing and if you are not told to stop it and/or charged, then I will admit that I am wrong. Care to try that? It should not be a problem if you are so confident in your position.

I have called the CA DOJ and have always received consistant answers. Perhaps because I ask specific questions and understand that each case can be different and the answer to one may not apply to a similar case (such as selling two or more longguns at one time and not correctly entering the number being different than selling another longgun later and trying to add it).

You did not prove anything and your claim of what I said is not correct. I said to prove that you could do what you are doing and follow the law. As I also said, I don't see anywhere that the law says that I can't paint the forms afterwards. Do you think that is legal and acceptable?

The penal code section does prove my position. You are trying to weasel word things to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and one sold on Friday can be a single sale. You also go on to try to use the BATF 4473 to try to make it somehow apply to the CA DROS in the same way. That just does not work as there are different rules and requirements.

[kemasa]

Quite clearly you have not looked at the penal code section due to your comment "Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns?".

Please go read the complete 12077 penal code section. You will find that penal code sections are divided up into parts. That means that 12077 (d) (4) applies to 12077 (d), not 12077 (c). If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was. The language, when read in the complete penal code section, is not confusing, at least not in the way that you are claiming.

The DROS software is supposed to follow the law. Because the law says that the longgun transaction can not include a handgun, that prevents the DROS software from being changed so that it can do something which the law does not allow. Yes, the law is stupid and you should be able to DROS one handgun and any number of longguns, but due to the restriction of what a longgun transaction is, that can not be done at this point in time.

Again, the 4473 does NOT apply to CA Law.

As you know, the audit do not really cover everything. It is fairly quick and if they don't happen to notice this issue, then it will not be discovered until they have reason to investigate, such as posting on a public forum as to what you are doing. I suspect that you will need only go through one more audit to get this resolved.

As to a CA transaction, a DROS firearm transaction is completed after having the DROS submitted, waiting 10 days and not receiving any response to not complete the transaction AND the buyer comes in and completes the transaction by signing all the forms. It is NOT a single step.

[tenpercentfirearms]

No, I am not taking bits and pieces. Point out where I am doing that. I am looking at the complete sections. Putting a handgun on a longgun transaction is not prevented by 12077d4. What prevents that is 12077c1. What 12077d4 prevents is adding a longgun to a handgun transaction. The penal code does not mention how many longguns can be added to a handgun transaction because a longgun transaction can NOT include a handgun, as stated, which makes it a separate transaction. You MUST report ALL transactions. If a longgun transaction can not include a handgun, then how exactly could you have one transaction which includes both? It does say that.

Sorry, I didn't follow any of that. The main reason a long gun transaction cannot include a handgun is because handguns are registered by make, model number, and serial number. Additionally, 12077(d)(4) says you cannot do any number of handguns.

However, it does not say a handgun DROS cannot include long guns. Period. It says a transaction is a "single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns." So if handguns are not considered a transaction, what in the hell are they? 12077(d)(4) says only one transaction per DROS. If handguns are not a transaction, then you are not limited to putting one per DROS. This section is not consistent or logical. We know we are limited to one handgun every 30 days from other penal code sections, but this section makes no sense.

As to your claim of handguns and longguns, your comments don't really make sense. "Does that mean handguns can be mulitple transactions?" Yes, each handgun is a separate transaction, so that is multiple transactions. Did you mean to say can it be a single transaction? If so, the answer would be no, since you can not include all of the required information for each handgun.

Why is each handgun a separte transaciton? Because of 12077(d)(4)? No. 12077(d)(4) only deals with firearms that are not handguns. Handguns are limited in other PC sections and the one every 30 days sections. And as you state, you must register handguns by make, model, and serial number.

12077 (d) (4) makes mention of a single sale. If you add an additional firearm,
do you go back and modify the original sales receipt, including the one that
you give the customer?

I do not make sales receipts until the merchandise is sold. I make sales orders when a guy starts the ten day wait. The transaction is not finished until he picks up. Until he takes possession of the merchandise, they can still make payments and add other accessories. Only when they leave the building with their merchandise do they actually buy the product.

Please explain to me what makes a sale a different sale. It seems that under your view, once you have sold a customer something, it could all be considered the same single sale.

Until the customer leaves the building with the merchandise, it is the same sale. So you can pay start a long gun DROS on two long guns and only pay one off. When you come back in to pick up, you pay the other one off and walk out with both. However, this process is pointless as the penal code nor the 4473 makes any mention of how to run my books.

I think you are getting confused with what the BATF 4473 FirearmS Transaction is vs. what the CA firearm transaction is. In this case it does not matter what the Feds consider the end of the transaction to be. Apples and Oranges. Please show me proof that what the Feds considered the transaction to be is the same as what CA considers the transaction to be. I might consider a firearms transaction to include multiple handguns, since from my point of view it is a single sale, but CA considers each handgun sale to be a separate transaction and requires a separate DROS. It seems to me that under your view, you should be able sell a second handgun, perhaps not submitting a separate DROS, but in any case add that to the original 4473 and claim it to be one transaction since the Feds say that the transaction is not done until you sign it. That would present a problem with recording the waiting period on the DROS form, if you don't wait 10 days.

Again, you are really limiting yourself here. If you want to make headway in this argument, stop making comments like the one in bold. The absense of any language by the State of California on when a transaction begins and ends means that federal law takes precedence. So the fact that the state makes no mention of it, means I must comply with federal mandates. Now, you have to go search through all of the penal code to prove I am wrong. You are now stuck trying to defend a position that requires you to prove me wrong.

You are no different than a prosecutor. You are claiming I am violating the law, so show me which law I am violating? If you cannot, then you cannot convict me. It really is that simple.

My defense is that the 4473 clearly states until I sign the 4473, additional firearms can be added. The PC 12077(d)(4) prohibits me from putting more than one transaction per DROS. That customer's transaction was not completed until I signed the DROS 12 days later. I am following federal law. You must show specifically that Calfiornia law prohibits this. Until you do, you have no case.

As to how long, it is the case where it can only be proven positively (when you are charged), not negatively because you are not caught. Tell you what, you call the CA DOJ and tell them what exactly you have been doing, give them the proof of what you are doing and if you are not told to stop it and/or charged, then I will admit that I am wrong. Care to try that? It should not be a problem if you are so confident in your position.

Is this a legitimate challenge? Should a business owner be expected to call and challenge the DOJ on what they think is lawful conduct in a confrontational manner in order to prove themselves correct? Second, if the DOJ is incorrectly reading the law just as they did in the case of OLLs and underground regulations, is it logical to bring attention to yourself and invite malicious prosecution? Should you expect a dealer to front the legal costs of proving themselves correct outside of a normal audit? Is it a logical or smart business decision to go looking for trouble?

Try making a fair challenge for proof.

You did not prove anything and your claim of what I said is not correct. I said to prove that you could do what you are doing and follow the law. As I also said, I don't see anywhere that the law says that I can't paint the forms afterwards. Do you think that is legal and acceptable?

I guess you don't know the penal code that well, not even the section right before the one we are talking about.

PC 12077(d)(1) Dealers shall use ink to complete each document.
(2) The dealer or salesperson making a sale shall ensure that all information is provided legibly. The dealer and salespersons shall be informed that incomplete or illegible information will delay sales.

Painting the 4473 would make it illegible. Second the 4473 clearly states that you must retain the records for 20 years. If you were to paint over the record, you would be destroying it and thus violating the law, unless you are waiting until after the 20 years. You might want to use a better example next time as it just proves you don't know what you are talking about.

The penal code section does prove my position. You are trying to weasel word things to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and one sold on Friday can be a single sale. You also go on to try to use the BATF 4473 to try to make it somehow apply to the CA DROS in the same way. That just does not work as there are different rules and requirements.

A firearm sold on Monday and a firearm sold on Friday are a single sale of any number of firearms if sold to the same person and sold before the seller signs the 4473. PC 12077(d)(4) does not define how long a transaction lasts, but Form 4473 does and that is until the seller signs the 4473.

You think that a transaction ends when the day is over. You have yet to show anywhere in the penal code that supports your position and that same position also conflicts with the clear instructions in the 4473.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Quite clearly you have not looked at the penal code section due to your comment "Does that mean that you cannot DROS handguns?".

Please go read the complete 12077 penal code section. You will find that penal code sections are divided up into parts. That means that 12077 (d) (4) applies to 12077 (d), not 12077 (c). If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was. The language, when read in the complete penal code section, is not confusing, at least not in the way that you are claiming.

LOL! Sorry, but you just made a complete fool of yourself. The handgun information is section (b).

(b)(1) For handguns, information contained in the register or record of electronic transfer...

(c) is for firearms other than handguns

c)(1) For firearms other than handguns, information contained in the register or record of electronic transfer...

and (d) applies to both sections (b) and (c) as it states

(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:

It probably is not a good idea to try and "educate" me on how the penal code reads when you just completely screwed it up. Wow. Let's read what you said one more time just for laughs.

If you had read the penal code section 12077, you would know that the part dealing with handgun transaction is 12077 (c), not 12077 (d) and you would not be making such a statement for you would realize how foolish it was.

I honestly feel bad for you right now.

The DROS software is supposed to follow the law. Because the law says that the longgun transaction can not include a handgun, that prevents the DROS software from being changed so that it can do something which the law does not allow. Yes, the law is stupid and you should be able to DROS one handgun and any number of longguns, but due to the restriction of what a longgun transaction is, that can not be done at this point in time.

You are correct, it prohibits doing handguns on long guns. Still nothing prohibits long guns on handguns. Sorry.

Again, the 4473 does NOT apply to CA Law.

Really? Can CA law violate federal law? Can I pick and choose which ones I want to follow? Of course not. I must follow both. The federal law clearly defines when a transaction ends. State law does not. Done.

As you know, the audit do not really cover everything. It is fairly quick and if they don't happen to notice this issue, then it will not be discovered until they have reason to investigate, such as posting on a public forum as to what you are doing. I suspect that you will need only go through one more audit to get this resolved.

We will see.

As to a CA transaction, a DROS firearm transaction is completed after having the DROS submitted, waiting 10 days and not receiving any response to not complete the transaction AND the buyer comes in and completes the transaction by signing all the forms. It is NOT a single step.

Wow! We agree. When the seller signs the 4473, the transaction is complete. So if you want to add more guns in between, it is still the same transaction. I knew you would come around.

[kemasa]

Yes, I know that you did not follow any of that since you are not reading and understanding what is written. Based on this, it seems quite easy to say that people should not listen to what you are saying.

12077 makes sense if you bothered to read it. You keep making the same mistake over and over again. Even with my telling you what mistake you are making, you keep doing it. I am not sure of how to get you to read and understand. I suspect it is like hitting you head against the wall, it feels so good when you stop. Then again, it is also fun to see how deep of a hole a person can dig themselves.

Ok, let's try this real simple. 12077 is made up of parts. Parts like your front door, your window, etc. Each part relates to something different. 12077(d) applies to longgun purchases. 12077(c) applies to handgun purchases. That is why 12077(d) does not involve handguns, but more specifically it prevents handguns from being included because of 12077 (d) (4).

Handguns transactions: 12077(c)

Non-handguns transactions: 12077(d)

Get it?

Handgun ARE considered a transaction, a separate transaction, covered, in part, by 12077 (c).

This is yet another example of the problem: "If you want to make headway in this argument, stop making comments like the one in bold." You do not understand that what the Feds consider to be a transaction is different, not the same, etc. as what CA considers it to be with respect to firearms. The reason I said what I did is because you seem to think that something on the 4473 applies to CA in how things are viewed. It doesn't.

I have already showed you what you are violating, 12077. You don't want to listen, read or anything else. You may say that your single sale is something, but that does not mean that CA agrees with that. Just like the difference between the Feds and CA. You go and tell CA that you can use the Fed's definition of what a transaction is and see how far it gets you.

Please show me where the 4473 talks about the DROS and requirements of the DROS submission. There is a section for recording the information of the background check, but not the specifics of the DROS. Also show me where the 4473 says that you can add an additional handgun in CA. The simple fact is that it doesn't.

A business owner should be able to read and understand the laws in which they are controlled. You don't get that 12077(d) applies to non-handguns and that 12077(c) applies to handguns, so in this case it is clear that the force of the law needs to be brought down on you in order for you to understand this. I strongly suggest that you contact an attorney to go over this before it is too late for you.

Yes, it is a legitimate challenge. Prove me wrong. Prove that the CA DOJ will not tell you that you are wrong and/or take action against you. I would love to do what you are doing, if only it was shown to be legal. You can do this and make a name for yourself.

Painting the forms would just make it difficult to read. It all depends on what you paint it with. Ok, the law says that you must use ink and that it must be legible. Does that mean that I can use ink which is only legible when viewed with infrared or UV? Would that be legal?

If you want to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and a firearm sold on Friday are a single sale, then you are going to have some explaining to do. Most reasonable people would not consider that to be a single sale, even if you don't pick everything up.

Let me ask you this. I come in and buy a rifle, a box of ammo and a gear bag and pay the full price of everything. Must I leave the ammo and the gear bag until I pick up the rifle? Do I need to take everything at once? You said that "Until the customer leaves the building with the merchandise, it is the same sale". So what is it if the customer leaves with part of the merchandise? If the customer has to leave with everything, then could I buy a rifle and a gear bag and not ever take the gear bag so that I could keep buying rifles as single sale and never have to do another longgun DROS?

Again, you try to put words in my mouth. Where did I ever sale that the transaction ends when the day is over. That is clearly false and I never said that. There is a big difference between transactions and sales.

[kemasa]

Ok, so I made a mistake regarding the section, but at least I can read the
section. I had written down some of the section numbers and did not go back to
confirm it. Look at the comments that you have made and the simple mistake that
I made is nothing.

Selling another firearm is another transaction. Again, see what a transaction is defined in the law in CA.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, so I made a mistake regarding the section, but at least I can read the
section. I had written down some of the section numbers and did not go back to
confirm it. Look at the comments that you have made and the simple mistake that
I made is nothing.

Selling another firearm is another transaction. Again, see what a transaction is defined in the law in CA.

Sorry your mistake is critical to this discussion. (b) applies to handguns, (c) applies to firearms other than handguns, and (d) applies to both. Your whole argument is wrecked. Not to mention you called me a fool and implied I was ignorant for not understanding the difference when it was actually you that are still wrong on it. That is pretty critical to your credibility on understanding this discussion.

It is you who doesn't get it. It is true, you can only do one transaction per DROS. However, a transaction is defined as a single sale of any number of firearms other than handguns. You can do any number of long guns on a single transaction. The CA PC does not define when that transaction ends. Federal 4473 does as when the seller signs the 4473. Done.

There is nothing in the PC that states you cannot use a handgun background check for a long gun background check. It says you cannot use a long gun check for a handgun, but it simply doesn't go the other way.

We could ask for a DOJ field reps interpretation on this, but they are not lawyers or judges. Just another brick in the wall.

[kemasa]

(4) 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.

This means that you can not report more than one firearm transaction on a single DROS.

What is a firearm transaction? Well, the second sentence makes it clear it is a single transaction for non-handguns if it is a single sale, loan or transfer for any number of non-handguns. For handguns, each firearm is a transaction.

So, each handgun is a separate firearm transaction. Any number of non-handguns are a separate transaction. Only one firearm transaction may be reported per DROS. That means if you have a handgun and a longgun, that is two separate firearm transactions and so it must be reported separately with separate DROS submissions.

That takes care of the longgun on the handgun DROS. The only way you can add additional non-handguns to an existing DROS is to try to claim it is the same sale.

[kemasa]

Interesting. I received this email:

tenpercentfirearms has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - DROS at 2 different FFL's - in the FFL's Forum forum of Calguns.net.

This thread is located at:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193222&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by kemasa)---
A business owner should be able to read and understand the laws in which they are controlled. You don't get that 12077(d) applies to non-handguns and that 12077(c) applies to handguns, so in this case it is clear that the force of the law needs to be brought down on you in order for you to understand this. I strongly suggest that you contact an attorney to go over this before it is too late for you.
---End Quote---
How do you feel right now making this statement?

Yet, I do not see the message anywhere. Perhaps I am missing it or perhaps someone is posting and editing the message to remove things that they don't want.

Yeah, I made a mistake on the sections, but the simple fact is that it still reads that each firearm transaction is to be reported on a separate DROS and only a single sale, loan or transfers of multiple non-handguns can be considered as a single transaction. There is no way you can consider a handgun and a longgun to be a single transaction as it is written.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Yes, I know that you did not follow any of that since you are not reading and understanding what is written. Based on this, it seems quite easy to say that people should not listen to what you are saying.

12077 makes sense if you bothered to read it. You keep making the same mistake over and over again. Even with my telling you what mistake you are making, you keep doing it. I am not sure of how to get you to read and understand. I suspect it is like hitting you head against the wall, it feels so good when you stop. Then again, it is also fun to see how deep of a hole a person can dig themselves.

Ok, let's try this real simple. 12077 is made up of parts. Parts like your front door, your window, etc. Each part relates to something different. 12077(d) applies to longgun purchases. 12077(c) applies to handgun purchases. That is why 12077(d) does not involve handguns, but more specifically it prevents handguns from being included because of 12077 (d) (4).

Handguns transactions: 12077(c)

Non-handguns transactions: 12077(d)

Get it?

Handgun ARE considered a transaction, a separate transaction, covered, in part, by 12077 (c).

As has been shown, you don't get it. (b) for handguns, (c) for firearms other than handguns, and (d) for both.

This is yet another example of the problem: "If you want to make headway in this argument, stop making comments like the one in bold." You do not understand that what the Feds consider to be a transaction is different, not the same, etc. as what CA considers it to be with respect to firearms. The reason I said what I did is because you seem to think that something on the 4473 applies to CA in how things are viewed. It doesn't.

The 4473 is completely tied into how California sees things. California cannot violate federal law. Or put another way, if California law does not specify what to do, then you must follow federal law. Done.

I have already showed you what you are violating, 12077. You don't want to listen, read or anything else. You may say that your single sale is something, but that does not mean that CA agrees with that. Just like the difference between the Feds and CA. You go and tell CA that you can use the Fed's definition of what a transaction is and see how far it gets you.

Easily done. DOJ, CA law does not define when a transaction ends, so I used federal law. Until you show where the penal code defines when the transaction ends, you have no case. Period.

Please show me where the 4473 talks about the DROS and requirements of the DROS submission. There is a section for recording the information of the background check, but not the specifics of the DROS. Also show me where the 4473 says that you can add an additional handgun in CA. The simple fact is that it doesn't.

Since it doesn't exist, you are not required to follow rules that don't exist. Seems pretty simple to me. However, I also understand that (b) applies to handguns, (c) applies to firearms other than handguns, and (d) applies to both. Something that has escaped some people around here.

A business owner should be able to read and understand the laws in which they are controlled. You don't get that 12077(d) applies to non-handguns and that 12077(c) applies to handguns, so in this case it is clear that the force of the law needs to be brought down on you in order for you to understand this. I strongly suggest that you contact an attorney to go over this before it is too late for you.

I repeat myself. (b) applies to handguns, (c) applies to firearms other than handguns, and (d) applies to both. It appears this advice was more for yourself than me. How laughable.

Yes, it is a legitimate challenge. Prove me wrong. Prove that the CA DOJ will not tell you that you are wrong and/or take action against you. I would love to do what you are doing, if only it was shown to be legal. You can do this and make a name for yourself.

I get the feeling you aren't willing to do anything without government permission. I just read the law, but that is because I can read and see that (b) is for handguns, (c) is for firearms other than handguns, and (d) is for both. You will be waiting for confirmation before you just do what is legal. And that is if your DOJ masters decide to be honest with you.

Painting the forms would just make it difficult to read. It all depends on what you paint it with. Ok, the law says that you must use ink and that it must be legible. Does that mean that I can use ink which is only legible when viewed with infrared or UV? Would that be legal?

Now you are just getting desperate. Stick to the subject. Obvisouly the forms must be legible. If you want to push the envelope on that and paint them, go for it. This is a distraction from your glaring mistakes.

If you want to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and a firearm sold on Friday are a single sale, then you are going to have some explaining to do. Most reasonable people would not consider that to be a single sale, even if you don't pick everything up.

I don't care what reasonable people think. I care what the law says. The law says one transaction per DROS. The law sales a single sale of any number of firearms other than handguns is a transaction. California law does not specify when a single sale ends. Federal law specifices when I sign the 4473. What you or any reasonable person thinks is irrelevant. The law is clear in this case.

Let me ask you this. I come in and buy a rifle, a box of ammo and a gear bag and pay the full price of everything. Must I leave the ammo and the gear bag until I pick up the rifle? Do I need to take everything at once? You said that "Until the customer leaves the building with the merchandise, it is the same sale". So what is it if the customer leaves with part of the merchandise? If the customer has to leave with everything, then could I buy a rifle and a gear bag and not ever take the gear bag so that I could keep buying rifles as single sale and never have to do another longgun DROS?

Again irrelevant. If I sell you a case, I put it on its own sales receipt and your guns stay on a sales order until pick up. You would have been better off saying, "What if a guy buys a half a box of ammo?" My simple reply is, "I only sell complete boxes of ammo or if they want to put a down payment on a full box, they can take it all when they pay it off." I can easily sell gun cases separately from long guns and furthermore gun case sales are not restrcited in penal code.

Again, you try to put words in my mouth. Where did I ever sale that the transaction ends when the day is over. That is clearly false and I never said that. There is a big difference between transactions and sales.

I will quote you.

You are trying to weasel word things to claim that a firearm sold on Monday and one sold on Friday can be a single sale. You also go on to try to use the BATF 4473 to try to make it somehow apply to the CA DROS in the same way. That just does not work as there are different rules and requirements.

You said I would be wrong to sell a gun on Monday and sell a gun on Friday and say they were the same transaction. Obviously your use of different days implies that you think transactions are over at the end of the day. If you are actually saying something else, please tell us when the transaction is over. Better yet, simply show us the California Penal Code or even written CA DOJ directives that state when a transaction is over. If you can do that, then you can prove the case that I am violating the law. Until then, you have no case.

You see instead of relying on a reasonble person's definition of a transaction, I actually rely on written federal guidelines. When I sign the 4473. If you knew the difference between (b) being for handguns, (c) being for firearms other than handguns, and (d) being both, you might understand this concept.

[tenpercentfirearms]

(4) 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.

This means that you can not report more than one firearm transaction on a single DROS.

What is a firearm transaction? Well, the second sentence makes it clear it is a single transaction for non-handguns if it is a single sale, loan or transfer for any number of non-handguns. For handguns, each firearm is a transaction.

So, each handgun is a separate firearm transaction. Any number of non-handguns are a separate transaction. Only one firearm transaction may be reported per DROS. That means if you have a handgun and a longgun, that is two separate firearm transactions and so it must be reported separately with separate DROS submissions.

That takes care of the longgun on the handgun DROS. The only way you can add additional non-handguns to an existing DROS is to try to claim it is the same sale.

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.

[kemasa]

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.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Interesting. I received this email:

tenpercentfirearms has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - DROS at 2 different FFL's - in the FFL's Forum forum of Calguns.net.

This thread is located at:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193222&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************

---Quote (Originally by kemasa)---
A business owner should be able to read and understand the laws in which they are controlled. You don't get that 12077(d) applies to non-handguns and that 12077(c) applies to handguns, so in this case it is clear that the force of the law needs to be brought down on you in order for you to understand this. I strongly suggest that you contact an attorney to go over this before it is too late for you.
---End Quote---
How do you feel right now making this statement?

Yet, I do not see the message anywhere. Perhaps I am missing it or perhaps someone is posting and editing the message to remove things that they don't want.

Yeah, I made a mistake on the sections, but the simple fact is that it still reads that each firearm transaction is to be reported on a separate DROS and only a single sale, loan or transfers of multiple non-handguns can be considered as a single transaction. There is no way you can consider a handgun and a longgun to be a single transaction as it is written.

You should have been patient. I decided my small response was insufficient and now you can read my longer response that pretty much mocks your entire diatribe about the differences between (b),(c), and (d). Instead of paying attention to what you are doing, you are trying to school me on intellect and lawyers, leaving your work sloppy and making you look foolish.

So instead of worrying about what I say, you think my deleting and re-doing a post means something. It doesn't, except you look pretty silly telling me what I should be doing when you are obviously lacking.