PPT Nightmare

[edgerly779]

Buyers should be aware if they can pass dros or not. Always use ffl that releases on undetermined if possible.

[Uglyd]

OP, walk away. you owe him nothing and have broken no laws. this idiot gonna hire a lawyer over a few hundred dollars? LOL, NOOOOPE!!

[ugimports]

How is the new FFL going to help you? They can't legally do the PPT with how it's logged into their book and how the firearm arrived.

[Garv]

Can the buyer do anything to obtain the gun or get it sold at this point?

[sfe187]

When things all settle, please update the user name and the FFL that sent the gun. lots on here would like to know for future references.

[M1NM]

How is the new FFL going to help you? They can't legally do the PPT with how it's logged into their book and how the firearm arrived.

True. Sent to new FFL by/for the owner/buyer. He just needs to go to the FFL and pay the FFLs transfer/receiving fee and the DROS fee.

[edgerly779]

Looks like the failure is on whoever had the firearm sent to another ffl. That queered the deal.

[Russian Bot]

Next time get the buyer to sign a letter that you charge a 50% return fee if they fail dros

But he didn't fail DROS, the issue here is that the FFL doesn't release on undetermined.

[Russian Bot]

MAN this is scary on multiple levels.
1. Neither asked about policy on undetermined. (Apparently from the comments a lot of you have no clue what that means.)
2. FFL A shipped to FFL B instead of returning it to the seller or re-DROSing it with buyer. WHAT?!?!
3. All the "If he can't pass a DROS" comments, lots of people who can pass a DROS get undetermined, just ask the guys at Turners gun counter guys.
4. Ive seen a specific gun come back undetermined even though the accompanying guns came back cleared on the same 4473 does that mean that this gun can't pass a background check?


OP, I wouldn't give him a refund either at this point. I would make sure all communications are written as well, and be very careful what and how you say things. I kinda of feel like the FFLs in question should be outed as well although the receiving FFL may have had no clue what he was receiving.
Hopefully you guys are able to get it squared away would be kind of funny but also annoying if he gets cleared this time around, but I've heard horror stories of Turners running people through 3 or 4 times.

[Dvrjon]

Just need some advice. Not sure if I'm going crazy.

I did at PPT as a seller at FFL. The buyer comes back as undetermined but it passed the 30 days. FFL wouldnt release to him. After a month, the guy starts blowing up my phone. No call received from FFL.

I was willing to pick up firearm and go to his requested FFL that will release on undetermined, but he had the firearm shipped from FFL to his requested FFL. FFL was very annoyed with him, rightfully so.

I agreed to do the DROS again at his requested FFL, but he changed date to meet up multiple times and now all of a sudden he is asking for his money back.

He's all upset that I took his "money and never completed the transfer." He's saying I did something illegal by spending money before the "finalization of sale." Its been 2 months......... It was a lot of money so I dont want to leave him hanging, but at this point I'm getting fed up. He texts me late/early morning.

Not sure if he has a case asking for a refund, especially if the firearm is still technically under my name. I just want to do everything by the book.

Any advice?

I apologize, but being old, and extraordinarily dense (ask my wife), I often turn to the black law statute to try to understand the issues presented.

Allow me to muddle along....Please feel free to clarify and correct, as needed, but, please cite your authorities to help me learn.

Thanks. And, as Simon Cowell used to say on American Idol, "Off you go!"

28050. (a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, in accordance with this chapter in order to comply with Section 27545.

(b) The seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain possession of that firearm. {The gun must remain with the FFL.}

(c) The dealer shall then deliver the firearm to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, if it is not prohibited, in accordance with Section 27540. {Seems like the dealer's discretion on "undetermined" is overrun by the statute. That's not permissive language. If the transfer is "not prohibited", but is only "undetermined" it appears that the FFL must release. Interestingly, the DOJ recognizes only the following DROS statuses (scroll down): Delayed; Undetermined; Rejected; Denied. "Not Prohibited" doesn't exist . One can only surmise that the categories of "Delayed" and "Undetermined" constitute "Not Prohibited". }

(d) If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, the dealer shall forthwith, without waiting for the conclusion of the waiting period described in Sections 26815 and 27540, return the firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm. The dealer shall not return the firearm to the seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm when to do so would constitute a violation of Section 27500, 27505, 27515, 27520, 27525, 27530, or 27535. If the dealer cannot legally return the firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm, then the dealer shall forthwith deliver the firearm to the sheriff of the county or the chief of police or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, who shall then dispose of the firearm in the manner provided by Sections 18000, 18005, and 34000.

(Added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. (SB 1080) Effective January 1, 2011. Operative January 1, 2012, by Sec. 10 of Ch. 711.)

-Why didn't the FFL release the gun? The statute seems to demand the gun be released.
-If the FFL believed they couldn't legally release, why didn't the gun go back to the seller, in accordance with the statute?
-Under what provisions of statute did the FFL agree to the failed transferee's request to ship the gun to another FFL? The statute demands that the FFL, "...shall retain possession." Instead, the FFL appears to have allowed the failed transferee to exercise control and dominion (whatever the heck that means) over the property of another, which might appear to be "possession".
-Certainly, the transfer of the gun to another FFL violates the demand that the original FFL retain possession?
////
On to the issue of who gets the cash.

The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

It would appear that everything works except the last entity...legality. The FFL won't release on "undetermined". However, the statute says they must (for PPT). The buyer cannot take possession of the firearm because the FFL must retain possession, yet the buyer exerted control of the firearm which should constitute possession, but, whatever.
The seller acted in good faith and completed all elements of the contract. The failure was that of the transferee, and the seller should be compensated for the transferee's breach of contract.

So, in my aged confusion of the facts, I would strongly suggest that the OP make all parties aware of their positions vis a vis the statute (the only one clean on this is FFL#2, and they should receive consideration from the failed transferee for their annoyance at the transfer) and agree to simply retrieve the firearm from FFL#2, and return the payment to the failed transferee (less 40% for research, compensation to FFL#2, because the failed transferee won't help, and resolution of the issue regarding the failed transferee's breach of contract) and move on with another sale.

Looking forward to the review.

Best.

[ugimports]

... and agree to simply retrieve the firearm from FFL#2...

:

It is not possible to simply retrieve the firearm. Ffl 2 has no audit trail who the firearm belongs to. See my example above how this can be exploited.

When the ATF looks at his bound book and ask ffl 2 why they did not complete a background check on OP I don't think a response of 'he told me it was his' will work.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Dvrjon]

It is not possible to simply retrieve the firearm. Ffl 2 has no audit trail who the firearm belongs to. See my example above how this can be exploited.

When the ATF looks at his bound book and ask ffl 2 why they did not complete a background check on OP I don't think a response of 'he told me it was his' will work.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Including the DROS/DES transaction identifier would enhance the submission, and establish a record that the OP fulfilled his part of the process.

[1911-CV]

IANAL...

Quoting Dvrjon:

"The seller acted in good faith and completed all elements of the contract.". In this non-lawyer's opinion, the gun was delivered to the buyer's agent in accordance with the offer that had been made and accepted between the parties. That the buyer's agent refused to deliver to the buyer based on their internal policy is no concern of the seller. If there is a claim to be made, it would be against FFL#1 for:
1) - failing to deliver on undetermined [defense exists if this was made known to buyer in advance so that it became part of the agreement between the buyer and FFL#1];
2) - failure to follow the options available under regulation and statute after not delivering the gun [possible defense that they were just following the buyer's instructions, but really weak as they are in the FFL business and would be the presumed expert].

Did OP ever indicate whether this was a handgun? If so, is it on or off-roster? OP has only called it a "firearm" in his posts.

Good of him to try and continue to assist. I hope I would do the same, even after the buyer acting poorly in their texts.

IANAL...

[ugimports]

...With that, the OP could protect his position by (simply ) filing a Including the DROS/DES transaction identifier would enhance the submission, and establish a record that the OP fulfilled his part of the process.

Good call on this one. There's a specific part of the form where it says you've sold it to X individual. At that point I would think all strings to the OP / Seller are severed.

[microwaveguy]

My .05 cents on this is the buyer at this point is hosed, and the only real solution I see is FFL #2 sell it out of state ( assuming it is off roster).

Edit: actually that may not work either since FFL #2 can't prove who is the owner.