Remove

[taperxz]

What do you interpret (b) to mean?

If someone comes in to consign 20 firearms, thats ONE transaction for the seller. There has to be a way for people to sell off their property especially when there is a trust involved, a prohibited person or just someone that has lots of guns and don't want them anymore.

[Nardo1895]

?

Seems quite clear to me. What do you question?

My question had to do with the definition of a transfer. If I take a group of firearms in on consignment, its not a sale or a lease. Is it a transfer?

I don't own them at that point. But they are in my A&D book.

I think that is the area where FFLs disagree, or are at least concerned. Some believe it is a transfer for the purposes of this section of the law. Others think transfer doesn't occur until there is a new owner for each firearm.

If the former, then yes consigning a group of firearms is one transaction. If the later then each individual sale is the transfer (or transaction).

Personally, I believe the consignment group is the transaction. But I do think there is ambiguity there.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what the FFL thinks.

[Tyke8319]

Anybody ever heard of anyone be charged with a crime for selling too many??

That's hardly the point, is it?

[Tyke8319]

Stop telling people things like this, it isn't helpful. It's the equivalent of "you'd never get caught" argument. Lots of things "nobody is coming for you" but remain illegal anyway. It is against the law to violate the limits, period. The law was implemented to do exactly what it clearly says, limit people to quantity of transactions. Lack of enforcement doesn't make it ok. The penal code mentions no exemptions. If you want to break the law, do so knowing that what you are doing is in fact illegal and be prepared for the consequences should they come your way, no matter how unlikely they might be. Your risk tolerance might be higher than mine which is fine, but don't mislead others about what the law says.

Well said!!

[Tyke8319]

Sbo80
The law was implemented to do exactly what it clearly says, limit people to quantity of transactions.

I call b*******. The doj could easily reject the transaction on the spot if they chose to do so. I almost look at it as a form of entrapment. If it's hard and steadfast that you can't do it, then don't allow your system to do it. If the system keeps such impeccable records, then it should absolutely know how many transactions you've done for the year and if you tried to exceed that limit the system should automatically reject the transaction. If the system doesn't allow you to start the dros process without a valid driver's license, don't tell me that they can't implement it in the software that you couldn't start your transaction if you've already exceeded your limit

I suggest you look up the definition of entrapment. It hardly applies to this restriction.

[RickD427]

My question had to do with the definition of a transfer. If I take a group of firearms in on consignment, its not a sale or a lease. Is it a transfer?

I don't own them at that point. But they are in my A&D book.

I think that is the area where FFLs disagree, or are at least concerned. Some believe it is a transfer for the purposes of this section of the law. Others think transfer doesn't occur until there is a new owner for each firearm.

If the former, then yes consigning a group of firearms is one transaction. If the later then each individual sale is the transfer (or transaction).

Personally, I believe the consignment group is the transaction. But I do think there is ambiguity there.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what the FFL thinks.

It's irrelevant who owns the firearms in question.

Please note that the Penal Code contains no provisions about the ownership of the firearms in question. It only addresses the transfer, lease, or sale of the firearms. You're trying to inject content into the statute that ain't there.

In the case of a consignment, the seller is transferring the firearms to you with the expectation that you will sell them to other persons and return a small percentage of the sale proceeds to him/her/other. That person retains ownership of the firearm(s) until they are ultimately sold, but they have transferred the firearms to you when consigned.

[Nardo1895]

It's irrelevant who owns the firearms in question.

Please note that the Penal Code contains no provisions about the ownership of the firearms in question. It only addresses the transfer, lease, or sale of the firearms. You're trying to inject content into the statute that ain't there.

In the case of a consignment, the seller is transferring the firearms to you with the expectation that you will sell them to other persons and return a small percentage of the sale proceeds to him/her/other. That person retains ownership of the firearm(s) until they are ultimately sold, but they have transferred the firearms to you when consigned.

I'm in agreement with what it means, or at least what it should mean. I'm only pointing out why some may think its unclear.

[RickD427]

I'm in agreement with what it means, or at least what it should mean. I'm only pointing out why some may think its unclear.

I do see your point. There will always be some folks who try to create an ambiguity in order to support an "interpretation" of a law that they don't like.

But those efforts don't change anything. The Supreme Court pretty much tried to close the door on that tactic in Germain.

[taperxz]

I do see your point. There will always be some folks who try to create an ambiguity in order to support an "interpretation" of a law that they don't like.

But those efforts don't change anything. The Supreme Court pretty much tried to close the door on that tactic in Germain.

The statute is pretty clear on amount of transactions and not number of firearms. What’s interesting is that FFLs are exempt and by using an FFL, who is actually facilitating the transaction/transfer??