Out of State FFL Will Not Provide CA DOJ Firearms Shipment Approval Letter

[BayArea101]

Purchased a CA legal configured rifle from an out of state FFL via gunbroker. Out of state FFL (seller) shipped the rifle to the local CA based FFL.

The problem is that the out of state FFL didn't provide a CA DOJ Firearms Shipment Approval Letter to the receiving FFL in CA. The receiving FFL said cannot transfer the rifle to me without that letter.

I have made several attempts over the last 8 days to get the out of state FFL to address this issue, and to furnish the letter, but to no avail.

What happens from here? What are my options? Anyone have any experience with this issue?

[ASD1]

Rifle will end up getting shipped back if doc's are not correct.

[BONECUTTER]

If you paid credit card, pay the CA FFL to ship back and file a charge back. Sometimes out of state vendors just flat out refuse to comply.

[ronlglock]

Out of State FFL Will Not Provide CA DOJ Firearms Shipment Approval Letter

And folks wonder why we were charging $125 for a transfer.

Because 10% of shipments came without a letter or invoice and 5% were off roster. Had to follow up on very single one of them.

And yeah, your gun is going back.

[Hateca]

Don’t need the letter itself just need the approval number DOJ assigned the shipment. That only applies if the shipping dealer even contacted the DOJ for said number.

I think Buds Guns is famous for not sending the letter just putting the number on the packing slip.

[Achelous]

+1 with Hateca. The letter is for the out-of-state Dealer, however, they are required to advise the CA Dealer of the approval number. It's not uncommon for the CA Dealer to get the letter, although not everyone provides it. Here is an excerpt from a CFLC letter. Note the middle paragraph.

OP says that "out of state FFL didn't provide a CA DOJ Firearms Shipment Approval Letter." Did the out of state FFL provide the approval number? If so, it should be fine.

[ronlglock]

Out of State FFL Will Not Provide CA DOJ Firearms Shipment Approval Letter

[unclerandy]

The receiving FFL should be going after the letter/number in my opinion.

[taperxz]

The receiving FFL should be going after the letter/number in my opinion.

Pretty sure when a gun comes in an FFL and CFD was issued. If the CFD wasn't issued thats a problem.

[Librarian]

The receiving FFL should be going after the letter/number in my opinion.

The sending FFL is required to get the letter and include it with the shipment.

27555.

(a) (1) Commencing July 1, 2008,
a person who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code

may not sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm to a person in California who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code

unless, prior to delivery, the person intending to sell, deliver, or transfer the firearm obtains a verification number via the Internet for the intended sale, delivery, or transfer, from the Department of Justice.

...

(3) The person intending to sell, deliver, or transfer the firearm shall provide the unique verification number to the recipient along with the firearm upon delivery, in a manner to be determined by the department.

[Nardo1895]

Back to the OP; any reason BayArea101 could not ship the rifle to one of the middleman dealers (Wilde Tactical, etc), have them do the DOJ letter and then ship back to BayArea101?

I've never done it that way but I have had GB sellers who refused to do the DOJ letter ship the gun to a middleman transfer dealer who then did the letter and forwarded on to me. I used to use Audiophil and have been using Wilde Tactical since Audiophil retired.

Not perfect but better than getting stuck with the gun if the seller won't take it back for a refund.

[ronlglock]

The sending FFL is required to get the letter and include it with the shipment.

[unclerandy]

The sending FFL is required to get the letter and include it with the shipment.

Correct! What I'm saying is that the customer shouldn't be calling the FFL to explain whats needed. It would be the receiving FFL calling the sender to explain that its required by law....

[acespawnshop]

Correct! What I'm saying is that the customer shouldn't be calling the FFL to explain whats needed. It would be the receiving FFL calling the sender to explain that its required by law....

I suppose, however how much time do you want to spend tracking this thing down. At some point when we've made several attempts to get the CFLC and are unable we have to get the customer involved to try and get the other dealer to do it. Usually the threat of credit card chargebacks seem to get the job done. Frankly we dont have hours to spend tracking down CFLC's from unwilling FFLs that want to prove a point about CA laws and such.

[Tyke8319]

^^^^Totally agree!! The customer seems to have much more leverage than the dealer. Dealer can do limited explaining...customer can do the begging.