Tweet
Can an FFL charge someone $147.19 fee for PPT + storage of the firearm? I had that experience at an FFL two days ago:
I tried to execute a PPT as buyer at an FFL in LA County selected by the seller (or the seller rep with whom I struck a deal for purchase). After processing the DROS forms, the FFL owner said that the charge would be $147.19. It was my understanding that PPT fees are limited by law to $47.19 ($37.19 in DOJ fees and $10 per gun in dealer fees).
The FFL owner said the additional $100 fee was for storage of the handgun during the 10-day waiting period. Just to be clear, it had nothing to do with storage of the gun after the 10-day waiting period. If the FFL owner had said the $100 fee was a deposit for failure to take possession of the handgun on the exact date it becomes available for pick-up, I would have likely said okay, simply because it was so time-consuming to arrange the purchase and then drive over an hour to get to the FFL.
I refused to go forward with the transfer, telling the FFL owner that he should have informed me of the storage fee BEFORE processing the DROS to give me an opportunity to decline his services. He had abundant time to do so while we conversed for about 15 minutes before the seller and her rep showed up to the store. At no time during the meet did the FFL owner deny that he failed to tell me about the $100 storage fee prior to DROS processing.
During the meet, the FFL owner's ONLY response to my criticism of his neglect to inform was the alleged posting of multiple signs on the store walls addressing the storage fee (in his response to my online review, he claimed that a notice was also posted on the door). This is critical to note because aside from signage, he did not provide or claim to provide any other manner of informing me of the storage fee.
I use the adjective "alleged" in the above paragraph because I did not bother to search for signs the FFL owner claims shielded him from accusations of a failure to inform. A sign on a door or wall among multiple other signs is irrelevant unless it is lit up in flashing neon, posted on a sandwich board hung around the owner's neck, or otherwise creates a reasonable expectation that patrons would actually read the sign. And regardless of whether a sign on a wall has arguable relevance to the issue, it is not dispositive. It would not have been remotely burdensome to the FFL owner to have simply told me about the $100 fee prior to processing. But the FFL owner is apparently under the impression that signage alone is sufficient to render oral disclosure unnecessary and redundant.
In his response to my online review, the FFL owner provided a second justification for his lack of fee disclosure that he failed to mention while I was in the store. He wrote in his online response that he had actually informed the seller about the $100 storage fee earlier that same day when the seller (or seller rep) had called to schedule an appointment for the DROS.
I regard this claim to be a total fiction. If he had actually informed the seller of the fee prior to the meet, I'm rather certain he would have mentioned that in the store. Moreover, during the verbal exchange in the store, the seller remarked "I guess next time we should ask if there's a storage fee." If the FFL owner had truly informed the seller (or the seller rep) of the fee, I expect the owner would have responded, "I DID tell you (or her rep) about the storage fee!" But the FFL owner said nothing to that effect. The seller's rep also provided no response to the seller's remark. So this purported prior notice given to the seller, never brought up by the FFL owner at the time of meet but instead belatedly claimed in a response to an online review, appears to be pure fabrication.
Duplicity aside, claiming that he informed the seller of the storage fee seems a feeble way to argue that it relinquishes any obligation to directly inform me of the $100 surcharge. It would be far-fetched for the FFL owner to claim he is ignorant that in almost every PPT transaction it is the buyer, and not the seller, who is responsible for paying DROS fees. The FFL owner clearly knew that I was the buyer and, in fact, I had started preparing the buyer portion of the DROS forms while we waited for the seller and her rep to arrive.
Two issues: Firstly, is it legal for the FFL to require payment of the extra $100 for storage? The FFL owner was adamant that the fee was perfectly legal and that I could call CA DOJ to confirm. At the time of the meet, I did not question the legality of the storage charge though I did think it odd that there would be such a huge loophole in the cap on PPT dealer fees.
Secondly, is it true that many other FFLs charge a storage fee? I have not encountered any such fees myself in my prior PPF transfers.
I know the $10 fee for DROS processing is insignificant. I have always purchased ammo or accessories when at an FFL for DROS processing, partially due to awareness of this marginal revenue generated by the FFL. But I do question the legality of the fee, propriety of the FFL owner's conduct, and the claim that such fees are commonplace at FFLs.
I tried to execute a PPT as buyer at an FFL in LA County selected by the seller (or the seller rep with whom I struck a deal for purchase). After processing the DROS forms, the FFL owner said that the charge would be $147.19. It was my understanding that PPT fees are limited by law to $47.19 ($37.19 in DOJ fees and $10 per gun in dealer fees).
The FFL owner said the additional $100 fee was for storage of the handgun during the 10-day waiting period. Just to be clear, it had nothing to do with storage of the gun after the 10-day waiting period. If the FFL owner had said the $100 fee was a deposit for failure to take possession of the handgun on the exact date it becomes available for pick-up, I would have likely said okay, simply because it was so time-consuming to arrange the purchase and then drive over an hour to get to the FFL.
I refused to go forward with the transfer, telling the FFL owner that he should have informed me of the storage fee BEFORE processing the DROS to give me an opportunity to decline his services. He had abundant time to do so while we conversed for about 15 minutes before the seller and her rep showed up to the store. At no time during the meet did the FFL owner deny that he failed to tell me about the $100 storage fee prior to DROS processing.
During the meet, the FFL owner's ONLY response to my criticism of his neglect to inform was the alleged posting of multiple signs on the store walls addressing the storage fee (in his response to my online review, he claimed that a notice was also posted on the door). This is critical to note because aside from signage, he did not provide or claim to provide any other manner of informing me of the storage fee.
I use the adjective "alleged" in the above paragraph because I did not bother to search for signs the FFL owner claims shielded him from accusations of a failure to inform. A sign on a door or wall among multiple other signs is irrelevant unless it is lit up in flashing neon, posted on a sandwich board hung around the owner's neck, or otherwise creates a reasonable expectation that patrons would actually read the sign. And regardless of whether a sign on a wall has arguable relevance to the issue, it is not dispositive. It would not have been remotely burdensome to the FFL owner to have simply told me about the $100 fee prior to processing. But the FFL owner is apparently under the impression that signage alone is sufficient to render oral disclosure unnecessary and redundant.
In his response to my online review, the FFL owner provided a second justification for his lack of fee disclosure that he failed to mention while I was in the store. He wrote in his online response that he had actually informed the seller about the $100 storage fee earlier that same day when the seller (or seller rep) had called to schedule an appointment for the DROS.
I regard this claim to be a total fiction. If he had actually informed the seller of the fee prior to the meet, I'm rather certain he would have mentioned that in the store. Moreover, during the verbal exchange in the store, the seller remarked "I guess next time we should ask if there's a storage fee." If the FFL owner had truly informed the seller (or the seller rep) of the fee, I expect the owner would have responded, "I DID tell you (or her rep) about the storage fee!" But the FFL owner said nothing to that effect. The seller's rep also provided no response to the seller's remark. So this purported prior notice given to the seller, never brought up by the FFL owner at the time of meet but instead belatedly claimed in a response to an online review, appears to be pure fabrication.
Duplicity aside, claiming that he informed the seller of the storage fee seems a feeble way to argue that it relinquishes any obligation to directly inform me of the $100 surcharge. It would be far-fetched for the FFL owner to claim he is ignorant that in almost every PPT transaction it is the buyer, and not the seller, who is responsible for paying DROS fees. The FFL owner clearly knew that I was the buyer and, in fact, I had started preparing the buyer portion of the DROS forms while we waited for the seller and her rep to arrive.
Two issues: Firstly, is it legal for the FFL to require payment of the extra $100 for storage? The FFL owner was adamant that the fee was perfectly legal and that I could call CA DOJ to confirm. At the time of the meet, I did not question the legality of the storage charge though I did think it odd that there would be such a huge loophole in the cap on PPT dealer fees.
Secondly, is it true that many other FFLs charge a storage fee? I have not encountered any such fees myself in my prior PPF transfers.
I know the $10 fee for DROS processing is insignificant. I have always purchased ammo or accessories when at an FFL for DROS processing, partially due to awareness of this marginal revenue generated by the FFL. But I do question the legality of the fee, propriety of the FFL owner's conduct, and the claim that such fees are commonplace at FFLs.
Comment