Adding Shotgun to DROS

[tenpercentfirearms]

10%, you clearly don't get it and can't read. It is a joke that you say that handguns are not firearm transactions. As I said before, your quoted section does not say that the only transaction is non-handguns, just that multiple long guns can be considered a single transaction.

Yeah, I can't read. Brilliant deduction. Here read this...again.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(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.

You keep thinking that I am saying a handgun sale is not a transaction. Those aren't my words. Those are clearly the penal code's words. They are clearly saying that a transaction does not include handguns. I am not quite sure how you can continue to deny what is clearly spelled out in the penal code. Sure it doesn't make sense, but there it is. Welcome to California.

Give a valid 4473 transaction number so that can be given to the CA DOJ for your inspection. If you are doing nothing wrong, then you should not fear giving that information.

Again, pointless. Me providing a number has nothing to do with the penal code text above. If your whole argument lies in me providing a number, fine. Here you go. 13509. I provided it. Are you going to call them and make sure they got it? Seriously, what did you expect to happen when I provided that number? Do you think they are going to run down and inspect me now? Do you think they are going to specifically ask for transaction number 13509? You are clearly out of ammo to resort to this pettiness.

You claim that I am afraid of my DOJ masters is just stupid, but it shows that you don't really have anything valid to say. They are not my masters and I am not afraid of them either. I don't break the law, even when I think that it should be a different way.

Clearly you are afraid of them. You are afraid they monitor this board. You believe I am going to get inspected now because I posted a valid 4473 number. And you are so blinded from fear that you can't possibly fathom that the penal code doesn't make any sense to our advantage. So blinded that you stick to this line...

Again, it is not about what the Feds consider, but you don't seem to understand that. You keep repeating that to justify your belief that CA views it the same way or something.

We have already established that the penal code nor DOJ specifies how long a single sale lasts. You can't give a definition other than what you pull out of the dictionary, which really doesn't prove anything. Since the CA DOJ does not specify how long a single sale lasts, then I simply follow that the BATFE has stated is the time frame for a sale. For some reason you can't make the link that if the state does not specifically define the length of a single sale, then you simply have to follow federal law.

So what do you have left to argue kemasa. The number is out there. Give us your prediction what is going to happen next. Will you be the one calling them to report me? Post up their response after you do. I will let you know when they come inspect me and how it goes.

How anticlimactic that you resorted to a silly number to prove your point. Now that the number is out there, I guess that means I was right all along. Too bad, you lose.

[Mike's Custom]

Originally Posted by Mike's Custom
Way back when the state started using the computes for registration/background checks the DOJ had some seminars. We, dealers present, were told that you could ADD long guns to the DROS after the DROS was submitted by crossing out the number of longguns and entering the new number. This could be done as long as the original longgun/s had not been picked up. This time continued to the end of the 30 day period as long as they had NOT been picked up. Back when we had to use the books we could send in an amended form with added longguns as long as the original longgun had not been picked up by the purchaser. So this allowed for adding longguns to the DROS. We were told that since the longgun DROS was a background check the number of longguns didn't really matter as long as they were all picked up at the same time and before the end of the 30 days.

Liar! Show us your 4473 control numbers as proof you aren't just making this up in an effort to bait these new guys into doing something rash.

Again guys, it is only $25 and the customer pays it.

What? I am lying about?

BTW, I DROS longguns seperately from hand guns like you do. I do a DROS and 4473 for hand guns and keep the longguns on their own DROS and 4473. It is easier for me to track and file.

[tenpercentfirearms]

What? I am lying about?

I was being sarcastic.

BTW, I DROS longguns seperately from hand guns like you do. I do a DROS and 4473 for hand guns and keep the longguns on their own DROS and 4473. It is easier for me to track and file.

I have only done one or two long guns with a handgun DROS. I add long guns to the DROS all the time. I don't consider a sale over until I sign the 4473 since the state doesn't define how long a single sale lasts.

[Mike's Custom]

I was being sarcastic.

I have only done one or two long guns with a handgun DROS. I add long guns to the DROS all the time. I don't consider a sale over until I sign the 4473 since the state doesn't define how long a single sale lasts.

Ok, got ya. I was told by BATFE that the sale is when the 4473 is signed at pick up and the DOJ considers the sale at the end of the 10 day waiting period or when the firearm is picked up. This was the reason for the bill that didn't get passed by Arnie, it would have made us dealers get the DROS signed and dated by the buyer when they picked up their purchase. That would close the sale.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, got ya. I was told by BATFE that the sale is when the 4473 is signed at pick up and the DOJ considers the sale at the end of the 10 day waiting period or when the firearm is picked up. This was the reason for the bill that didn't get passed by Arnie, it would have made us dealers get the DROS signed and dated by the buyer when they picked up their purchase. That would close the sale.

Very interesting take. I need to go back and look at the language of that bill. Depending on what the language says, it might pretty much prove that if the transaction was already closed at DROS start, they wouldn't need new legislation to say it was closed at the end.

Here is a link.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_41_bill_20090623_amended_asm_v96.html

I did a quick read and it would have only required a signature from everyone on handgun sales. It would not have affected long guns. It didn't appear to me that our language in 12077(d) would have changed. So handguns still would not have been considered a transaction and the length of a single sale still would not be defined by state law.

[kemasa]

10%, go read you other posts where you say that a handgun is not a firearm transaction. Page three of the thread that you posted, you say "And here is where it says a handgun is not considered a firearms transaction." The penal code does NOT say that a handgun is not considered a firearm transaction, that us just what you are reading into it, although incorrectly.

The CA DOJ just might come to inspect you and look for that specific 4473 transaction number, but do tell what exactly did you do on that transaction? Did you add additional longguns after the DROS was submitted or did you add a longgun to a handgun DROS?

You are really funny. You think that minutes after you post a 4473 transaction number that it suddenly proves you point? It goes to show your flawed logic.

[tenpercentfirearms]

10%, go read you other posts where you say that a handgun is not a firearm transaction. Page three of the thread that you posted, you say "And here is where it says a handgun is not considered a firearms transaction." The penal code does NOT say that a handgun is not considered a firearm transaction, that us just what you are reading into it, although incorrectly.

It seems pretty simple to me. Let me quote it again for you.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(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.

A transaction means a sale, loan or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns. Therefore a handgun sale does not fall under the 12077(d)(4) definition of a transaction. Sorry, it seems pretty clear to me. Of course all you have is that I am reading it wrong. Really? How is that?

The CA DOJ just might come to inspect you and look for that specific 4473 transaction number, but do tell what exactly did you do on that transaction? Did you add additional longguns after the DROS was submitted or did you add a longgun to a handgun DROS?

I think I did both. I added long guns after the fact on a handgun DROS.

You are really funny. You think that minutes after you post a 4473 transaction number that it suddenly proves you point? It goes to show your flawed logic.

Really. You are the one who challenged me to do it. I did it. The roof hasn't caved in yet. You made it sound like if I was so sure of myself that I should post it and they would come have a talk with me. Basically you implied what I was quoting from the penal code couldn't be correct because I hadn't shown any examples. There is your example. That must mean I am right then. Obviously you aren't correct or you would have something more substantial to say than "It goes to show your flawed logic." What does? Whatever you do, don't explain yourself. You would radically alter the way you run your posts. Your one liners absent of any sort of logical connection to the penal code is what you are best at.

I'll stick to the penal code and federal guidelines. You just keep running things based off of what your masters tell you to do.

[kemasa]

The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

I am not sure of why you expect instant results after your posting the 4473 transaction number. It takes time for your post to get noticed and then the process would get started and eventually an inspection planned with the resulting agent to walk into your business and do the inspection and then explaining the facts of life to you. Do you really think that the DOJ is going to drop everything and get on the next plane to come inspect you? Do you really think that you are that important? Your post on a public forum puts you on the radar and your posting of the 4473 transaction number makes it easier for the inspector, if you were really honest with the number, which I doubt. Based on your comment that you claim to have added long guns on a handgun DROS, after it was submitted, I am willing to bet that you are lying about it. Once you are shown to be a liar, then why should anyone trust anything that you say?

Wes, grow up and stop with the stupid, childish "masters" comments. You only make yourself look like an immature child on the playground.

[tenpercentfirearms]

The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

I am not sure of why you expect instant results after your posting the 4473 transaction number. It takes time for your post to get noticed and then the process would get started and eventually an inspection planned with the resulting agent to walk into your business and do the inspection and then explaining the facts of life to you. Do you really think that the DOJ is going to drop everything and get on the next plane to come inspect you? Do you really think that you are that important? Your post on a public forum puts you on the radar and your posting of the 4473 transaction number makes it easier for the inspector, if you were really honest with the number, which I doubt. Based on your comment that you claim to have added long guns on a handgun DROS, after it was submitted, I am willing to bet that you are lying about it. Once you are shown to be a liar, then why should anyone trust anything that you say?

Wes, grow up and stop with the stupid, childish "masters" comments. You only make yourself look like an immature child on the playground.

I called that one. I posted a number, it proves nothing, and you can't even verify if it is a real number or not. Which then leads you to then discredit your own evidence and further makes your entire reason for asking a number seriously flawed. Which is the entire way you approach this debate. I cite penal code and federal regulatory definitions. You cite the dictionary, your idea of common sense, hamburger hut procedures, and want 4473 numbers.

I think it is clear who has an understanding of what is going on here and who has yet to step up to the plate.

The masters comments are just icing on the cake for me.

[kemasa]

I love it how you jump to conclusions. We shall see if the CA DOJ takes notice of you and comes to ask about that 4473 transaction number, then and only then will we have an answer. Expecting them to come within minutes of your posting shows a serious flaw in your expectations. Your posting about doing things which are illegal, or very questionable, at best, also speaks volumes about you. I am not surprised that you liked the comment about the masters, but then again it shows that you don't get it and you are still living on the playground. I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters. Very mature of you.

Your logic is lacking. The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ. Now, either you gave a real number or you are a liar. Based on what you claim you did on that 4473, it seems likely that you are a liar. I can not prove that, but your own words convict you.

You cite penal codes, but then you warp the wording into what you want, not what is written. You claim that you did not say things, then I quote what you said and reference the thread, but then you ignore that.

Yes, it is clear what is going on. You are trying to promote illegal activities to others.

[Mike's Custom]

DOJ does NOT use 4473 ANYTHING. That is a Federal Document.

[kemasa]

The CA DOJ can look at the 4473, even though it is not their form. The Bound Book is a Federal Document too, so do you think that they can't look at it either?

[tenpercentfirearms]

The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

Let's look at it one more time shall we?

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(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.

First, you are claiming that only one firearm transaction can be reported on each record of sale document. Meaning, once DROS starts, you cannot add new guns to the transaction. That is fine; however, the word "transaction" is in quotes because they go further to define what a "transaction" is. A transaction is a single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms that are not handguns.

You have yet to show a penal code definition that defines what a "single sale, loan, or transfer of any number of firearms" is. Yes, you could consider a single sale the day the customer comes in and buys the gun. Once he leaves, you could consider that sale concluded. However, where does the penal code state that is the definition of a single sale?

You see I consider a single sale any sales I make before the customer comes in and picks up the long gun or handgun. My definition is just as correct as yours, unless you can specifically show me in penal definition or in CCR that where I am incorrect and you are correct. A single sale is not defined and no length of time is given. In fact, the only thing that even hints that we are limited to a certain number of firearms is the DROS requirement to list the number of long guns. However, as I have pointed out, no where in PC 12077 does it specificy that the DOJ should ask for the number of long guns. The DOJ is overstepping their authority in requiring that we list the number of long guns and making that a defining moment in the firearms transaction.

Therefore, I have no problems simply crossing that number out on the DROS and making it the correct number. To further back up my claim, the federal government clearly specifies when you can no longer add firearms to the 4473. If I add firearms before I sign the 4473, I am not violating federal law. Since I don't consider my single sales of multiple long guns over until I sign the 4473, I am not violating state law either since state law is not defined.

kemasa, your challenge is to show where a single sale is defined by the state through penal code or through the CA DOJ in CCR. Until you can do that, you cannot use dictionary defintions, fast food examples, or anything else to claim I am breaking the law. Sorry. The reason the Romans invented written legal code was so the police could not invent law as they went.

The quoted section does not say that the only definition of a single transaction includes only non-handguns. It says that for multiple long guns can be considered a single firearm transaction. Why is "transaction" in quotes? What does that mean?

Again, lets look at the penal code.

12077(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
(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.

Note, that we are specifically looking at this subdivision as is clearly stated by the penal code. This subdivision says you must limit the use of DROS for one firearm transaction. However, they go further to define a "transaction" as being the single sale of firearms that are not handguns. So you can only put one single sale of any number of long guns on a DROS. That is the limit they are specifying.

What they are not limiting for [the] purposes of this subdivision are handgun sales. For the purposes of this subdivision, "handguns" are not limited as they do not meet the definition of a "transaction". So you could technically put multiple sales of handguns on a DROS, for the purposes of this subdivision.

Now we all clearly know that handguns sales, in other subdivisions and chapters of penal code, are limited to one per 30 days unless you are exempted. The interesting thing is no where in 12077 does it specify that you can only put one handgun per DROS. Again 12077(d)(4) states handguns don't apply to the single sale rule, but only "not handguns" are affected.

So technically the DOJ might be over stepping their bounds in requiring that persons exempt from the 30 day rule must use multiple DROS forms for multiple handgun sales.

Now an interesting thing is PC 12076 deals with DROS fees.

12076(i)(1) Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for the sale of any number of firearms that are not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person or for the taking of possession of those firearms.
(2) In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of firearms that are pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, the department shall charge a reduced fee pursuant to this section for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction.
(j) Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for taking title or possession of any number of firearms pursuant to paragraph (18) of subdivision (b) of Section 12071 or subdivision (c) or (i) of Section 12078.

If you read 12076(i) it says you can only charge one fee on the same date or for the taking of possession of those firearms. If you could only DROS a set number of long guns on start date, then why specify you can't charge more for taking possession? Also reading the language, they don't really specify that the sale begins at DROS. They say you can only charge one fee on the date of the sale. What if the date of the sale is the date I deliver the guns? What if I consider the Dealer Record of Sale started on DROS start, but not an official sale until DROS conclusion? Show me penal code where I am wrong on this. Remember 12077(d)(4) specifically states "for the purposes of this subdivision," which means you cannot use 12077 definitions in 12076 and vice versa.

The other interesting thing is that handguns can have multiples per transaction. In (i)(2) it states that a single transaction on the same date you can charge a reduced fee for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction. So it is still the same transaction, you just get charged more for additional handguns.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I love it how you jump to conclusions. We shall see if the CA DOJ takes notice of you and comes to ask about that 4473 transaction number, then and only then will we have an answer. Expecting them to come within minutes of your posting shows a serious flaw in your expectations. Your posting about doing things which are illegal, or very questionable, at best, also speaks volumes about you. I am not surprised that you liked the comment about the masters, but then again it shows that you don't get it and you are still living on the playground. I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters. Very mature of you.

Your logic is lacking. The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ. Now, either you gave a real number or you are a liar. Based on what you claim you did on that 4473, it seems likely that you are a liar. I can not prove that, but your own words convict you.

In the bold quotes above, note you criticize me for jumping to conclusions, then you jump to conclusions. Hypocrite.

Again, your asking for the 4473s was foolish as it proved nothing. I stated I could lie and make numbers up and that would screw you and I stated until the DOJ inspects me and asks about those numbers, it still proves nothing. You kept asking for the numbers. I gave you a number. It proved nothing. Really it just proves you are too scared to question the DOJ and you are more intersted in seeing those of us who do question the DOJ punished for our misdeeds. I quote you again below as evidence.

The reason my my asking for the 4473 transaction number is to make it easier for the CA DOJ.

Gee thanks kemasa. Glad you are so willing to rat out your fellow FFLs. You sure take pleasure in persecuting others. I wonder why? Ah, its irrelevant.

You cite penal codes, but then you warp the wording into what you want, not what is written. You claim that you did not say things, then I quote what you said and reference the thread, but then you ignore that.

Yes, it is clear what is going on. You are trying to promote illegal activities to others.

I am not warping anything. Clearly the penal code was poorly written and I am clearly showing where it is not clear and I am showing a very logical and clearly laid out interpretation of it. I have successfully run you into circles and you have yet to show evidence that what I am doing is wrong.

What our readers here should do is imagine kemasa is the prosecutor for the DOJ (which he might be seeing as he wants to make the DOJ's job easier) and I am my lawyer. Who do you think the judge is going to side with? The guy who can't clearly quote the penal code, gets the sections confused, runs them together on accident, uses the online Webster's dictionary for legal definitions outside of the legislatively approved penal code, and then makes blind refences to what I said in other posts and brings them back up without links?

You see there are some of us who choose to exercise our brains and step outside of the box and challenge our masters. Despite a slight risk of "upsetting the man", I can logically spell out where I believe I am correct in my reading of law and I do so so we can all remain free. Well others, they simply do this,

I value my freedom and will push issues in which I can win or at least not lose big time. I have enough sense to know what you are saying is just plain wrong and you try to play with emotional issues by trying to claim that if I follow the law then I am afraid of some masters.

Clearly you don't value your freedom. You value following your masters rules so he doesn't pull your leash harder. If you valued freedom, you wouldn't just push issues you can win or only small issues. Some people must stand up and throw off the chains of their masters so they can achieve true freedom, not just the guise of freedom in the form of privileges granted by your keepers.

No kemasa, disagreeing with free men as they try to open your cage door by reporting them to your keepers is not a free man. You are their slave. You fear being let out of your cage and you will turn in those that risk giving you that freedom.

What do I know? I just reference code and am willing to debate with the government what they wrote in their law on many levels, not just the ones I feel safe behind.

Again fellow FFLs, if you feel uncomfortable at all, err on the side of caution and just charge the $25 extra bucks and run the DROS again. There is a risk that the DOJ might come down and try and hammer me on these things. I choose to stand up and behind my reading of the penal code. I do so in matters large and small. This is not a challenge to the DOJ or a dare for them to bust me. It is a debate on the reading of the code. I respect them and I follow the law.

Selling felons firearms is illegal. Skipping the ten day wait for an extra $40 is illegal. Not logging guns in and out of my books is illegal. Selling assault weapons and fully automatic weapons is illegal. Clearly if I disagree with the limits on these things, I should attempt to amend the clearly defined laws that prohibit these actions. Until then, I must obey the law or risk punishment. Clearly violating the law is foolish and not something I do.

Whether you can add long guns to a 4473 or whether you can piggy back long guns onto a handgun DROS is debatable. I accept this honest debate and feel my posts back up my position.

[ugimports]

Just chiming in as the OP. I ended up running a 2nd DROS and am doing a separate 4473 for the shotgun..so in the end, I'll have 2 DROS's and 2 4473s, and I ate the cost on the $25 because I told my customer I could do it on 1 and refuse to make him pay for any mistake I may have made.

Just wanted to let the readers know what I ended up doing after reading the debate. In the future, I'll probably still run 2 just to keep my records straight, but will make sure the customer knows this so I don't have to eat another $25