Adding Shotgun to DROS

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I am not making up the definition to the word "single", unlike Wes, who trying to claim that it can be multiple sales at different times.

Wes is actually backing up his claims with evidence. You are just ridiculing his claims and giving no evidence to support your counter claims, which I've noticed you do in other threads.

But I've got to go. I need to hook up the multiple items of audio/video equipment that bought over the past few days at Amazon's single (black friday) sale.

[kemasa]

Sorry, but Wes is not backing up his claims with valid data. It is interesting that, just like with gangs, people want to back up their friends, regardless of whether they are wrong or not.

Perhaps Wes should comment on your grammar with respect to your last sentence. I am sure he won't do that since that would not be nice to do to a fellow gang member. So, you want to compare a store's "sale" to a sale of items? Perhaps you should also bring up the concept of a single "sail" in there too, or should I say two? Don't forget that a store's sale involves multiple people, multiple items and multiple sales, in a single store sale. I guess that is the type of evidence that you find acceptable.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Sorry, but Wes is not backing up his claims with valid data. It is interesting that, just like with gangs, people want to back up their friends, regardless of whether they are wrong or not.

Perhaps Wes should comment on your grammar with respect to your last sentence. I am sure he won't do that since that would not be nice to do to a fellow gang member.

Look, just because Wes and I have matching tattoos and we held up one liquor store together doesn't mean we are all of a sudden "friends" or in a "gang". If we had engaged in a single spree of multiple liquor store holdups over a 10 day period then maybe I'd say we were gang buddies.

[kemasa]

There are many other aspects to which you seem to be similar to Wes :-).

[tenpercentfirearms]

So it sounds like what Kemasa is saying is that whenever the Penal Code is unclear on the definition of a word, we need to give more weight to the definition Kemasa makes up than to other sources. What's so hard to understand about that Wes?

So how long did you know kemasa was jerking my chain? Is there another thread where everyone is laughing at me?

[yzErnie]

I have read this entire thread and now have a headache. I don't know either one of you so my opinion is from someone who is nothing more than an observer to this bantering back and forth.

My only question to you kemasa is this....why do you have the want or desire to try and police someone who you have no vested interest in?

[halifax]

I have read this entire thread and now have a headache. I don't know either one of you so my opinion is from someone who is nothing more than an observer to this bantering back and forth.

My only question to you kemasa is this....why do you have the want or desire to try and police someone who you have no vested interest in?

Sounds very similar to my question in a related thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=3228157&postcount=14

[kemasa]

As explained in my previous posts (and explained in the next post after the post halifax provided a link to), I do not want him promoting something which is illegal because I don't want to see other FFLs doing what he claims is legal and then getting shutdown. If you notice, the number of FFLs are going down all the time. I don't want to see in the news that a FFL was shutdown due to illegal activities. It makes the firearms industry look bad. It is a bad idea to promote illegal activities on a public forum.

It is interesting that halifax posted the link as a single message, yet the next message, my message, explains why. Are people not listening? Or are they trying to present a view that is false?

I am also curious as to whether others agree with Wes and are actually adding long guns to a handgun DROS and/or adding longguns after the original longgun DROS was submitted. It might be that others are bright enough to not admit to such things in a public forum, or might lie about it.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I am also curious as to whether others agree with Wes and are actually adding long guns to a handgun DROS and/or adding longguns after the original longgun DROS was submitted. It might be that others are bright enough to not admit to such things in a public forum, or might lie about it.

I am curious why you care? This isn't a popularity contest. You think it is illegal and in your mind you have decided it is illegal. If everyone else was doing something illegal, would you suddenly start doing it because more people claim to do it?

You supposedly made your case, stick to it. Why do you need to know who else is doing it? So you can ask them for their 4473 numbers too? So you can call up the DOJ and mention who else they should go audit?

You would think you were under contract with the DOJ. Even if others were doing it, they certainly aren't going to mention it with you around so you can harp on them and threaten to have them shut down too.

Again dealers, read this and make up your own mind. I think it is clear who has made an excellent defense using penal code, federal guidelines, BOE rules, and logical arguments. I think it is also clear who came up glaringly short in their rebuttal.

In the end most of you should decide the $25 simply isn't worth the trouble. That is your choice. When I get audited, I will let you know how it goes.

[kemasa]

Wes, you are funny, why in the world would you think that I would do something illegal because others are doing it? Can't I be curious? In part it is because there are those who are defending you, but if they refuse to do what you are claiming is legal, it is a bit of a problem for their position of defending you. Where do you get the idea that I was not sticking to my case? That seems to be just another made up thing by you in order to try to defend your position.

Again, you claim that I am trying to have you shutdown, but you refuse to explain how I am doing that since you claim that everything that you are doing is legal. You love to make things up and make baseless attacks against those who do not agree with you. You also claim that I am going to call the DOJ, but as explained, the DOJ reads this forum, so I don't need to do anything, but I know it sounds better for you to attack me on that.

Wes, you have an inflated opinion of your arguments. Never once did you provide anything which talks about a "single sale", so your argument is lacking and not logical at all. You have confused a Federal firearm transaction with a CA firearm transaction, which are quite different. Yes, you did come up glaringly short in your rebuttal numerous times.

At least you admit that it is not worth the trouble play your game, admitting that what you are doing is questionable, at best. You would be better served by trying to get the laws changed so that what you want to do is legal, as it should be, just not how it is now.

[yzErnie]

This is what I see and it is only my opinion...and again, I do not know either of these two folks here...

The argument of worrying about FFLs getting shut down in Cali is, IMHO, humorous. I would never think of coming onto a public message board and blasting some other person about how they do business. Why in the world would anyone care about how some other person runs their business?

My outlook is this...if someone in the same field is experiencing poor business practices (and I'm not saying anyone is) they have to answer for what they do. If it all works out for them fine. Conversely, if they get shut down that is fine too.

A wise man told me this when I was growing up..."If it doesn't involve you, keep your nose out of it".

[tenpercentfirearms]

Wes, you have an inflated opinion of your arguments. Never once did you provide anything which talks about a "single sale", so your argument is lacking and not logical at all. You have confused a Federal firearm transaction with a CA firearm transaction, which are quite different. Yes, you did come up glaringly short in your rebuttal numerous times.

This is the part that makes me laugh the most.

For proof I have addressed single sale.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8&postcount=16 At the bottom.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...5&postcount=28 Through the whole thing.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6&postcount=33 In the middle.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...4&postcount=40 Whole post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7&postcount=44 Another one.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8&postcount=46 Whole post.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...2&postcount=53 Whole post.

That is seven times I "provided" specific evidence dealing with a single sale in this thread alone. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when keep repeating the same false claims over and over again. How are you going to ignore those seven references to what you claim I never discussed? This will be entertaining.

Second, I have never confused a federal firearms transaction with a state transaction. You simply can't fathom that if the state does not prohibit something or does not give adequate definition, then there is nothing the state can do about it. Which leaves me simply following federal law. Again, this has also been explained to you several times and you simply don't get it. But go ahead and make a blind accusation that flies in the face of this entire thread. If you say it enough times to yourself, it might come true. Just keep ignoring my clearly laid out arguments and keep arguing about something trivial or unrelated to this case.

At least you admit that it is not worth the trouble play your game, admitting that what you are doing is questionable, at best. You would be better served by trying to get the laws changed so that what you want to do is legal, as it should be, just not how it is now.

Obviously what we are talking about is questionable. The DOJ might question you on it as it serves their financial interests. That is why I have provided a solid foundation to answer those questions.

You seem to think that getting the California legislature to change this confusing penal code in favor of the gun rights movement would be a wiser use of my time. That is clearly a fools errand. You might not like it, but actually challenging the law in practice will affect change much sooner than trying to change the law. The only problem is some liberty loving citizens are going to have to do it and that makes the people who like their comfortable cages nervous.

[kemasa]

The problem is when a FFL is posting in a public forum promoting and encouraging others to do something which is illegal or questionable at best. In the case of firearms, illegal activities can adversely affect everyone. Take a look at the laws that pass, it is not because everyone is doing something wrong, it is because of the few, who get noticed, and that is used as an excuse. If Wes wanted to do what he is promoting and not promote it in public, then there would not be much of an issue. The problem is that he keeps says that it is perfectly fine to do it, although recently admitted that it is questionable.

Wes loves to claim that he backed up his "single sale", but it is always with unrelated issues, none of which mentions a "single sale". He loves to try to include the Federal law, which allows for adding firearms, but neglects to factor in that the state specifically mentions "single sale". The word "single" is a common word, which for most people does not have to be defined. It is funny that he claims that because the CA Penal Code does not define it, he is free to use the Federal Law, which is not related to the term "single sale" at all.

While is loves to attack others with his "DOJ masters", it is that if he really thought that what he was doing was perfectly legal, he would not call it questionable and would not play the game that he is playing with his "DOJ masters". He is trying to get others to join in his fool's errand, so he is not alone in this, but hopefully most others will have enough sense to stay legal.

Perhaps Wes does not realize this, but the law has changed for the better. In the past, a FFL had to endure the waiting period, but that is now gone. His personal attacks with the "DOJ masters" and "people who like their comfortable cages" shows that he wants to use emotional means to try to win the debate, but does not use real facts. Clearly, he wants anyone who is willing to stand up to him to go away and shutup so that he can spew his bogus arguments without a challenge.

So Wes, if you REALLY want to challenge the law in practice, then why do you claim I am trying to get you shutdown? You should welcome the challenge and call the CA DOJ yourself and give them all the information as to what you claim you are doing. That will ensure that you are doing what you say, which is to challenge the law in practice. Oh, but it seems clear that you don't personally want to challenge the law in practice since you clearly don't want to do that nor do you want anyone else to contact the CA DOJ to help you in your endeavors. Could it be that what you really want is for fool others into doing what you claim is legal and you claim to do so that they, not you, can be the test case? I think your words show that to be the case.

[BONECUTTER]

This post is what I hate about selling at gun shows. There is always that one guy who just won't shut up about what I'm doing is illegal. I don't even try to explain to them legalities anymore. I tell them they are wrong and if they want to come back with the penal code I'm breaking they are welcome to.

Wes has more than covered his rear in explainations. Yes, the DOJ reads this. If they thought they had a slam dunk case and found that he was clearly in the wrong I'm sure they would of already served a warrant and had charges files.

You keep talking about common sense like it means anything when it comes to laws. Remember when the CA hand free cellphone law went into effect. Common sense would say that would include texting but it didn't. They had to add that in later because there was nothing to charge all these people with.

The penal code says what you can't do. Not what you can. Show the specific code he is breaking that they will file charges with or just give it a rest already. No one is trying to convice you to change your ways nor is anyone trying to convince other FFL's to jump on the bangwagon.

[kemasa]

I did not say the law was based on common sense, just that when using terms like "single sale", you need to use some common sense if you don't find a specific definition of it.

I disagree that Wes has explained and I have pointed out the holes, but he won't listen and instead insists on claiming that he can use the BATF firearm transaction to decide what to do with respect to CA law which says "single sale".

Wes is trying to convince others to do what he is suggesting. I have shown the penal code.

If the law was based in common sense, only driving while distracted would be needed with respect to cell phones, kids, pets, etc.