Adding Shotgun to DROS

[BONECUTTER]

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".

CA doesn't define "single sale" so they don't have the penal code to charge him with a crime.

Instead of him saying I assumed he is using the next logical law based on BATF trasactions. (Sounds logical doesn't it?)

So if he is not breaking Federal law and not breaking State law.... Hes not breaking the law.

Even though he appears to be in the right here I have yet to see him try to convince other to do this as you are suggesting. You don't feel comfortable doing this.....as I'm sure many other FFL's don't, so just tell your customers that you don't and move on.

[kemasa]

It is your opinion that they can not charge him with a crime, which in fact is false. He might be able to be found not guilty, but they most certainly can charge him.

It would only be logical to use Federal law IF the Federal law mentioned the term "single sale". Without a definition in the penal code, it is reasonable and logical to use the dictionary to see what the word single means and how it would apply in this case.

Wes is promoting his claim that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and adding long guns after the DROS is submitted. Read what he has said and that is clearly promoting it.

If Wes really believes that what he is promoting is legal, then please explain why he would claim that I am trying to get him shutdown. That seems to be a serious conflict in his statements.

[BONECUTTER]

It is your opinion that they can not charge him with a crime, which in fact is false. He might be able to be found not guilty, but they most certainly can charge him.

Anyone can be charged for anything.... Doesn't mean its not legal.

It would only be logical to use Federal law IF the Federal law mentioned the term "single sale". Without a definition in the penal code, it is reasonable and logical to use the dictionary to see what the word single means and how it would apply in this case.

Logic mean nothing. Look back at the cell phone thing. If you don't want someone doing something...put it in the penal code.

Wes is promoting his claim that you can add a long gun to a handgun DROS and adding long guns after the DROS is submitted. Read what he has said and that is clearly promoting it.

Saying something is legal is different from advising other to do it. He has not tried to convice others to do this as you are implying.

If Wes really believes that what he is promoting is legal, then please explain why he would claim that I am trying to get him shutdown. That seems to be a serious conflict in his statements.

You seem to want him to throw this in the DOJ's face. Why....even legal would you want him to call them as say "guess what Im doing.....ha ha ha".
We piss off the DOJ enough as it is. Why add fuel....

[kemasa]

Well, you agree that he can be charged, which conflicts with what you said. There is only one way to find out if it is legal or not.

Logic means nothing? Didn't you say that what Wes was saying with respect the CA law and Federal law sounded logical? Why do you now say say logic means nothing when it is pointed out that the Federal law talks about a firearm transaction and CA law talks about a single sale, not to mention that a CA firearm transaction is quite different than a Federal firearm transaction. The CA penal code says what you need to do. It states that one type of transaction is submitted for a handgun and another type for a non-handgun, which means that if you try to do both with one, you are violating the penal code. It mentions that you can include multiple long guns, but limits it to a single sale. If it is not a single sale, then it is prohibited and you can not define that a single sale is anything that you want it to be.

Look at what Wes said with respect to getting the law viewed differently. By this, he claims that he wants the law challenged and since he is making public statements about what he is doing, or at least claiming to do, that he wants to be the test case. More likely, he is making false claims and wants someone else to be the test case, which is why he is claiming that I am trying to get him shutdown, when the reality is that he is the one posting what he is doing.

Ok, so you say that "we" piss of the DOJ enough as it is and ask why add fuel, so since it is known that the DOJ reads this forum, doesn't that mean that Wes, by posting what he is claiming to be doing, is, in fact, throwing it in the face of the DOJ and adding fuel to the fire by pissing them off?

You did not answer my question though.

[BONECUTTER]

Well, you agree that he can be charged, which conflicts with what you said. There is only one way to find out if it is legal or not.

Never said they couldn't charge....said they don't have the penal code for a legitimate charge.

Logic means nothing? Didn't you say that what Wes was saying with respect the CA law and Federal law sounded logical? Why do you now say say logic means nothing when it is pointed out that the Federal law talks about a firearm transaction and CA law talks about a single sale, not to mention that a CA firearm transaction is quite different than a Federal firearm transaction. The CA penal code says what you need to do. It states that one type of transaction is submitted for a handgun and another type for a non-handgun, which means that if you try to do both with one, you are violating the penal code. It mentions that you can include multiple long guns, but limits it to a single sale. If it is not a single sale, then it is prohibited and you can not define that a single sale is anything that you want it to be.

More word twisting and turning..... Not saying a single sale is anything I want it to be.....Maybe Ill go back and take logic and common sense and just used what the AFT says....hows that for twisting words around.

Look at what Wes said with respect to getting the law viewed differently. By this, he claims that he wants the law challenged and since he is making public statements about what he is doing, or at least claiming to do, that he wants to be the test case. More likely, he is making false claims and wants someone else to be the test case, which is why he is claiming that I am trying to get him shutdown, when the reality is that he is the one posting what he is doing.

Thats speculation....he must be out to get you and trick you into this devious plan.....wait....he is so greedy he wants all other FFL's shut down.

Ok, so you say that "we" piss of the DOJ enough as it is and ask why add fuel, so since it is known that the DOJ reads this forum, doesn't that mean that Wes, by posting what he is claiming to be doing, is, in fact, throwing it in the face of the DOJ and adding fuel to the fire by pissing them off?

No...its not...legal or not legal the DOJ can audit more often and in sure they can find stuff to make life hard if they want to. This is purely a debate on the legalities of adding a long gun. One is looks like you have lost.

You did not answer my question though.

I don't have to. Mostly because I don't care. I don't get worked up by this or bothered if you agree or not. To me you are another guy at a gunshow who will argue to he is blue in the face. I have the ability to ignore you. I have said my peace and don't plan on responding to you anymore.

[kemasa]

Yes, there is a penal code which can be used for the charge.

Ok, then define what a single sale is. Don't use the Federal law, which does not talk about a single sale. Don't use the BOE, which does not talk about a single sale. You said it was logical to use the Federal law, but it is apples and oranges with respect to a single sale.

His motives are speculation, but it is based on his words. He has admitted to making things up. Who said anything about his wanting all other FFLs shutdown? It seems to me that he just wants some other fool to be the test case.

The DOJ can audit, but there are certain things which are harder to find, such as adding a long gun after the initial sale. When they know the person is doing it, then they will know to look for it. I think that you are trying to say that I have lost the debate, but the judge has yet to rule.

Yeah, I can understand why you would not want to answer that question.

[halifax]

OK, I'm ready to allow some common sense here. Since it is the person undergoing the background check and cooling off period, NOT the firearm, I'm ready to agree with these DOJ agents that did these seminars. If the buyer has passed the background check then other firearms may be added to the same DROS as long as the original transaction has not concluded.

...
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.

That is the common-ist of common sense.

[kemasa]

Ahhh, but remember that the law is not written in common sense since then it would be based on the purchaser, not the firearm, as the Federal law is.

12071 ...
(3) No firearm shall be delivered:
(A) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after
notice by the department pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
12076, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any
correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to
the department of any fee required pursuant to subdivision (e) of
Section 12076, whichever is later.

There might also be other sections, but I don't see in the CA Penal Code that the point is to do a background check and/or cooling off period, but instead it seems to be based on the firearm.

[halifax]

Ahhh, but remember that the law is not written in common sense since then it would be based on the purchaser, not the firearm, as the Federal law is.

12071 ...
(3) No firearm shall be delivered:
(A) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after
notice by the department pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section
12076, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any
correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to
the department of any fee required pursuant to subdivision (e) of
Section 12076, whichever is later.

There might also be other sections, but I don't see in the CA Penal Code that the point is to do a background check and/or cooling off period, but instead it seems to be based on the firearm.

So, you read that as applying to the firearm and not the submission of the DROS? Now I am beginning to understand the length of this thread.

[tenpercentfirearms]

So, you read that as applying to the firearm and not the submission of the DROS? Now I am beginning to understand the length of this thread.

LOL.

For the record, the only reason I kept on with the "shutdown" comments is because kemasa gets so worked up about it. I enjoy pulling his chain. I think the record is clear on his motivations in calling out for 4473 numbers. Again, that also makes it abundantly clear why so few FFLs want to come into this thread. Back me up and get reported to the DOJ.

I do find it interesting that the few FFLs in this thread have not seemed to take his side. I wonder why that is?

Oh kemasa, you are classic, that is for sure.

Just in case it isn't perfectly clear, if you are unsure about any of this. DO NOT DO IT! I do not want you to get busted thinking this is a clear cut case. You can be written up or charged for anything. I personally will do everything in my power to make sure you are properly defended by myself and the Calguns community (I don't speak solely for the Foundation). I do not want you to be a test case. You have to make that decision. I think the only person here who might think I am trying to trick any of you is kemasa. The only reason he doesn't get it is he doesn't read my posts and just keeps arguing for arguing's sake.

Kemasa this is where you ignore everything I have written and continue to harp about a lack of a definition of a single sale, which we have all concluded doesn't exist and how I am trying to trick everyone into getting busted.

I think this thread is done.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I think this thread is done.

WORD!!!

[kemasa]

Halifax, I do read that section to apply to the firearm, specifically to the submission of the DROS, and not to the purchaser in terms of a background check for that person. Yes, it is reasons like that that this thread continues on.

Wes, you won't respond to the shutdown comments because there is nothing you can say to defend that and you will be shown for what you really are. I find it funny that you are willing to do this, but in another thread claim that there is an issue with a perfectly legal trade.

Yes, the record is clear on my asking for the 4473 transaction number. I wanted to see if you were foolish enough to post a valid number. You claim to have, but then said that it might have been a lie. You want to falsely claim that there is more reasons for it other than for you to provide the information to the CA DOJ. I could have asked for you to PM me with it, but I don't personally want it.

It is funny since you are the one who keeps harping on the lack of a definition of what a single sale is in the penal code. You are the one who keeps saying that I have the responsibility to provide a definition, but now you are trying to turn it around? How funny.

It is also interesting that you admit to playing games.

[TripleT]

Wes,

I considered the source long ago and have tried ever so hard to not take the bait. Please let Kemasa have the last word so this thing can die. We all get the point that he can't seem to grasp and until he has the final post, this thing will continue like some bad virus. It was entertaining at first, as are most of Kemasa's post's but this one is just insane.

Can we all agree, no matter what Kemasa drags through the water,,, nobody bite ! I don't want to argue and I certainly don't want to win. I just don't want to have to drive by the same train wreck day, after day, after day.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Wes, you won't respond to the shutdown comments because there is nothing you can say to defend that and you will be shown for what you really are. I find it funny that you are willing to do this, but in another thread claim that there is an issue with a perfectly legal trade.

Don't reference claims without citations or simple links.

Yes, the record is clear on my asking for the 4473 transaction number. I wanted to see if you were foolish enough to post a valid number. You claim to have, but then said that it might have been a lie. You want to falsely claim that there is more reasons for it other than for you to provide the information to the CA DOJ. I could have asked for you to PM me with it, but I don't personally want it.

LOL. Foolish enough to post a valid number? I told you it was pointless from the get go as I could easily lie about it. You still thought it would mean something. You still have no idea what number I posted. I can't wait for the DOJ to ask about it. End result, you have nothing.

It is funny since you are the one who keeps harping on the lack of a definition of what a single sale is in the penal code. You are the one who keeps saying that I have the responsibility to provide a definition, but now you are trying to turn it around? How funny.

Are you really this dense? If you claim I am breaking the law because I am violating the single sale, it is your responsibility to show the definition of single sale that I am violating. When you make the claim, the responsibility of proof is on you.

It is also interesting that you admit to playing games.

When you clearly don't understand how academia works, I might as well screw with you. This is not the first time you have made a claim and failed to produce the evidence, but instead expect other people to verify your claims (link).

Do you have someone you trust and respect that we can have them explain to you the basic premise of making a claim and backing it up with logic, reasoning, and evidence. You seem to have missed that part of school and you clearly aren't learning it here.

You claimed I am breaking the law. You claim I am violating the single sale as it is defined by the dictionary. Guess what? Check out this link! http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...=true&o=100074

Again, if you were a prosecutor, you would be laughed out of the court. Probably like you are being laughed out of this thread.

[kemasa]

Hey, Wes, are you the CalGuns police now? I can make statements which are true and I don't need to provide a link. It is true. If you want to post a link, do it. I know you love to tell others what they have to do, but you refuse to do the same thing that you expect of others. I am sure that others can find it, if they are interested. It is amusing that Wes wants to be careful in one case, yet questionable, at best, in another. I guess it all depends on which game he is playing.

Perhaps your fellow gang members want to support you, for now, but only time will tell. Perhaps they will view you differently when they see your other claims with the transfer. Under that, a person can not give a gift of a firearm as they would not the be actual buyer, nor can they trade firearms, as in the specific reference. They would have to answer no to 4473 11.a. What a joke!!!

Wes clearly does not understand what a dictionary is and how to use it. A dictionary defines words, such as "single" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/single?o=100074 and "sale" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sale?o=100074. Why does Wes try to use the fact that he can not find "single sale" on dictionary.com as evidence for something? This shows his skills are questionable, at best.

So, Wes, why don't you get a known attorney who specializes in firearm laws to back your statements with regard to what a single sale is and your reading of the penal code, especially with your claim that a handgun is not a firearm transaction.