Adding Shotgun to DROS

[tenpercentfirearms]

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.

You are correct. And that is why no one except me listens to you anymore. You have destroyed your credibility. You are known as the FFL who likes to make things up without references to support his claims. And you are correct, that is your choice.

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!!!

More baseless falsehoods and exaggerations. Here is a link if you want to go see where kemasa is operating under his usual pattern of going off on tangents and completely making up definitions as he goes. I definitely see a pattern.

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.

You are correct. And that is why no one except me listens to you anymore. You have destroyed your credibility. You are known as the FFL who likes to make things up without references to support his claims. And you are correct, that is your choice.

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.

Woah! You got me there kemasa. Brilliant reasoning skills. So based on your links a single sale means "pertaining to the unmarried state" "an auction". Sure genius! LOL. You see, I am proud of you for finally using links, but what you might want to do is clearly outline which definitions you are using from those links. You see I understand that a dictionary doesn't just have a "single" definition of "single". So unless you specify if you are using it in its adjective, verb, or noun form let alone which one of those many definitions for each, you really aren't making a solid case.

Keep working on it, you are getting closer and I am proud of you for making some progress.

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.

It is like you read my mind! Well with the exception of the handgun is not a firearm transaction. That is irrelevant to adding long guns to DROS. Just in case you think I am admitting that a handgun for the purposes of Section 12077(d) is a transaction, we all know it isn't. I will quote it again for you.

(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.

I don't make this garbage up, I just read it.

That is all for now. I will get back to you with an attorney's opinion. Until then, you can go ahead and post the last word. We know you can't help it.

[kemasa]

Hey, Wes, at least I can read the instructions for a 4473. I also know that a third person can pay for a firearm and that does not automatically make it a straw purchase.

It also seems that you like to double up on your response :-).

So, in addition to being the CalGuns police, you also are able to speak for everyone else on this forum.

Gotta love your comments regarding the dictionary. Clearly, you need a bit of educating. First you claim that "single sale" is not in the dictionary, then you pull out one definition of the word "single", but then you fall back on your CalGuns police role and claim that I have the responsibility to spoon feed you with the use of a dictionary.

Yeah, you read things, just incorrectly.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Hey, Wes, at least I can read the instructions for a 4473. I also know that a third person can pay for a firearm and that does not automatically make it a straw purchase.

Care to explain how a third person could pay for a firearm and it doesn't make it a straw purchase? The other thread dealt with only two people. Plus you sure didn't read the 4473 clearly when you stated that

There are a couple of issues with a strawman purchase. The first is that the person who the firearm is really for is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The second is to bypass the 1 gun per 30 days or the such things.

I read the 4473 and no where did it state either of those two things.

Don't try to act all high and mighty when my original questioning is what led you to read the 4473 and see that it does specify that you can still answer yes if you are "therwise acquiring the firearm for yourself". I agree with you on that point, but you clearly didn't have that conclusion when you started the thread. Only through our clearly stating our positions and doing research did we both come to that conclusion. We are both better for it and don't need the personal attacks. And it certainly doesn't change anything over in this thread, nor is it even relevant. Or should we bring up your misquotes of penal code in the past? I don't think we need to. Your position in the other thread is correct irregardless of other positions you have taken.

[kemasa]

A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group.

Shall I give you more examples?

Yes, I read the 4473 and gave some examples of issues which make it a straw purchase.

Who pays is just a warning sign, but does not indicate that it is a straw purchase. As stated in the other thread, it depends on who is really acquiring the firearm and why. A person can purchase a firearm for a gift for another and that is not a straw purchase, even though in the long term they are actually acquiring the firearm for another. That is a rare example and with limited exceptions does not really apply in CA since the other person will have to submit a DROS to do the transfer.

Sorry, Wes, your original questioning did not lead me to read the 4473. Most likely I read the instructions long before you were ever a FFL, but in any case long before I ever posted on this forum or even knew about this forum. Yeah, I think that your ego is getting the best of you. Clearly, you still do not understand what is and what is not a straw purchase due to your first question.

My misquotes? I did accidentally have the wrong section number, but the quote of the code section was correct.

"WE" don't need the personal attacks? Look at your response when you admitted you were wrong. Look at some of the other comments in that response.

[tenpercentfirearms]

A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group.

Shall I give you more examples?

Yes, I read the 4473 and gave some examples of issues which make it a straw purchase.

Who pays is just a warning sign, but does not indicate that it is a straw purchase. As stated in the other thread, it depends on who is really acquiring the firearm and why. A person can purchase a firearm for a gift for another and that is not a straw purchase, even though in the long term they are actually acquiring the firearm for another. That is a rare example and with limited exceptions does not really apply in CA since the other person will have to submit a DROS to do the transfer.

Sorry, Wes, your original questioning did not lead me to read the 4473. Most likely I read the instructions long before you were ever a FFL, but in any case long before I ever posted on this forum or even knew about this forum. Yeah, I think that your ego is getting the best of you. Clearly, you still do not understand what is and what is not a straw purchase due to your first question.

My misquotes? I did accidentally have the wrong section number, but the quote of the code section was correct.

"WE" don't need the personal attacks? Look at your response when you admitted you were wrong. Look at some of the other comments in that response.

You still didn't explain a third person. A second person yes. A third person no. So how does a third person "not a straw purchase" work? Clearly I understand a straw sale as I questioned you on your original verbiage that dealt with prohibited persons, which specifically has nothing to do with a straw sale. Only whether you are the person acquiring the firearm is what matters.

I am glad we are educating each other.

[kemasa]

"A group donates money to purchase a rifle and give it as a gift to a member of the group." The person shipping me the rifle did not provide the money for the rifle and the person picking it up did not provide any money for the rifle.

There are plenty of third "persons" involved. In any case, your question shows that you don't understand that who is paying does not matter at all except as a warning sign. You seem to have backed off from your previous statements, a bit, which shows progress.

My comments dealt with who is actually acquiring the firearm, but clearly you want to attack any comments I make.

[yzErnie]

A father comes in and buys both of his sons a rifle.

Have to agree with kemasa on this one. The father can pay for the rifle(s) but the DROS has to be completed by the son(s) and the rifle DROS'd in the son(s) name. Who pays for it isn't important but who DROS's the gun is.

[CHS]

Have to agree with kemasa on this one. The father can pay for the rifle(s) but the DROS has to be completed by the son(s) and the rifle DROS'd in the son(s) name. Who pays for it isn't important but who DROS's the gun is.

Actually, in CA that's not true.

A Dad can come in and pay for AND DROS a rifle that's a gift for his son, as long as they both live in CA.

Perfectly legal.

[kemasa]

The question was whether it was a straw purchase, not all the possible legal ways that it can be done.

Yes, a father CAN come in and pay for a rifle and DROS it, then give it as a gift to his son, but it is perfectly legal and proper to have the father come in and pay and have the son submit the DROS. Change it to a handgun, if you prefer. Yes, the form can be filled out, but that would cost more money in the end.

[tenpercentfirearms]

There are plenty of third "persons" involved. In any case, your question shows that you don't understand that who is paying does not matter at all except as a warning sign. You seem to have backed off from your previous statements, a bit, which shows progress.

My comments dealt with who is actually acquiring the firearm, but clearly you want to attack any comments I make.

Don't make assumptions kemasa. I was nit picking at you because you said a "third person". I am still not sure if the people paying for a gift are third person or not. As if I put money in a pool to go to someone else, it has only passed through two people. Me to the gun buyer. So you still haven't sufficiently answered for third person.

Instead of recognizing that I was nit picking at you, you make assumptions that I don't understand what is going on. My question shows I know what is going on. Again, you keep making it personal. I just asked what a third person transaction was. You don't have to take it as an attack, just answer the question, which you still haven't. At this point your easiest answer would simply be, "I meant second person". Instead you make assumptions about me that are completely off base because you want to be right and you want to seem smarter than me. And that isn't an attack, it is what it is.

Just remember, your very first statement about a straw purchase that started this. You said nothing about what we are discussing now. So I am still not sure why you seem to think I don't get it and you got it all. After I stated your concept of a straw purchase was way off (which it was, it has nothing to do with if one of the parties is a prohibited person or not), you then went back and read it and figured out that as long as the person was legally acquiring it, we are good to go. A point I missed, just like the point you missed that prohibited has nothing to do with it.

We both get it now. Clearly both of our understandings are better about how to explain a straw purchase than when the other thread began. Neither of us needs to be smarter than the other on that issue and it really has nothing to do with this thread here.

[TripleT]

Something to keep in mind as you arrive at agreement on some of these issues is the CA DOJ person or ATF person is no smarter or in possession of a better crystal ball as to what the intention of some of these convoluted laws are or was. In that respect, I personally would not expect either agency to arrive at the same conclusions during an audit (or maybe a sting). Some of these gray areas are legally defensible, given enough money, in the mean time, prudence may be as important as understanding the law. IMHO

[kemasa]

Wes, as you say, don't make assumptions. In the case of the pool, the money was not given to the person getting the firearm, but to another person, who collected the money and who might have then given it to another person to actually purchase the firearm.

You are nit picking because you want to try to find an issue that you can hang your hat on. As I said, the money is just a warning sign and is not an issue. I could give you a case where the money passes from person to person, over and over again, until it gets to the final person. It is still not an issue. I have given an example of a third person, but it seems that is not good enough for you.

I am assuming that you don't understand because of what you are saying. You are clearly playing games.

Often a straw purchase is to allow a person, who is prohibited from directly buying a firearm, to get a firearm. It also can be to bypass the one gun per thirty days. It is anything to get around that person actually filling out the paperwork. It can be that a person does not want a record of the purchase and that they are legally allowed to purchase a firearm. There are many reasons, but the main thing is that the person doing the paperwork is not the person who is really acquiring it.

Sorry, but my understanding has not changed at all. It has nothing to do with being smarter either. That is just the ego issue.

[ke6guj]

are you guys still arguing over this?

[halifax]

I think the arguing now revolves around who will have the last word

[TripleT]

are you guys still arguing over this?

As the FFL Turns... It's our very own soap opera. Stay tuned for scenes from tomorrow's episode.