Adding Shotgun to DROS

[kemasa]

There are some at the CA DOJ and BATF that I trust more than others to have the correct answer. I had to educate the BATF inspector when she claimed that I had to ship all the 4473s prior to my move into the BATF out of business records department. She would not listen until I gave her the name and number of the person in the records department.

[TripleT]

There are some at the CA DOJ and BATF that I trust more than others to have the correct answer. I had to educate the BATF inspector when she claimed that I had to ship all the 4473s prior to my move in. She would not listen until I gave her the name and number of the person in the records department.

I don't follow. "Ship all the 4473's prior to my move in." What was she trying to make you do ?

[kemasa]

Wes claims to be going to have a known firearm attorney give an opinion on this, but I would not count on it.

[kemasa]

I moved locations and the BATF issued a new FFL with a different number. She claimed that since a different number was issued, that I had to send all the 4473s to the out of business records department. I told her that I did not go out of business, I just moved, therefore I did not need to send in all the 4473s. She would not listen nor would she check on it, so I did and once I gave her the contact name and number, she backed down.

I guess I could have worded it better :-).

[TripleT]

I moved locations and the BATF issued a new FFL with a different number. She claimed that since a different number was issued, that I had to send all the 4473s to the out of business records department. I told her that I did not go out of business, I just moved, therefore I did not need to send in all the 4473s. She would not listen nor would she check on it, so I did and once I gave her the contact name and number, she backed down.

I guess I could have worded it better :-).

Ok, Now I get it.

Heck, I might of just sent 'em. From what I've been told, they get deep sixed in some warehouse and only get looked at when a firearm is used in a crime. The next audit would have been pretty interesting. Tell 'em go to your warehouse to complete the audit... ;-)

[kemasa]

Yeah, well, first off I did not want to send them and have them claimed that I was now out of business and cancel my current FFL. The second thing is that I am lazy and cheap and did not want to take all the time and effort to box up all the forms and ship them off, perhaps have to deal with the forms getting lost and/or explain why I no longer have the forms. I would have wanted to scan a copy of each form (see lazy) as well.

I received a phone call from the BATF, quite some time ago, tracing a firearm. There was a couple of problems though. First, I had not dealt with the company that they said had shipped me the firearm. The next thing was that I never received a firearm with that serial number. I called back to told the person this. A day later I got a call from the same person asking if I had gone through my records yet.

I heard that there is a Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.

I prefer to avoid such interesting things :-).

[tenpercentfirearms]

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 crack me up. I didn't make assumptions. I asked for clarification because you did not make it clear. Again, something you are really good at. Now it is clear. An example of a third party transaction. Thank you.

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.

How can it not be good enough for me when you just now finally gave an example of a third person transaction. You never gave one before. At least not a clear one. I guess your statements seem very clear to you. They are not very clear to us.

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

Didn't you just say don't make assumptions? Hypocrite.

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.

No the only thing is the person who is purchasing is not really acquiring it. It has nothing to do with 30 days, nor prohibited persons.

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

Clearly it is an ego issue. You were corrected and don't want to admit to it. No problem. I missed something you caught. I have no problems with that.

Wes claims to be going to have a known firearm attorney give an opinion on this, but I would not count on it.

Why not? Either the attorney will say it is good or he will say it isn't. I don't know why you should doubt it. I have followed through on everything else I have said I was going to do. Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS. Of course, we don't want to talk about that though do we?

[kemasa]

You did make an assumption when you made statements about how the group buy occurred. Just admit you made a mistake there.

It is nitpicking and pointless because who pays really does not matter, except as a warning sign. You demand an example of something that just does not matter.

As to assuming, I am giving my opinion. If you want to see a hypocrite, I suggest that you just look into the mirror.

Wes, get a clue. Why do you think that a prohibited person or someone trying to get around the one gun per thirty days has nothing to do with a straw purchase? It can be the reason for the straw purchase. Since it can be the reason, it is part of it.

If two people walk and and one person is interested in two firearms. The other person shows little interest. The first person says he wants to buy both of the firearms, but is told that he is limited to one per month, so he just purchases one of them. The second person then says that he wants to purchase the other one. Each person pulls out a credit card and pays for their own purchase. Is there any problem with either of these transactions?

Wes, you are wrong, you did not correct me with regards to straw purchases. In your messages you claim that I went and looked up something because of you and learned something because of you, that is just plain false. That and other statements show that you have an ego problem with my being correct and your learning something from me.

Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.

I never said I would get a letter from the DOJ. Why don't you get a letter from the DOJ saying we can't do it?

Way to add being honest about it in there. Classic case of you expanding onto the issues at hand and ignoring the original case.

So why you are at it, where did I admit to making things up? Or are you making things up?

[kemasa]

Wes, go read your posts. I have proven you wrong in the past about what you claimed to have not said, but actually said. So, no, I am not the one who makes things up.

Where did I say that you said you would get a letter from the DOJ? That is an example of your reading and understanding skills. That was in response to "Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS." To be quite blunt, I would not believe what you said if your tongue came notarized. Such a claim by you could not be proven unless the phone call was recorded AND it can be proven that the person you were talking to actually worked for the CA DOJ Firearms division and was a person who normally answered questions on the phone.

So, Wes, you are wrong. I was just responding to statements that you made.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Wes, go read your posts. I have proven you wrong in the past about what you claimed to have not said, but actually said. So, no, I am not the one who makes things up.

I just read them all and you never did that once. You are lying again. I know you kind of think that citing sources is a waste of time, but time and time again I prove you inadequate for this level of the ball game because you won't back up your claims. Now you look like a fool because I just proved you wrong.

Where did I say that you said you would get a letter from the DOJ? That is an example of your reading and understanding skills. That was in response to "Including getting a DOJ agent to tell me by phone he agrees you can add long guns onto a handgun 4473 and DROS." To be quite blunt, I would not believe what you said if your tongue came notarized. Such a claim by you could not be proven unless the phone call was recorded AND it can be proven that the person you were talking to actually worked for the CA DOJ Firearms division and was a person who normally answered questions on the phone.

An example of my reading and understanding skills? This has nothing to do with my reading and understanding skills and everything to do with your writing skills. Again, usually people use references to what the cite or quote. You don't, which makes your writing hard to understand. For example, people usually use paragraphs as a means to separating thoughts and showing they are moving onto the next one. Your paragraph we are referencing to did not. You stated in one sentence

Sorry Wes, but you have not followed through on everything you said you would do and/or have not been honest about it. Get an official letter from the DOJ about adding long guns, rather than your claim that some DOJ person said something. You have admitted you have made things up.

Had you been more clear that you were not referencing the letter comment to the not being honest instead of the not followed through, maybe I would have gotten in. However, as is the case with this entire thread, you do not have clear and well thought out reasoning and you do not display clear writing skills (hence the numerous errors in citing penal code, grammatical blunders, and going off on tangents like this one).

So, Wes, you are wrong. I was just responding to statements that you made.

I have never admitted to making things up, that is just your assumption. I clearly stated that your fools errand of me posting 4473 numbers was absurd. I stated for the record before I even posted the numbers that it would prove nothing because either the penal code says what it says or it doesn't. I stated that I could simply make up some numbers and nothing would be changed. I correctly predicted that by my posting a 4473 number, nothing would change.

Not only was I correct, but you didn't even believe the number I posted was valid. So what was the point in you asking? To take away from the real issue at hand. What does the penal code say?

I quote penal code and you quote the dictionary.

[jmlivingston]

This thread's done.