Adding Shotgun to DROS

[Mike's Custom]

I have never had them look and I have been a FFL since 94. Plus, having 2 BATFE agents in the family let me ask all kinds of question. I have never had a BATFE agent or inspector ask me for a DROS or a CA DOJ agent or inspector ask me for a 4473. That would be like having Navada LE look to see if I am violating any CA laws. IF the BATFE comes across a state violation they will report it to the state but they can take no action on their own and visa versa.

[kemasa]

12077. (a) The Department of Justice shall prescribe the form of
the register and the record of electronic transfer pursuant to
Section 12074.
(b) (1) For handguns, information contained in the register or
record of electronic transfer shall be the date and time of sale
...

Deceptive quoting of the penal code is dishonest. You need to look at the whole penal code section, which you are clearly ignoring.

Wes, you are correct, the penal code does not define "single". I don't think that it defines "sale", "document", or many other words.

Your definition of what a single sale does not match up with others, but most importantly with people who can bring charges against you. You could consider everything you sell to a specific person as a single sale, but do you really think that a jury will agree with you, which is even more important. I think you are making a big mistake trying to claim that the definition of what a single sale is needed in the penal code and more importantly trying to promote your view to others.

You are required to submit accurate information on the DROS. Changing the information because you made a mistake is one thing, but changing it due to making changes is another.

Again you try to use the Feds to back your position, but it does not apply. Look at the difference with transfering firearms to family members.

What does DROS stand for. Dealer Record Of SALE. You are reporting a SALE. You are not reporting what might be a sale or part of a sale.

I stated my opinion as to your honesty or lack thereof. That is not jumping to conclusions, it is based on your words. You even admit that you could lie about the number.

As I have stated before, the reason I am pushing this issue is because you are promoting violating the law. I don't want to see any FFLs charged and forced out of business as there are too few FFLs now, less all the time, and it looks really bad in the media. It is bad enough if you do what you are suggesting, but when you do it in a public forum and suggest that others should do it, you are creating problems what we, the firearms industry, does not want or need. Anti-gunners could take your posts and create very negative PR. Is that what you really want???

Wes, you claim that I am willing to "rat" out my fellow FFLs. There is no basis for that. That is quite clearly a personal attack against me. I am not the one who is promoting illegal (at a minimum very questionable) acts on a public forum. The claim that Wes is making with adding longguns is based on the word "single", trying to claim that a sale made on one day can be combined with a sale on another day and then say that it is a single sale. With adding a long gun to a handgun DROS, he abuses the wording that states that multiple longguns can be considered a single transaction claiming that it is the one and only definition of what a transactions is, ignoring the rest of the same code section.

Perhaps readers should consider who is deceptively quoting code sections, defines "single" in any way he wants. The judge will have a field day with Wes, just on the word single.

It is also clear that Wes has a high opinion of himself. He as not "run me in circles", although he talks in circles, makes false claims, like claiming I am in fear of my masters, which I have no masters and I am not in fear of anyone. He also falsely claims that I am in a cage. Quite clearly, he needs professional help.

You don't know the areas in which I am willing to push, but it is stupid to stand in front of a tank and expect to come out ok. There are other ways to effect change and get the laws changed. Have you contacted your representatives to see if you can get them to change to law so that you can include a long gun with a handgun DROS? Have you done anything other than post here? I have.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Deceptive quoting of the penal code is dishonest. You need to look at the whole penal code section, which you are clearly ignoring.

How are sections (a) and (b) relevant to section (i)? What did quoting section (a) and (b) do to clarify (i) and (j)? Boy this sounds familiar, except when I called you on it, you were running together text from 12076 with 12077. Nice try kemasa, but your line of reasoning has no relevance and is a shoddy attempt to mimick my earlier points of your inability to properly quote and understand code.

Wes, you are correct, the penal code does not define "single". I don't think that it defines "sale", "document", or many other words.

Your definition of what a single sale does not match up with others, but most importantly with people who can bring charges against you. You could consider everything you sell to a specific person as a single sale, but do you really think that a jury will agree with you, which is even more important. I think you are making a big mistake trying to claim that the definition of what a single sale is needed in the penal code and more importantly trying to promote your view to others.

So please quote for us what others consider a single sale. You say my definition of a single sale, the sale which concludes at the end of the transaction when the customer finishes paying for the products and leaves with the merchandise, would be rejected by a jury? My definition of a sale which also matches what the federal government considers a sale would be rejected by a jury? You are incorrect, as usual, as you could not claim everythign you sell to a specific person is a single sale as the 4473 states once the dealer signs the form, a new 4473 must be used. Second, for accounting purposes, once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed in order to properly file income and sales tax returns.

You claim other people have a different definition of a single sale, but you don't give examples. That won't cut it. It is called supporting your case. Just because you say it is so, does not make it true. Maybe you didn't write many term papers in your life where you learn to back up your position with relevant facts and examples. I guess I will be your teacher.

You are required to submit accurate information on the DROS. Changing the information because you made a mistake is one thing, but changing it due to making changes is another.

When I started the form, the information was correct. I initially sold him 2 long guns and he changed his mind and wanted three. Since he had not left with the merchandise yet, further I had not printed him a sales receipt, the single sale was not concluded. Therefore I corrected the DROS and wrote the correct number down on the form. As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3)). Done.

Again you try to use the Feds to back your position, but it does not apply. Look at the difference with transfering firearms to family members.

The feds most certainly apply. I am showing compliance with federal law and since state law does not specify how long a single sale lasts, I simply am following federal law. What is the difference with transfering firearms to family members? You generally support your statement with an example after making such a claim. Well articulated people with a case do.

What does DROS stand for. Dealer Record Of SALE. You are reporting a SALE. You are not reporting what might be a sale or part of a sale.

I am reporting a sale. A sale of multiple long guns. Done.

I stated my opinion as to your honesty or lack thereof. That is not jumping to conclusions, it is based on your words. You even admit that you could lie about the number.

Pointless.

As I have stated before, the reason I am pushing this issue is because you are promoting violating the law. I don't want to see any FFLs charged and forced out of business as there are too few FFLs now, less all the time, and it looks really bad in the media. It is bad enough if you do what you are suggesting, but when you do it in a public forum and suggest that others should do it, you are creating problems what we, the firearms industry, does not want or need. Anti-gunners could take your posts and create very negative PR. Is that what you really want???

Please. You have yet to show that I am promoting violating the law. And don't give me your fake concern about other FFLs. We can clearly see where your concern is in regards to other FFLs and looking out for their best interests in attempting to get me shut down. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Wes, you claim that I am willing to "rat" out my fellow FFLs. There is no basis for that. That is quite clearly a personal attack against me. I am not the one who is promoting illegal (at a minimum very questionable) acts on a public forum. The claim that Wes is making with adding longguns is based on the word "single", trying to claim that a sale made on one day can be combined with a sale on another day and then say that it is a single sale. With adding a long gun to a handgun DROS, he abuses the wording that states that multiple longguns can be considered a single transaction claiming that it is the one and only definition of what a transactions is, ignoring the rest of the same code section.

Sorry, what rest of the same code section am I ignoring? Again, you are making baseless claims. Cite references and give examples. I can say the sky is black, but that doesn't make it so. No basis for stating you are trying to rat out your fellow FFLs? Do I have to go quote your, "I am just making it easier on the DOJ when they inspect you" line again? Do you expect to be taken seriously around here?

Perhaps readers should consider who is deceptively quoting code sections, defines "single" in any way he wants. The judge will have a field day with Wes, just on the word single.

This pretty much proves you are out of your league. My ommitting irrelevant code (for those of you like kemasa that don't get it, unless it specifically states that section (i) applies to section (a), they are different parts of code) that doesn't apply to the debate is not deception. You running code from 12076 into code from 12077 was flat wrong (source). When I called you on it, you claimed you messed up when you were cutting and pasting. You can't even keep up with this debate. You are in over your head.

It is also clear that Wes has a high opinion of himself. He as not "run me in circles", although he talks in circles, makes false claims, like claiming I am in fear of my masters, which I have no masters and I am not in fear of anyone. He also falsely claims that I am in a cage. Quite clearly, he needs professional help.

You are obviously not a fan of figurative speech, analogies, or hyperbole. I have provided links for you so you can go look them up.

You don't know the areas in which I am willing to push, but it is stupid to stand in front of a tank and expect to come out ok. There are other ways to effect change and get the laws changed. Have you contacted your representatives to see if you can get them to change to law so that you can include a long gun with a handgun DROS? Have you done anything other than post here? I have.

Why would I need to contact my representatives to have them change a law that already doesn't exist?

Kemasa, you are in way over you head. Graciously bow out or at least step up your game and start backing up your statements with concrete examples and references. I am starting to feel some guilt for how easy it is to destroy your arguments.

And again for those of you fellow FFLs out there, if this makes you feel uncomfortable at all, don't do it! I am pretty sure I have made that clear numerous times. Clearly kemasa has no problems with using me as his test case to see if I am right or wrong, while taking no risk himself.

I am not afraid of the CA DOJ because I follow the law. They are not my "master", as you like to attack me with. That is so grade school of you to resort to personal attacks, but it also shows that you really don't have a real defense to your position. The fact is that you are looking for a fight with the DOJ when you state publically that you are not going to follow the law, or at least what they believe to be the law. I would love to see that fight happen since if you happen to win, things will get better for everyone. If you lose, well, then the point is made.(source)

That sounds like a free and couragous man to me.

[kemasa]

What is the quote, that Common Sense is not common or something like that?

A single sale means just that. Once the person leaves the store, that single sale ends.

So, if the person never finishes paying, then the sale never ends?

Where does the BATF define what a sale is? You are confused with what they consider a firearm transaction to be, which is clearly different than what CA defines it as.

So, where is your supporting evidence that you can expand what a single sale is? Where do you get the definition for it? Please don't try the 4473 firearm transaction and claim that is a sale as you have previously tried. If someone pays you, do you give a sales receipt? If so, then how does that relate to your saying that once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed?

Look into the mirror, just because you say it does not make it true.

Back up this statement by you "As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3))". Where does is say in that penal code that the DOJ can not ask how many longguns are sold? Show anything in the penal code which prevents them from asking.

As a FFL, you should know the difference in the CA and Federal law with respect to transferring a firearm between family members. Quite clearly, you are more interested in personally attacking me than proving your point, most likely because you can not. You keep making the mistake to try to use Federal law with respect to CA law. Where does the Federal law talk about a "single sale"?

Again you lie when you claim that I have a fake concern about other FFLs. If that was true, I would not bother trying to correct you and would not try to ensure that other FFLs don't follow your bad advice. How am I trying to get you shutdown if you are following the law? You just love the personal attacks. Remember, you are doing nothing wrong, so you have nothing to worry about and there is absolutely nothing that I can do to get you shutdown. Of course, if you know what you are saying is illegal, then you would have somewhat of a case since I did get you to post a 4473 transaction number, but the reality is that you are the one who is trying to get yourself shutdown by posting in a public forum. The fact is that I have no reason to want to get you shutdown, but I do have reasons for wanting you to follow the law.

Stating that I want to make it easier for the DOJ to inspect you because YOU provided the information on a public forum, which they are known to watch, has nothing to do with your claim of "rat out", but instead you are doing that to yourself and want to blame me for your actions and your public statements.

Wes, based on your false statements, you claim that I am over my head is clearly bogus.

[ke6guj]

OK Ken and Wes, I think you guys are gonna need to agree to disagree at some point. Doesn't look like either side is gonna change his position on the matter.

[kemasa]

I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.

You will note all of the personal attacks by Wes, which is unacceptable, but shows the reality of the situation.

If the CA DOJ takes notice and takes action against him, then we will have a change of position. His position makes sense, but the law is not about sense. It will be good for everyone in CA if he can successfully prove his case in a court of law or can get the CA DOJ to state that his view is accurate. It will be time for a party if that happens. Until that happens or the law changes, it is best to not promote such acts.

[CHS]

OK Ken and Wes, I think you guys are gonna need to agree to disagree at some point. Doesn't look like either side is gonna change his position on the matter.

The sad thing is, Wes is right and Kemasa is wrong. If you actually read the law, that part is pretty clear.

I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.

Actually, you are the one who's in the wrong here. You're not reading the law and simply repeat what the DoJ tells you.

[kemasa]

Sorry, but you are wrong and making false claims. I am not going on what the DOJ tells me, I can read the penal code and see if it makes sense. You sound like a 10% parrot. I could go over the details, but that has already been done and it seems clear that you are not listening either.

You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.

[CHS]

You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.

Ooooooooooooooooooh really???

[tenpercentfirearms]

What is the quote, that Common Sense is not common or something like that?

A single sale means just that. Once the person leaves the store, that single sale ends.

That is your opinion stated without any support.

So, if the person never finishes paying, then the sale never ends?

Correct and after 30 days the person will have to start a new background check.

Where does the BATF define what a sale is? You are confused with what they consider a firearm transaction to be, which is clearly different than what CA defines it as.

BATFE doesn't really define a sale, they just state when you can no longer add any more firearms to the 4473. You would think you would know that.

So, where is your supporting evidence that you can expand what a single sale is? Where do you get the definition for it? Please don't try the 4473 firearm transaction and claim that is a sale as you have previously tried. If someone pays you, do you give a sales receipt? If so, then how does that relate to your saying that once a customer is finished with a transaction, a sales receipt needs to be printed?

There is no definition of a single sale. That is the problem. You think a single sale ends when the customer leaves the shop, which coincides with what supposedly the DOJ thinks. The problem is, you cannot provide where the statutory evidence is that proves your definition.

I define a single sale as a single sales transaction. I use Quickbooks Point of Sale for my inventory control and receipt printing. I start all transactions as a sales order. A sales order is open and does not close until you turn it into a sales receipt. When a customer comes in to pick up their firearm(s), I turn their sales order into a sales receipt, sign the 4473 and date and time the DROS. That is when the single sale is over.

I made up my definition of a sale in the absence of any sort of definition in the penal code. Just like you made your definition up absent of any sort of definition of the penal code. The main difference in our two definitions is my definition is consistent with the procedures allowed by the federal government for adding more firearms to the 4473, but yours does not. This doesn't mean you can't refrain from adding firearms to the 4473 by your own choice as you are not violating federal guidelines by not adding firearms. I am not violating federal guidelines by adding them.

Look into the mirror, just because you say it does not make it true.

It is your job to state where it says I can't. You have been repeatedly asked to do so and you repeatedly have failed to do so.

Back up this statement by you "As I have stated previously, per penal code, the DOJ has no authority to ask how many long guns were sold. (PC 12077(c)(1) through (3))". Where does is say in that penal code that the DOJ can not ask how many longguns are sold? Show anything in the penal code which prevents them from asking.

Nothing prevents them from asking, but it is not a required question as outlined in PC12077. So to say they ask because they have to would be incorrect. So if they are not required to ask this information, then it is not important that it is accurately transmitted electronically. If the DOJ attempts to claim we cannot add long guns to a 4473 because it varies from the electronic register, they are creating underground regulation.

As a FFL, you should know the difference in the CA and Federal law with respect to transferring a firearm between family members. Quite clearly, you are more interested in personally attacking me than proving your point, most likely because you can not. You keep making the mistake to try to use Federal law with respect to CA law. Where does the Federal law talk about a "single sale"?

This clearly sums up your lack of ability to clearly keep up with this subject or really any subject. If you are going to claim there are differences in family transfers, you should outline specifically what those differences are to support your point. Instead, you just come up with vague side issues to get off the main issue. The main issue is you cannot show how long a single sale lasts. You claim I am doing something illegal, but until you can show that my definition of a single sale is clearly outside of the state's definition of a single sale, you have no case. Hence your going off on a tangent about a broad issue like family transfers and then crying victim about personal attacks.

Again you lie when you claim that I have a fake concern about other FFLs. If that was true, I would not bother trying to correct you and would not try to ensure that other FFLs don't follow your bad advice. How am I trying to get you shutdown if you are following the law? You just love the personal attacks. Remember, you are doing nothing wrong, so you have nothing to worry about and there is absolutely nothing that I can do to get you shutdown. Of course, if you know what you are saying is illegal, then you would have somewhat of a case since I did get you to post a 4473 transaction number, but the reality is that you are the one who is trying to get yourself shutdown by posting in a public forum. The fact is that I have no reason to want to get you shutdown, but I do have reasons for wanting you to follow the law.

I am not lying. I am making conclusions based off of your posts. You have been trying to correct me, but so far you have failed miserably. I don't have anything to fear as I am participating in this public debate. However, I clearly showed where you have not provided a definition to back up your claim and instead you focus on my 4473 control numbers and publicly seek to see me busted to prove yourself correct. You don't think that reflects poorly on your credibility and most certainly your "good will"?

I would love the law to be changed to be what Wes claims it will be, but until that happens, I will follow the law as I want to continue to be a FFL. I will speak out when someone states that they can do something which is wrong.

I respect that. Too bad you can't show the state's definition of when a single sale ends that coincides with yours. Which means you can't prove my definition wrong, which means you have not proved that what I am talking about is illegal or wrong.

You will note all of the personal attacks by Wes, which is unacceptable, but shows the reality of the situation.

Stating the facts is not a personal attack. Making conclusions about your character and mental capacity based on your posts are not personal attacks. Quit playing the victim card and give us a definition of single sale.

If the CA DOJ takes notice and takes action against him, then we will have a change of position. His position makes sense, but the law is not about sense. It will be good for everyone in CA if he can successfully prove his case in a court of law or can get the CA DOJ to state that his view is accurate. It will be time for a party if that happens. Until that happens or the law changes, it is best to not promote such acts.

How do you think you are going to get them to admit we are right? By toeing their line without question? It is amusing that you think what I say makes sense, but you are so combative against it. You are eager to see if I am right or not by sending me out to be the test case. Fine, instead of making a judgement call about your character for this, I will just let it go. I have been the test case before and don't mind it. I know others will ride my coattails over it. It won't be the first time.

Sorry, but you are wrong and making false claims. I am not going on what the DOJ tells me, I can read the penal code and see if it makes sense. You sound like a 10% parrot. I could go over the details, but that has already been done and it seems clear that you are not listening either.

Classic hypocritical kemasa. Cry about personal attacks and then call bdsmchs a parrot. You are not going on what the DOJ tells you? Then why over the history of this have you always asked someone to call the DOJ and ask about this? Why have you always told us to be careful of what we type on here because the DOJ is always reading? You sure seem concerned with what the DOJ says.

You could take a poll and see what the results are, but that would not go your way most likely and that would be unacceptable for you and Wes.

We could take a poll, but it would be another classic kemasa act of futility. Polls are pointless. I could get a bunch of people to get on here and vote to back me up. Does popular opinion make my case any stronger or weaker? NO!

Give up on the side shows kemasa. Quit playing the victim card, quit bringing up side issues, and quit worrying about polls.

It is time to pony up. Either show a specific State definition of single sale or admit there isn't one. Even the handgun transaction thing is a side show. Either a single sale ends when you say it ends or there is no definition of when it ends. It really is that simple.

[kemasa]

Your claims that a single sale can last days and additional firearms added on to it is just your opinion without any support and in additional conflicts with the words "single sale".

At least you can admit that the BATFE does not define what a sale is, so then why do you try to use what they state as a firearm transaction and use that to claim it has something to do with a "single sale"? The issue has nothing to do with what the Feds allow.

Perhaps you should use common sense instead of Quickbooks to define what a single sale is.

Sorry, you are completely wrong when you claim "it is your job to state where it says I can't". It is not my job at all. The code states that it can only be done as a single sale, which does not mean you can claim that to be anything that you want it to be. You do love to try to tell others what they must do in order to prove things to you, yet you refuse to do what you want others to do. There is a word for that.

You said that the DOJ had no authority to ask how many long guns were sold, but now you say that nothing prevents them from asking. Seems like a conflict to me.

You should know what the differences are with family transfers between CA and Federal law. Why should I have to spoon feed you everything.

Your claims as to my credibility and good will are joke. I am trying to stop you from violating the law, isn't that enough? You claim that I publically seek to have you busted, but according to you, you are not breaking the law, so how would I manage to have you busted if you are not breaking the law? That seems to show that you know that you are breaking the law.

I have given a definition of a single sale, but you just don't like it and claim that the Feds let you add firearms, so that CA should also allow that.

I do not think that was you say makes sense, as it does not. I think that what you claim the law should be makes sense, but as you know, the law does not have to make sense.

I tell people to call the DOJ as they are the ones who enforce the law. As such, if you have a question you should ask them rather than some random person. If you don't you will may get the wrong answer. I also don't think it is a good idea to post in a public place that you are violating the law. You think it is best to not ask those who enforce the laws??

[CHS]

Your claims that a single sale can last days and additional firearms added on to it is just your opinion without any support and in additional conflicts with the words "single sale".

Dictionary definitions DO NOT MATTER when it comes to the law. You must use the law's definition first, and THEN go to the dictionary.

In this case, California law does not define what a single sale is so you need to look at Federal Law. The feds basically define it as everything that happens between the customer certifying the 4473 and the dealer signing it.

Ok, great. Here in CA, it takes a minimum of 10 days between when the customer certifies the 4473 and when the dealer signs it. That's 10, 24-hour periods for a "single sale".

So, customer comes in, pays for a handgun, certifies his 4473, and then leaves. 241 hours later he comes back to pick up the handgun, but before re-certification he decides he wants another long gun. Since the 4473 hasn't been re-certified yet, and the dealer hasn't signed the 4473 out, that sale is still open, still pending and still "single".

The dictionary definition DOES NOT MATTER.

[kemasa]

The Feds do not talk about a "single sale". The 4473 is in regards to a firearm transaction. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Please show me where it is defined that the "sale is still open". The transaction has not been completed, but that is different than the sale. You are confusing the sale with a firearm transaction. The Feds view what a firearm transaction differently than CA does, in case you had not noticed. So even if the Feds defined what a "sale" was, it would not apply to CA.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Please show me where it is defined that the "sale is still open".

Show me where it says the transaction is closed. You can't.

The transaction has not been completed, but that is different than the sale. You are confusing the sale with a firearm transaction. The Feds view what a firearm transaction differently than CA does, in case you had not noticed. So even if the Feds defined what a "sale" was, it would not apply to CA.

Again, this is your opinion absent of any sort of legal definition or evidence. How you can say the transaction is not completed, but the sale is seems awfully fishy.

I am not even going to bother responding to your other post until you clean up your grammar and make it presentable for reading. Plus, you continue to shirk your responsibility of showing the definition of a single sale. You are clearly out of an argument.

You tried your best kemasa, but you just couldn't make the grade. Sorry.

[halifax]

If we need to look elsewhere for a definition of a "sale", one body of CA law sees a "sale" as concluding only when the buyer has taken possession of the tangible goods being sold. If the tax rate has changed from the time an item is paid for and the time it is picked up, the new tax rate applies. Thus, the "sale" does not conclude until possession has changed.

Just a thought.