Gun Locks

[ugimports]

UGImports I'm waiting for a gun I ordered that's going to be DROS'd by you guys, but it's been about 10 years since I purchased a firearm and I'm not current with the policies when picking up. What do you I need to bring or do you recommend me to do to make the process go smoothly.

I'll PM you so it doesn't clutter this topic.

[CenterX]

"(d) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if both of the following apply:
(1) The purchaser or transferee owns a gun safe that meets the standards set forth in Section 12088.2. Gun safes shall not be required to be tested, and therefore may meet the standards without appearing on the Department of Justice roster.
(2) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt for purchase of the gun safe, or other proof of purchase or ownership of the gun safe as authorized by the Attorney General, to the firearms dealer. The dealer shall maintain a copy of this receipt or proof of purchase with the dealers' record of sales of firearms. "

This is the safe affidavit that a portion of the FFLs are now ignoring and going straight to (e) because the Feds do not recognize the safe under Project Child Safe.

So, do you own stock in the gun-lock businesses? Maybe You should.

[ugimports]

"(d) The sale or transfer of a firearm shall be exempt from subdivision (a) if both of the following apply:
(1) The purchaser or transferee owns a gun safe that meets the standards set forth in Section 12088.2. Gun safes shall not be required to be tested, and therefore may meet the standards without appearing on the Department of Justice roster.
(2) The purchaser or transferee presents an original receipt for purchase of the gun safe, or other proof of purchase or ownership of the gun safe as authorized by the Attorney General, to the firearms dealer. The dealer shall maintain a copy of this receipt or proof of purchase with the dealers' record of sales of firearms. "

This is the safe affidavit that a portion of the FFLs are now ignoring and going straight to (e) because the Feds do not recognize the safe under Project Child Safe.

So, do you own stock in the gun-lock businesses? Maybe You should.

I'm confused.. are you saying we should just use the safe affidavit for handguns even though we still require a lock to remain federally compliant?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say in your post.

Seems it would just confuse the customer more.

[CenterX]

Well, what I am saying is that some FFLs still only ask for the affidavit.

Others want the lock receipt, with the argument that the affidavit does not cover the lock per project child safe.

I'm sure this isn't a direct answer. I'd make some phone calls to AFT and DOJ.

I myself play along with whatever the FFL want that will keep them thinking that they need in order to remain compliant.

If I were an FFL, I'd try to get a written statement from the Feds regarding the validity of the affidavit, and I'd post it. I would also seek to get written clarification from the CA DOJ regarding what section of the code, a, d or e has to be met at what instance.

Another tact, if the request for written clarifications and phone calls were fruitless -
I'd use the affidavit until I was told to show proof of lock, or
I'd get a box of the project child safe locks that can be had free from the feds and are not to be sold! and then I'd make a note in the comments of the DROS that the customer was supplied with or provided ( what ever is the truth ) a lock: OEM GL710

If I had employees, I'd make a checklist for them to follow and sign off that they did all the steps if they wanted to get paid.

In the end each FFL has to be comfortable with what keeps them in business, and the public should just go along with the flow.

[halifax]

Well, what I am saying is that some FFLs still only ask for the affidavit.

Others want the lock receipt, with the argument that the affidavit does not cover the lock per project child safe.

I'm sure this isn't a direct answer. I'd make some phone calls to AFT and DOJ.

I myself play along with whatever the FFL want that will keep them thinking that they need in order to remain compliant.

If I were an FFL, I'd try to get a written statement from the Feds regarding the validity of the affidavit, and I'd post it. I would also seek to get written clarification from the CA DOJ regarding what section of the code, a, d or e has to be met at what instance.

Another tact, if the request for written clarifications and phone calls were fruitless -
I'd use the affidavit until I was told to show proof of lock, or
I'd get a box of the project child safe locks that can be had free from the feds and are not to be sold! and then I'd make a note in the comments of the DROS that the customer was supplied with or provided ( what ever is the truth ) a lock: OEM GL710

If I had employees, I'd make a checklist for them to follow and sign off that they did all the steps if they wanted to get paid.

In the end each FFL has to be comfortable with what keeps them in business, and the public should just go along with the flow.

This is a post of mine from 2009 regarding a letter I sent to the ATF asking about the CA Safe Affidavit. Included, is a quote from the "direct response" I received from the ATF:

Finally got a reply to my letter to ATF dated 9/5/8. I asked if the CA Safe Affidavit would work to satisfy ATF requirement for a locking device for each handgun transaction since it would be impractical for the buyer to bring in his/her 800lb safe for each handgun transaction. (see post #14). I enclosed a copy of the affidavit.

Short answer is NO. Their logic is this:

The form used by the State of California Department of Justice with the standards set forth by section 977.50 of the California Code of Regulations may comply with California laws but does not comply with the laws and regulations set forth by ATF. This form is not an ATF form and is not an acceptable form in lieu of presenting a secure gun storage or safety device at the time of each firearm sales transaction.

Since the ATF doesn't have its own form, you will need to present your safe to the dealer at the time of the transaction.

The Feds do not recognize the CA DOJ Safe Affidavit as complying with federal regulations.

[tenpercentfirearms]

This is the safe affidavit that a portion of the FFLs are now ignoring and going straight to (e) because the Feds do not recognize the safe under Project Child Safe.

I never go to (e). I give them a lock to satisfy (a) and satisfy the feds. On multiple long guns if they have a safe, I will use (b) just so I don't have to give out 5 locks.

[kemasa]

Nice double talk Wes. You did not ignore it, you did not understand it, so you did not respond or anything else, which really amounts to ignoring it and that conflicts with what you said when you claimed that you did not ignore it.

It was posted in another thread, which you were following. See PC 12076, or do you need even more help in finding the section? You could find the other thread and then you would find all the details.

As to the locks and the Feds. I talked to the BATF attorney and he claims the law states that the FFL must provide the lock or the safe, so the buyer having it does not matter as then the FFL is not providing it. This seems to be a mis-reading of the law. There is mention that the FFL must provide the lock, but then later it is stated about providing, but it does not specifically state that it has to be by the FFL.

Also, another BATF person said that they had not published the information, as required and as they said they would, and therefore it is not enforceable. Only if the BATF agents sees the firearm being transferred without a lock would there be an issue.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Nice double talk Wes. You did not ignore it, you did not understand it, so you did not respond or anything else, which really amounts to ignoring it and that conflicts with what you said when you claimed that you did not ignore it.

It was posted in another thread, which you were following. See PC 12076, or do you need even more help in finding the section? You could find the other thread and then you would find all the details.

LOL! You crack me up. You throw in something from another thread without reference and I am supposed to be following along with your vague references? No thanks. And the sentence in bold! Man, you got me!

Why don't you post a link to the thread you are referring to. I honestly don't need to play these silly games with you, so I won't.

As to the locks and the Feds. I talked to the BATF attorney and he claims the law states that the FFL must provide the lock or the safe, so the buyer having it does not matter as then the FFL is not providing it. This seems to be a mis-reading of the law. There is mention that the FFL must provide the lock, but then later it is stated about providing, but it does not specifically state that it has to be by the FFL.

Also, another BATF person said that they had not published the information, as required and as they said they would, and therefore it is not enforceable. Only if the BATF agents sees the firearm being transferred without a lock would there be an issue.

I feel the same way. They make these screwy laws that are pretty much unenforceable. I will just keep following the law the best way I can.

[2DoorImpala]

All this reading kinda confused me. So i have a quick question. If I PPT, and the gun I would be getting doesn't have a lock can I transfer a cable lock I don't use since I use a trigger lock for the gun which it orignially came from?

[dachan]

All this reading kinda confused me. So i have a quick question. If I PPT, and the gun I would be getting doesn't have a lock can I transfer a cable lock I don't use since I use a trigger lock for the gun which it orignially came from?

Here's my recommendations:

1) Support your local dealer, don't just use them to your own advantage; build a relationship. The guy is running a business and trying to feed his family. That's hard enough selling with retail margins, it's impossible doing PPT's for $10. It's not illegal to tip your dealer for a PPT or give him some additional business as long as it's not an inducement to break the law; but it sure can smooth the the process.

2) Bring a CA approved lock with any firearm you are selling through PPT. If you, as the seller, walk into the store with the lock accompaning the firearm, there is no question the transaction will be in compliance with PC12088.1 (a).

[CenterX]

Well, According to the ATF the following started April 24, 2006:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/042106-openletter-ffl-child-safety-locks.html

unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgunhttp://www.atf.govprovides the locks.

I'm thinking that sending a letter to each of the FFLs that have made me BUY locks in the past 4 years with this letter AFT inclosed and a request for a refund is in order.

In all future transactions, I will be carrying this along with me from now on. So the safe affidavit works for CA DOJ and then they must provide the federal lock, or I will allow them to accept my Project Child Safe lock to give back to me.

I bet this will be a big argument at the next transfer. Unless I go to the 4 locations that already provide the locks or accept mine that I bring in - without the receipt of which not a word in the fed letter about that.

[CenterX]

Here's my recommendations:

1) Support your local dealer, don't just use them to your own advantage; build a relationship. The guy is running a business and trying to feed his family. That's hard enough selling with retail margins, it's impossible doing PPT's for $10. It's not illegal to tip your dealer for a PPT or give him some additional business as long as it's not an inducement to break the law; but it sure can smooth the the process.

2) Bring a CA approved lock with any firearm you are selling through PPT. If you, as the seller, walk into the store with the lock accompaning the firearm, there is no question the transaction will be in compliance with PC12088.1 (a).

dachan provides great advice in number 1. I do tip when I don't have a lot of hassles (home operated FFLs get a fine bottle of Napa Valley wine if they drink $15 to take the husband or wife out for an In-N-Out hamburger date) and I buy when I get good treatment.

For number 2. I have had so much kick back on that that I cringe when I have to use a couple of other places. The attitude of the sales staff alone is a big put off. I still walk in with a lock and each time they insist that I need to buy a lock that is marked "Not for Resale". In that case, they do not want to or understand how to remain in business. Yep, I am a terse old b-terd when confronted with this - that is an American Right.

Best fortunes for you.

[Gunhacker]

Well, According to the ATF the following started April 24, 2006:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/042106-openletter-ffl-child-safety-locks.html

unless the transferee (buyer) is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun. Accordingly, licensees must make the necessary arrangements to provide secure gun storage or safety devices with the transfer of handguns from the April 24th effective date.

As enacted, the law does not require safety devices to be provided where the handgun transfer is between FFLshttp://www.atf.govprovides the locks.

I'm thinking that sending a letter to each of the FFLs that have made me BUY locks in the past 4 years with this letter AFT inclosed and a request for a refund is in order.

In all future transactions, I will be carrying this along with me from now on. So the safe affidavit works for CA DOJ and then they must provide the federal lock, or I will allow them to accept my Project Child Safe lock to give back to me.

I bet this will be a big argument at the next transfer. Unless I go to the 4 locations that already provide the locks or accept mine that I bring in - without the receipt of which not a word in the fed letter about that.

Oh boy.. yet another ambiguously written law that will cause additional difficulty for a transferer and transferee when a handgun transaction is involved.

So.. as a 03 FFL holder, wouldn't this provision stated in the above, generally provide me an exclusion, since it mentions FFL's and not a specific type (i.e. 01 FFL) in particular?

"As enacted, the law does not require safety devices to be provided where the handgun transfer is between FFLs"any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921 (a)(13).

So.... as written, am I excluded from 922(z) in general because of the first statement regarding handgun transfers between FFL's?

And C&R handgun transfers are just plain exempted?

[kemasa]

LOL! You crack me up. You throw in something from another thread without reference and I am supposed to be following along with your vague references? No thanks. And the sentence in bold! Man, you got me!

Why don't you post a link to the thread you are referring to. I honestly don't need to play these silly games with you, so I won't.

Yes, the sentence, you do not get the humor in it, but clearly it shows that you made a false statement when you said you did not ignore it.

I know you were following the other thread, so why should I go and look it up? I also gave you the PC code section, but since it does not help with your view, it is best for you to ignore it (but you don't ignore things, you just don't understand and not respond, aka ignoring it).

Why do you feel that I should spoon feed you?

[kemasa]

The BATF does not consider C&R FFLs to be licensed when it comes to firearms in many ways. For example, the transfer of multiple handguns must be reported, even to a C&R FFL.

According to the BATF attorney that I talked to, he views the law to say that the FFL must provide the lock or safe (he did not say who must pay for it), but that the buyer could not bring in a lock and if the buyer had a safe, that did not count since the FFL did not provide it.

You could read that the FFL must provide safe storage, which could mean provide a location for said safe storage.

The BATF has a problem in that they did not publish the requirements, as required and as they said.