Changing a DROS once it's submitted?

[kemasa]

Wes, you love to claim that there is no definition of what a single sale is, so you are free to make up anything that you want. Go right ahead and see where it gets you, but clearly you don't want to do what you claim you do and push the issue with the DOJ. You want to talk big here, but won't mention a word of it to the DOJ inspector.

You can NOT deliver firearms, which are part of a single transaction (not sale) at different times.

Your comments on the reduced fee is interesting, but clearly the reduced fee is in regards to multiple handgun purchases. The section does not talk about the specific delivery date, but for delivery to the person buying them.

The transaction does not end until the firearms are picked up, but that is different than a sale. The most time that a single transaction can last is clearly 30 days, but remember, what the Feds consider to be a transaction is different than what CA does and that is critical to understand. It does not matter that the Feds allow for adding firearms since the definition of a firearm transaction is different. To be accurate, you need to say "CA firearm transaction" and "Federal firearm transaction".

Wes falsely says:

In fact, it clearly says for handguns that the department shall charge a reduced fee on the date of delivery.

The PC actually says:

In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of firearms that are

"for the delivery" is NOT equal to "date of delivery". It is "a single transaction on the same date" which is regarding the date, not the delivery. This is why there is a serious problem with Wes understanding things. All the words and meanings are warped into what he wants them to be and ignoring reality.

Single transaction. Same date. Single Sale -> single transaction on the same date, at the most open reading.

If you ask the CA DOJ, they say that a single sale has to occur on the same date. If you read the PC in a reasonable manner, that is confirmed. I personally would consider the single sale to be once the DROS is submitted. Yes, the transaction continues, but not the sale.

[tenpercentfirearms]

This is why there is a serious problem with Wes understanding things. All the words and meanings are warped into what he wants them to be and ignoring reality.

Aren't you calling the kettle black? Aren't you always telling me to stop the personal attacks? So why do you claim I have a serious problem with reading penal code that is not clear? Could it be up to interpretation? Could we both have valid points?

No, you seem to think you know all the answers and you base them off of what the DOJ says. The DOJ said all AR15 and AK47 series firearms were assault weapons. They were wrong. They said that detachable magazine SKSs were ok. They were wrong. They said that Walther P22s were fine with threaded barrels, they were wrong.

So just stick to the subject. What does the penal code say?

Does it say, "The transaction does not end until the firearms are picked up, but that is different than a sale."? I never read that anywhere. Where would you come up with such an idea? Oh the penal code is kind of confusing isn't it? You have to make logical conclusions based on your interpretation of the code. I don't fault you for that and I won't call your thinking flawed, as this isn't about you. It is about what is and what isn't possible in regards to the law. As you say, stop with the personal attacks.

Why do you care what I do or don't do with the DOJ inspectors? You claimed by posting what I do on this board, I was going to get a visit over it. I did and not a word was mentioned. Now you are calling me out because I didn't ask the inspector directly. How much longer are you going to take this personal? How many more times are you going to claim the sky is going to fall on me?

This isn't about us, it is about the penal code and it is about the DOJ overstepping their bounds in order to control us for their monetary gain.

Back to the code.

(i)(1) Only one fee shall be charged pursuant to this section for a single transaction on the same date for the sale of any number of firearms that are not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person or for the taking of possession of those firearms.
(2) In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of firearms that are pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, the department shall charge a reduced fee pursuant to this section for the second and subsequent firearms that are part of that transaction.

Again, nothing in (i)(1) says a sale concludes at the submission of DROS. Common sense would tell you if they charge you at DROS start, that should be when it starts, but again, it doesn't spell it out. Whose fault is that? The legislature's.

I see your point about "(2) In a single transaction on the same date for the delivery of any number of [handguns]." If it said "In a single transaction on the same date of delivery" it would more clearly meet the way I was reading it. However, it still says for the delivery of any number of handguns. Why change the wording to delivery instead of sale? They were consistent up to this point, but now they are talking about delivery. Why? Or does it matter? If I challenge it in court, will the DOJ take the risk of losing or is it better to drop the case and let the FUD continue?

Either way, we still go back to these are restrictions on when and how much the DOJ can charge us. These are not restrictions on what dealers do. How do you answer to that? How do you justify 12076(i) applying to dealers when it clearly states "the department shall charge"? If the state can only charge me on a single date for a single transaction, does that prohibit me from adding long guns at a later date? Where in the penal code does it state that single transaction ends on that day? Show me that and you have a case. If you can't, you can't assume I have to abide by rules that actually restrict the DOJ.

And that there is the problem with the penal code. It was poorly written. This poor writing does give us wriggle room. That is if you are smart enough and brave enough to test it. Some of us are. Some of us aren't. If you don't want to take the risk, then don't do it. You are all adults and have to answer to your own reading of the penal code. If the DOJ wants to take me to court over any of these things, I will be happy to do it. I want a definitive answer. Are they willing to take the risk of losing their case and losing power with a decision on the record?

Or in the end, does no one care one bit and this is just a way for us to get all fired up about nothing? We should make a poll!

If you ask the CA DOJ, they say that a single sale has to occur on the same date. If you read the PC in a reasonable manner, that is confirmed. I personally would consider the single sale to be once the DROS is submitted. Yes, the transaction continues, but not the sale.

See my notes above. The DOJ has often given out incorrect advice. What is a reasonable manner? Reading it the same way the DOJ does? Reading it the same way a judge does? Reading it the same way a lawyer does? I personally would consider the single sale to be once the firearms are picked up. That doesn't mean jack without backing it up with penal code. I have no penal code that defines when a dealer's single sale concludes. The good news about the laws of the United States is they don't necessarily give us permission; they restrict what we can't do. If the single transaction continues, there is language that says,

PC 12077(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.

If the one firearm transaction continues and a transaction means a single sale, then they are synonymous and the transaction continues and the transaction is not over. See how easy it is for you to trip yourself up? And that is not an insult. That is the penal code. It isn't clear. So we have to go off of literal meaning. Which works out to our advantage. You just have to have the courage to take a step forward. If you don't ahve the courage, play it safe. It is your choice. There is nothing wrong with playing it safe with the DOJ. I just respectfully have my own opinions from reading the penal code and I think I lay them out pretty well. Which might ruffle some feathers. So be it.

[kemasa]

You are making assumptions as to what I am basing my comments on and your assumptions are wrong.

I am not calling you names, I am saying what you are doing.

If you sell a firearm, that is a sale. If you do the transfer to the person, that is a transaction. For example, if a person is remote from your location, you sell them a firearm and then ship it to a FFL near the person. You do not submit a DROS saying that you were doing a firearm transaction with respect to the firearm. It is not considered a transaction with respect to CA or the Feds.

A person comes in and buys two handguns, but is not exempt from the one gun per 30 days. The person pays for the firearms. That is a sale, a single sale. There has to be two firearm transactions reported regarding this and the delivery dates is different. The person could buy three handguns and have one shipped to a friend. All three would be one sale, but two transactions and a transfer.

You are again confusing a sale and a transaction. I have explained that to you multiple times and you don't listen and you don't understand, just like your misreading of the section regarding delivery, which you admit to above.

The problem is that you are promoting others to do something wrong and that could get them in trouble.

If you really want a definitive answer, then push the issue with the DOJ and tell them what you are doing and show them. You will then get what you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that you really don't want to do that on your dime, you want others to go through that for you.

[tenpercentfirearms]

You are making assumptions as to what I am basing my comments on and your assumptions are wrong.

I am not calling you names, I am saying what you are doing.

If you sell a firearm, that is a sale. If you do the transfer to the person, that is a transaction. For example, if a person is remote from your location, you sell them a firearm and then ship it to a FFL near the person. You do not submit a DROS saying that you were doing a firearm transaction with respect to the firearm. It is not considered a transaction with respect to CA or the Feds.

Can you quote the penal code on these definitions?

A person comes in and buys two handguns, but is not exempt from the one gun per 30 days. The person pays for the firearms. That is a sale, a single sale. There has to be two firearm transactions reported regarding this and the delivery dates is different. The person could buy three handguns and have one shipped to a friend. All three would be one sale, but two transactions and a transfer.

Again, speculation on your part.

You are again confusing a sale and a transaction. I have explained that to you multiple times and you don't listen and you don't understand, just like your misreading of the section regarding delivery, which you admit to above.

I know this.

PC12077(d)(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."

According to the penal code a transaction is a single sale. And I did not say I misread it. I said I could see where you get your interpretation from. I still think my interpretation has merit as if they didn't mean delivery date, then why not use the "sale" language like they normally do. I also mentioned it is a moot point as 12076(i) only limits the DOJ in their charging DROS fees and has nothing to do with how long a transaction or sale lasts.

The problem is that you are promoting others to do something wrong and that could get them in trouble.

If you really want a definitive answer, then push the issue with the DOJ and tell them what you are doing and show them. You will then get what you want, but it seems pretty clear to me that you really don't want to do that on your dime, you want others to go through that for you.

Why don't you push the issue? Why do I have to do it for you? You assume that the readers here are just going to blindly go out and do these things. I have stated numerous times to read the code and make your own decisions. Again, if you get popped for any of this, let me know. There are charitable foundations out there that might be interested in backing your fight. If you are uncomfortable with any of this, then don't do it.

And that is the thing. Some people can make up their own minds and do their own thing. I don't control anyone. Some people choose to stand and fight based on their own knowledge and reading of the penal code. To those of you who are willing to fight the good fight, I applaud you. Some people have to stand up for what they believe in. Others stand aside and wait to ride your coat tails. I am not new to that game.

Ok, we have bantered enough. I am done. Feel free to get your last responses in.

[kemasa]

Wes, you love to say that I should quote the PC in response to clear things. Tell me what you think is a "sale", a "transaction", what a "transfer" to another FFL is, and what a "transfer" from another FFL to you is.

No, it is not "speculation" on my part. Instead of such a silly response, please tell me where I am wrong. You have claimed that you consider it to be a single sale if a person comes in and buys a firearm, then 10 days later buys another firearm as the "invoice" on your computer is the same and you don't close that out until they pick up the firearm. So, if a person buys two handguns at the same time, how is that not a single sale? Handguns, per the PC, each has to be reported and that is considered a "transaction". That means two transactions and a single sale. If you sell a firearm to be shipped and it is bought at the same time as the two other handguns, that is still a single sale, two transactions and a transfer. Do you report the transfer to anyone? Do you fill out a 4473 (Federal transaction)? Do you fill out a DROS (CA transaction)? So do tell me, what exactly is speculation?

A transaction is NOT a single sale, but it may be. A single sale of non-handguns can be considered a single transaction. You can not reverse things. Each handgun is considered a transaction. If a person who has a C&R FFL and COE buys two handguns, which involves two transactions, do you fill out two separate receipts? Do you separate it as two sales? This does not make sense considering your other comments on what you consider a sale to be.

It is mentioned how long a transaction can last, a maximum of 30 days. The minimum time is 0 days for someone who is exempt from the waiting period or 10 days (240 hours) for others.

Wes, how can I push the issue? I am not doing what you claim can be done as I consider it to be in violation of the law. That is why you have to do it. You know it is questionable and I have to wonder if you know that it is illegal, but want someone else to push the issue. You are promoting this and often you are not making your disclaimer. Why do you refuse to mention this to the DOJ inspector if you have nothing to hide? That would get you the results that you claim to want.

I am willing to fight the good fight, but I am not willing to fight a losing battle which will end with bad results. I have written to elected officials to try to get them to change the law to allow for what should be done. I have also put forth the effort to make the HSC video available for others on DVD and that took a bit of effort.

While people can make up their own minds, it is also possible to confuse people into thinking the wrong thing.

It is also important to realize that it is not very smart to promote illegal/questionable activity on a public forum in which those who enforce the laws are known to read.