CA Dros Question - Handgun and Rifle on same DROS

[Corbin Dallas]

I think I just got the major SHAFT action from Turners. The sales person claimed that I must fill out two seperate DROS forms for one pistol and one rifle.

I have transfered pistol and rifle together before on one DROS. Is this something new, or did my previous FFL give me a break.

If this is correct, one DROS per pistol and one DROS per long gun, could you point me out the CA DOJ rule?

If this is not true could you show me where CA DOJ say's this is kosher?

Thanks!

[rromeo]

I know you can have multiple long guns on one DROS, but I thought one handgun=one dross.

[Ricky-Ray]

From what I've been told handgun DROS is completely different than for long guns.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

It is a controversial subject. Here are a few threads where it has been debated.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=31037

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=230841

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=240302

Most FFLs are too cautious to release long guns with a handgun DROS, but nobody can actually find anything in the law that makes it illegal.

[kemasa]

One of the key sections is:

Penal Code
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, ...
(c) (1) For firearms other than handguns, ...
(d) Where the register is used, the following shall apply:
...
(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.
...

So, each firearm transaction needs to be reported. For long guns, which are a single sale, loan or transfer, it is considered a single transaction.

Due to this, you can not include long guns with a handgun since then you would not be reporting each firearm transaction and you would not be following each section.

Just because some FFLs will include a long gun with a handgun DROS does not make it legal nor is it a good excuse to claim that a FFL who does not do that is doing something wrong.

Some FFLs point out that they have included long guns on a handgun DROS and have not had a problem, but the problem is that such transactions are hard to determine and therefore hard to catch the person for doing so. This does not make it legal. The CA DOJ would need to go through each firearm and ask to see where the DROS is for that firearm and that would take a long time.

[tenpercentfirearms]

One of the key sections is:



So, each firearm transaction needs to be reported. For long guns, which are a single sale, loan or transfer, it is considered a single transaction.

Due to this, you can not include long guns with a handgun since then you would not be reporting each firearm transaction and you would not be following each section.

Just because some FFLs will include a long gun with a handgun DROS does not make it legal nor is it a good excuse to claim that a FFL who does not do that is doing something wrong.

Some FFLs point out that they have included long guns on a handgun DROS and have not had a problem, but the problem is that such transactions are hard to determine and therefore hard to catch the person for doing so. This does not make it legal. The CA DOJ would need to go through each firearm and ask to see where the DROS is for that firearm and that would take a long time.

[kemasa]

Ok, that same old claim that handguns are not a firearm transaction.That is not the case, but if you want to believe that, go right ahead. That means you don't need to submit a DROS for a handgun since it is not a transaction under your claim.

What the 4473 (Federal) says has nothing to do with CA law, we have been over that before. So what you can do under Federal law does not matter when CA law does not allow it.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Ok, that same old claim that handguns are not a firearm transaction.That is not the case, but if you want to believe that, go right ahead. That means you don't need to submit a DROS for a handgun since it is not a transaction under your claim.

Ken, let it go. They can go read all of this for themselves and see that you don't know how to read the penal code. I would think a handgun sale would be a transaction too, but that isn't how 12077(d)(4) reads. I didn't write it. I just have to follow it. Now as far as single transactions go, you can do multiple long guns on a handgun sale. However, you had still better comply with 12077(b). I am not sure why you would think 12077(d)(4) would get you out of 12077(b), but then again, that is why I don't understand a lot of your claims. They just don't seem to follow the PC.

What the 4473 (Federal) says has nothing to do with CA law, we have been over that before. So what you can do under Federal law does not matter when CA law does not allow it.

And if the 4473 has nothing to do with CA law, then why would the state want to look at my A&D records? Why do you always contradict yourself? The state and federal laws do intertwine, but you still have the Supremacy Clause to deal with too. You ought to Google it.

[kemasa]

Wes, you are misreading the PC. You don't seem to get that the section that you are referring to only states that multiple non-handguns are a single transaction if certain conditions apply. So, if a handgun is not a firearm transaction, do you submit a DROS? That is only required for a firearm transaction.

The A&D book applies because you are a FFL. Federal law allows for both handguns and long guns to be a single transaction, CA law does not. You must follow CA law in that case. You must follow which ever is stricter. Federal law does not require a private party to transfer a firearm through a FFL, but CA law does. So under your view, you can ignore CA law and not go through a FFL.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Wes, you are misreading the PC. You don't seem to get that the section that you are referring to only states that multiple non-handguns are a single transaction if certain conditions apply. So, if a handgun is not a firearm transaction, do you submit a DROS? That is only required for a firearm transaction.

The A&D book applies because you are a FFL. Federal law allows for both handguns and long guns to be a single transaction, CA law does not. You must follow CA law in that case. You must follow which ever is stricter. Federal law does not require a private party to transfer a firearm through a FFL, but CA law does. So under your view, you can ignore CA law and not go through a FFL.

I guess we aren't reading the same PC. The PC I read said you can do as many long guns as you want on one transaction and it does not define the sale of handgun as a transaction as it specifically excludes them. It further doesn't state when a transaction ends so you could even add more long guns onto it later too. I don't know how we are reading different PCs though since you quoted it. Oh well.

[kemasa]

It is because it just defines that multiple non-handguns, which are a SINGLE sale, loan or transfer, is considered a single firearm transaction. This has been told to you numerous times, yet you still don't get it. Perhaps you should talk to your partner since based on your messages, your partner seems to understand what you do not.

I hope that most FFLs in CA understand it.

[tenpercentfirearms]

It is because it just defines that multiple non-handguns, which are a SINGLE sale, loan or transfer, is considered a single firearm transaction. This has been told to you numerous times, yet you still don't get it. Perhaps you should talk to your partner since based on your messages, your partner seems to understand what you do not.

I hope that most FFLs in CA understand it.

Just admit it Ken, the PC sucks. Common sense could dictate what you are indicating (now why would the state be more restrictive than the Feds in regards to multiple transactions and when a transaction ends?). Reading it would point it in the way I am saying.

My partner is much like you. She likes to err on the side of caution and takes the DOJ's word as gospel. I don't fault her for that. I just read it and get a different reading.

At the end of they day, it is up to the individual FFLs to decide which way they want to go. As has been indicated in previous threads, people have done this been audited and nothing has happened. In fact, I would like to see where an FFL has actually gotten in trouble for this.

[kemasa]

I freely admit that the PC sucks, in many ways, and it just does not make sense, but this is just one of the cases where you are warping what it says, most likely just because you feel like, but perhaps also to troll. I know that, but I think it is important to call you on it so others don't just think that you are correct.

The states always has to be more restrictive since otherwise there is no point. Montana and some other states are pushing the issue, so that should be interesting.

Sorry, I do not take the DOJ's word as gospel. I agree with you in regards to the high capacity magazine ban. I still have not heard back from the DOJ on that one :-). I called the DOJ and they tried to make various claims, but the PC does not back it and they did not like it.

The problem with the claim that people have been audited and not been caught is that the inspection process is flawed and so it does not notice things like that. If the DOJ demanded to see the DROS for each firearm and every firearm, then someone would get caught. As I also said, point it out to the DOJ that you did it and see what results. You won't do that because you know that it won't be good for you.

[tenpercentfirearms]

I freely admit that the PC sucks, in many ways, and it just does not make sense, but this is just one of the cases where you are warping what it says, most likely just because you feel like, but perhaps also to troll. I know that, but I think it is important to call you on it so others don't just think that you are correct.

The states always has to be more restrictive since otherwise there is no point. Montana and some other states are pushing the issue, so that should be interesting.

Sorry, I do not take the DOJ's word as gospel. I agree with you in regards to the high capacity magazine ban. I still have not heard back from the DOJ on that one :-). I called the DOJ and they tried to make various claims, but the PC does not back it and they did not like it.

The problem with the claim that people have been audited and not been caught is that the inspection process is flawed and so it does not notice things like that. If the DOJ demanded to see the DROS for each firearm and every firearm, then someone would get caught. As I also said, point it out to the DOJ that you did it and see what results. You won't do that because you know that it won't be good for you.

Fair enough. It isn't so much that I like to troll. We just enjoy bashing on each other.

You have to admit though that you would think we would hear of more shops getting shut down over this, especially since some have done it hundreds of times. They aren't hiding it.

I think this is like the magazine ban, if you know what you are talking about and push them on it, they might not do anything. Or they might. $25 probably isn't worth screwing with them over.

[kemasa]

Take a look at the freeways and see how many are speeding, but how few are actually getting caught. Then add to the problem that it is difficult for the DOJ to catch people doing those type of transfers. I suspect that have not really thought about things. I also have to wonder how much they really know about what it takes to be a FFL and all the paperwork, not just the CA issues.

The (lack of) magazine ban is quite different, it is very clear, yet they still insist on making claims which the PC does not support. I suspect that the other issues are just hard to prove and so it just becomes not worth it for them to do anything about it. While there is the money issue (how much does the DOJ actually get?), the buyer has still been checked, so in reality there is not much of an issue, except the details of the law (which is still not worth violating the law).