What would be a 'fair' PPT charge?

[bohoki]

If the firearm transfer go through a FFL, then all of the paperwork is required, which would be a Federal law.

If two people in another state came to a FFL to do the transfer (where it is not required) because the seller wanted to ensure that the buyer was not prohibited, then the FFL would have to fill out all the required paperwork, including the 4473.

So, because CA law requires the transfer be done at a FFL, then means that the normal paperwork is required.

that is my point the words "through" or "at" are the contention

the minute the ffl takes possession of the firearm all federal forms must be adheared to but if the ffl never takes possession then only california law should apply and i dont see how california could require the ffl to do excessive work on forms they have no juristiction over

ive come to the opinion that the letter of the law is on my side as they ppt fee cap is not taking into account the excessive federal forms

which is why the dros form is redundant with the preliminary disqualifier questions that are repeated on the 4473 form

if everyone who does a dros does a 4473 why have those questions it seems to me that the system is set up to be separate

[kemasa]

If the transfer is done "at" the FFL and if the FFL does the transfer, then the FFL takes possession of the firearm. The FFL has to look at the serial number for the handgun, as that is required for the DROS.

I have to ask if you really would want both the buyer and seller to have to go to the FFL twice.

Honestly, if you wanted to do it the "easy" way, the paperwork should just be sent into the DOJ and if everything is ok, then the seller could give the firearm to the buyer and no FFLs would be involved at all. Much like a family transfer.

[jtmkinsd]

Yeah...but then we're right back to the whole reason the PPT was created in the first place...to end FTF transactions and bring them into a "controled" circumstance where the buyer is checked before taking possession of the firearm. Not saying that's not the way it should be...but the entire 12082 would have to be striken, and 12071 would have to be revised.

[bohoki]

If the transfer is done "at" the FFL and if the FFL does the transfer, then the FFL takes possession of the firearm. The FFL has to look at the serial number for the handgun, as that is required for the DROS.

I have to ask if you really would want both the buyer and seller to have to go to the FFL twice.

Honestly, if you wanted to do it the "easy" way, the paperwork should just be sent into the DOJ and if everything is ok, then the seller could give the firearm to the buyer and no FFLs would be involved at all. Much like a family transfer.

the main complaint by the ffls is that $10 is not enough to cover paperwork and i am in agreement soas a consumer the goal should not be to increase cost but to reduce the burden on the ffl


if a person wants to transfer the firearm to the ffl then i think the ffl shoudl be able to charge a storage and safety (insurace) and federal form filing fee

but if the firearm never comes into possession of the ffl then the only thing the ffl should have to do fill out the california dros background,pistol info input for registration
and i suppose since the form requires it the hsc number for handguns

[jtmkinsd]

the main complaint by the ffls is that $10 is not enough to cover paperwork and i am in agreement soas a consumer the goal should not be to increase cost but to reduce the burden on the ffl


if a person wants to transfer the firearm to the ffl then i think the ffl shoudl be able to charge a storage and safety (insurace) and federal form filing fee

but if the firearm never comes into possession of the ffl then the only thing the ffl should have to do fill out the california dros background,pistol info input for registration
and i suppose since the form requires it the hsc number for handguns

All of which could be done by the private parties themselves...in a perfect world of course.

[kemasa]

Yeah...but then we're right back to the whole reason the PPT was created in the first place...to end FTF transactions and bring them into a "controled" circumstance where the buyer is checked before taking possession of the firearm. Not saying that's not the way it should be...but the entire 12082 would have to be striken, and 12071 would have to be revised.

The reason for PPT is to ensure that the buyer is allowed to own a firearm. There is really no reason why the seller can not retain the firearm until the response from the form is received and perhaps a 10 day wait if you want to have it the same as others. Yes, this is closer to the way it should be, but not the way it will ever happen.

[Datdarkness]

soooo all you with shops that "lose" all that money from being busy with the ppt.
just hire me and ill sell other stuff while youre busy

[RobG]

Something I have yet to see brought up is the fact that the fee is low so as to encourage legal transactions while doing a PPT. If they were 50+ dollars plus the price of DROS I can see many transactions being done on the "down low."

There is no reason that the PPT could not be set up like an intrafamilial transfer. The buyer could send in a form to check eligibility and then give the approval letter to the seller to cover him/her. The money for the check goes to the .gov and no gun store is involved. The letter could be good for say 30-90 days. And/or the seller could check online at the DOJ website.

To the FFL's that have an issue only making 10.00, we get it. It sucks for you and you don't make money from it. But, its a part of being in the gun business. And unless you were in it before 1991, you knew that going in. I'd like to know the average number of PPT's stores do per month. I'd also be interested in the value of having two potential customers in your store. Its forced foot traffic, it has to have some value.

[jtmkinsd]

Something I have yet to see brought up is the fact that the fee is low so as to encourage legal transactions while doing a PPT.

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway. So yes, back in 1991 $10 was cheap, now it's even cheaper, and 20 years from now it'll be even cheaper. Nobody can tell me with a straight face the fee should be $10 forever and all time, right? So the question is when do you adjust it, and by how much? Me personally? I'd say there should be an automatic adjustment every 10 years using inflation as the index.

[bohoki]

The reason for PPT is to ensure that the buyer is allowed to own a firearm. There is really no reason why the seller can not retain the firearm until the response from the form is received and perhaps a 10 day wait if you want to have it the same as others. Yes, this is closer to the way it should be, but not the way it will ever happen.

yup i still have yet to see the law say that the ffl has to take possession of the firearm

this is a case of a "suggested procedure" having been morphed into a pseudo law

[RobG]

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway. So yes, back in 1991 $10 was cheap, now it's even cheaper, and 20 years from now it'll be even cheaper. Nobody can tell me with a straight face the fee should be $10 forever and all time, right? So the question is when do you adjust it, and by how much? Me personally? I'd say there should be an automatic adjustment every 10 years using inflation as the index.

Based on that, the fee would be approx. 15.00. Would that extra 5.00 be enough for the FFL's time in your opinion? It can't be too big of an issue as I have never heard of a dealer closing its doors purely because of the 10.00 fee.

I still think there could be a way to eliminate the dealer altogether in a PPT. That or an instant check system like available in other states. Will it ever happen? Not likely.

[kemasa]

yup i still have yet to see the law say that the ffl has to take possession of the firearm

this is a case of a "suggested procedure" having been morphed into a pseudo law

Read the CA PC and Federal laws. How can the FFL do the transfer if they do not have the firearm? You are trying to claim that the PPT is something special, but under Federal law there is nothing special about it, it is just a dealer transfer. For CA, it is also a transfer, but with different restrictions (less).

[Cokebottle]

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway.

That assumes you get caught.

With a handgun, sure... cops runs the numbers, it's registered to someone else, you're busted unless your brought it in from out of state and both you and the gun are old enough so that you can say with a straight face that you've owned it since before 1991.

Long guns? No registration. The only place the serial number is recorded is on the 4473, and it doesn't "go" anywhere unless and until the FFL closes shop and ships the pile to the BATFE... where it goes into a warehouse never to be seen again.

The only time a long gun serial number would (or should) show in the system is if someone does a vol-reg, reports it stolen, or it's a RAW.

And I've met plenty of gun owners who have transferred long guns illegally. Got it from a friend, bought it PPT out of state, etc....
Most legal gun owners are not on Calguns, and many (perhaps even most) are not aware of the requirement to execute transfers through an FFL. When you're on this forum, you're looking at the cream of the crop WRT California gun law awareness. Witness the dozen or two new threads every week posted by newbies who run the gamut from not knowing about the FFL transfer requirement to believing that all guns must be registered, and/or you need a permit to own a gun.

[Cokebottle]

Read the CA PC and Federal laws. How can the FFL do the transfer if they do not have the firearm? You are trying to claim that the PPT is something special, but under Federal law there is nothing special about it, it is just a dealer transfer.

Under Federal law, I can buy a gun from a non-FFL in a Wal Mart parking lot, just like in most free states.

If the FFL never takes possession, the bound book entry is not required, since he only has to hold it long enough to verify the serial number, make, and model. It never has to be checked into inventory.
California only cares about the DROS information, they don't get the 4473 until they do an audit.

[kemasa]

You have to also follow the laws of the state that you are in, which in this case we are talking about California. So, it does not matter that Federal law does not force you to go to a FFL to do a transfer. If you do the transfer in CA you are violating CA State law if you don't go through a FFL.

In the case of a PPT, there is also a waiting period. So the FFL has to keep it for 10 days, which means that it has to be entered into the bound book, so it is not correct that the FFL only has to keep it long enough to verify the information. If the FFl does not take possession, then the transfer should be canceled and then you no longer have a transfer.

Personally, I don't care for many of the laws, if not most of them, but I also don't want free room and board, so it is best to follow the laws. If you want things to be different, that is fine, but then get it changed. Until then, things have to be done in a certain way.

So, making comments which really don't apply in CA does not do any good.