Split PPT for off roster handgun

[robnbritt]

Can an off roster handgun registered to me in Ca be sold to another Ca resident using a split PPT.?
I take gun to my ffl in norcal start dros and have him ship it to buyers ffl in socal?

I understand would probobly have to pay double ppt fees but can it be done legally?

I saw this in CGF Wiki http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6&postcount=24 and wondered if it was legit

[jtmkinsd]

Link doesn't work

[Jubba]

Iirc face to face for off roster only. I'll see if I can dig up source before my laptop dies.

All i'm finding are others answering with it has to be face to face for off roster. Unable to find an actual source, hopefully someone will chime in with one for you. Sorry.

[robnbritt]

Link fixed

[jtmkinsd]

All you have to do is fill out the DROS worksheet (specifically the area where the seller's information goes) and include it, and a legible copy of your ID in the package when when it ships. You, as the seller don't need to "start DROS".

Having said all that...finding an FFL that is willing to process the PPT for the buyer will be difficult. Not many will do these types of transactions.

[Rudolf the Red]

[QUOTE=jtmkinsd;6305614 Having said all that...finding an FFL that is willing to process the PPT for the buyer will be difficult. Not many will do these types of transactions.[/QUOTE]

Sounds illegal to me. PPT's are face to face.

I named my business on a different assumption. Now I have a long name to write out that doesn't work.

I can't figure out why a dealer on one end can't verify someone's identity and ship their signature with the handgun to another CA FFL. CA would make more cash on PPT DROS, that's for sure. Maybe someday.

[kemasa]

Split PPTs are not allowed. A PPT is where both parties go to the same FFL (not required to be at the same time, FTF).

If the law was reasonable, one FFL could fill out a DROS worksheet and send it to another with copies of all documentation, but that is not the law. The certified list should be removed (or not exist at all if the law was reasonable), which would eliminate all of these issues as well.

[jtmkinsd]

CA PC 12082:

(a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a
firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 in
accordance with this section in order to comply with subdivision (d)
of Section 12072. The seller or transferor or the person loaning the
firearm shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain
possession of that firearm. The dealer shall then deliver the firearm
to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the
firearm, if it is not prohibited, in accordance with subdivision (c)
of Section 12072.

Nowhere does it say both parties must be present...it's really up to the dealer. not many will do this...simply because they don't want to increase the number of transactions they lose money on. The next argument they make is "I have to swipe the ID of both buyer and seller"...yet ID information is entered manually often, such as with consignments. Another argument is "I can't verify the source of the firearm." The source is verified by the shipping FFL, where the seller's ID must be presented and copied to ship the firearm. If someone ships me a firearm for consignment...all I'm going to do is have them fill out a DROS worksheet, give me a copy of their CA ID and it's good to go. There's no reason I can see not to do so for PPTs as well.

If you can point to any law, or written instruction or bulletin from DOJ/BOF which says it's not legit I would be appreciative. Saying it's not allowed just sounds like more "BOF says" nonsense. For me, if it passes muster with Bill Wiese, then it's good to go.

[tenpercentfirearms]

We have gone over this but I spent about 5 minutes looking and can't find the thread.

Basically the PC states you need to verify the identity of the buyer and seller. I can't do that if they aren't at my shop to do so. I will not be relying on another FFL to do my verifying for me as they mean nothing to me and there is no difference between them and some random person on the street.

[oso grande]

Be great if a buyer in LA could ppt an off list hand gun from a seller in Sacramento.
Another loophole to be exploited?

[kemasa]

Both parties have to go to the FFL, but it is not required to do so at the same time.

The law requires that the ID be swiped, even when it does not make sense. If you start the transaction at a gunshow without a computer and instead use a DROS worksheet, you still need to swipe the ID when the person comes to pick it up. You have to make the attempt to swipe the ID, even if it does not work and you manually enter it. It is just one of those stupid things.

Read the section that you quoted and it is clear that BOTH parties have to go to the same dealer:

(a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a
firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 in
accordance with this section in order to comply with subdivision (d)
of Section 12072. The seller or transferor or the person loaning the
firearm shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain
possession of that firearm. The dealer shall then deliver the firearm
to the purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the
firearm, if it is not prohibited, in accordance with subdivision (c)
of Section 12072.

If "the dealer" ships the firearm, then the dealer is not retaining it and can not deliver it to the buyer.

[jtmkinsd]

This only means anything if the term "deliver" means the seller has to physically hand me the firearm. If the more widely accepted meaning of "deliver" is used...then a seller across the state can "deliver" the firearm to me through UPS/Fedex or USPS. It doesn't say "hand deliver", or "personally deliver".

This all being said...finding a dealer to do this is next to impossible, as I said...but it is not illegal in any shape or form.

[jtmkinsd]

We have gone over this but I spent about 5 minutes looking and can't find the thread.

Basically the PC states you need to verify the identity of the buyer and seller. I can't do that if they aren't at my shop to do so. I will not be relying on another FFL to do my verifying for me as they mean nothing to me and there is no difference between them and some random person on the street.

Yet faxed, photo copied or emailed copies of IDs are taken all the time for individuals shipping firearms for dealer sales...hmmm

[halifax]

Yet faxed, photo copied or emailed copies of IDs are taken all the time for individuals shipping firearms for dealer sales...hmmm

Are those circumstances the same as following the laws for a PPT?

[jtmkinsd]

Are those circumstances the same as following the laws for a PPT?

The whole controversy revolves around "swiping" the seller's ID...yet the law provides for instances where it's not required and the information can be entered in manually. I've yet to see any hard law or ruling saying actually swiping the ID is mandatory. And DOJ has given the opinion before that this kind of transfer is acceptable.