Why FTF PPT's?

[ap3572001]

If an off roster handgun is IN CA and the owner wants to sell it IN CA, why do we need a FTF PPT???

Why can't a PRIVATE seller ship it to the buyers FFL and His own information?

[Hilldweller]

Am I asking the same thing in my Colt SAA post?

[tenpercentfirearms]

PPTs require the FFL to swipe the buyer and seller's ID and to also see the buyer and sellers ID and signatures of both the buyer and seller. Unless both parties come into my shop (not necessarily at the same time), I will not process the PPT.

[halifax]

Simple answer: CA PPT is defined as two CA residents meeting at one dealer's location. BOF doesn't recognize "remote" PPTs.

Numerous threads exist but I don't have time to look right now.

[ap3572001]

Am I asking the same thing in my Colt SAA post?

Yeah. It came up many times. WHy does a PPT HAVE to be FTF?

A willing and lawful transfer of private property between two people. ( in case of a trade) . Why do they HAVE to meet?

One time, I filled out all the PP transfer forms, left the gun at the store and left. Then at a LATER time the buyers showed up and did HIS part.

Whats wrong with that?

[TheExpertish]

Yeah. It came up many times. WHy does a PPT HAVE to be FTF?

A willing and lawful transfer of private property between two people. ( in case of a trade) . Why do they HAVE to meet?

One time, I filled out all the PP transfer forms, left the gun at the store and left. Then at a LATER time the buyers showed up and did HIS part.

Whats wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with that. Tenpercent said they both parties don't have to come in at the same time. Just current law requires both parties to show up in person at the same location. Stupid law? Probably. Personally I don't care for the roster as I'm sure most others don't. Hopefully it'll be changed, but for now it's what we're stuck with.

[Munk]

Nothing wrong with that. Tenpercent said they both parties don't have to come in at the same time. Just current law requires both parties to show up in person at the same location. Stupid law? Probably. Personally I don't care for the roster as I'm sure most others don't. Hopefully it'll be changed, but for now it's what we're stuck with.

Would it be possible for an FFL holder who owns multiple storefronts to do a quasi-remote transfer? Each of the parties is seen in-person at the FFL's store, it's just a different store. The FFL then ships the firearm to his other store and finishes it with the other party.

Or is a separate FFL holding employee needed at each storefront, which would kill this?

(My lack of knowledge of FFL and business requirements is large, but diminishing)

[tenpercentfirearms]

Would it be possible for an FFL holder who owns multiple storefronts to do a quasi-remote transfer? Each of the parties is seen in-person at the FFL's store, it's just a different store. The FFL then ships the firearm to his other store and finishes it with the other party.

Or is a separate FFL holding employee needed at each storefront, which would kill this?

(My lack of knowledge of FFL and business requirements is large, but diminishing)

This might be the closest you could do. The DOJ still might not like it as even though it is the same company, they have separate FFLs and CFDs so they are treated as different operations.

[Munk]

This might be the closest you could do. The DOJ still might not like it as even though it is the same company, they have separate FFLs and CFDs so they are treated as different operations.

If the same-store-remote-PPT was viable, Turners and other stores may see a nice increase in business.

I hope the separate FFL and CFD issue won't mess this up, because it would be nice to have a better method of transferring firearms that allows for off-roster transfer of stuff between NorCal, SoCal and parts in between.