Lower "Type" in Bound Book?

[hakuna]

Hi,

Couldn't find how you guys are marking your lowers in the bound book. I read somewhere that the ATF said mark them RCVR. Are you guys just putting down Rifle (since they would be illegal to be Pistol) or is the RCVR correct?

Thanks,
Gary

[ripro75]

Hi,

Couldn't find how you guys are marking your lowers in the bound book. I read somewhere that the ATF said mark them RCVR. Are you guys just putting down Rifle (since they would be illegal to be Pistol) or is the RCVR correct?

Thanks,
Gary

Mark them as a receiver, not a rifle. After all, it is a federal book so you mark it as it is. It is is not illegal to have a lower as a pistol either. Even if you were going to DROS is as a pistol to an exempt individual, ie. LEO, it still would be a receiver. The difference is when a receiver is DROS'd, you would input it as a rifle or pistol. Either way, it is still a receiver.

[kemasa]

As said, it is a receiver and that since it is a Federal book, you follow the Federal rules. Because CA does not have a concept of "other", which includes frames and receivers, that is a CA problem and you DROS it as a long gun unless it is a handgun. A receiver is not considered a long gun until it is made into a long gun and a CA DROS does not affect that according to the Feds.

BTW, the Feds say that the "-" in the serial number, such as Ruger firearms, are part of the serial number and must be included, but the CA DROS system does not allow the "-", so you have to enter a wrong serial number. Also, the CA DOJ claims that you are not to enter a firearm into your bound book if you don't have a CFLC letter (when required), but that can violate Federal law, so you should follow Federal law for the bound book. The list goes on.

[hakuna]

Thanks much guys. I marked the bound book correctly and figured out the DROS part since I had no choice but to mark it long gun.

Kemasa, if I receive a gun from a private citizen out of state I won't have a CFLC number right? So what's the DOJ think I'm supposed to do then?

Gary

[kemasa]

Kemasa, if I receive a gun from a private citizen out of state I won't have a CFLC number right? So what's the DOJ think I'm supposed to do then?

I am not sure I understand your question. If a non-FFL ships it, the CFLC letter is not required, so that is not an issue. The issue only comes into play if it is from a FFL and there is no CFLC letter. The CA DOJ can not require you to violate the law, which is what they are trying to get FFLs to do. They say that if you put the firearm in your bound book, that means that you intend to transfer it, which is not actually the case.

Then there is the case is the FFL is a sole proprietor and the FFL is in their name, if you did not have a CFLC letter and you recorded the person's name and address, how would the CA DOJ know that it actually came from a FFL. It is also possible that you might not know the "private party" is really a FFL as well. They might check all names, so it is really a risk you don't want to take if you know, but it is something that I thought about :-).

Then again, if you ask them why a CA DL/ID is not acceptable proof of residency, you get strange answers, such as there are people who live in NV, but work as a driver in CA, so they need a CA DL, which means that the CA ID/DL does not prove CA residency, which is true since it should have the NV address, so it would prove NV residency. Strange.

[hakuna]

Thanks for the help! Trying to figure out the law is definitely the trickiest part of being a new FFL. Most of the other hard "hoop jumping" stuff seems to have gone away once I had my FFL, CFD, HSC Instructor Cert, CFLC, COE, BOE, etc., etc., LOL. I didn't realize I also had to pass the bar exam to practice gun selling! ;-P

Gary

[kemasa]

Yep, all the rules, regulations, laws, etc. are the worst part and to add to that, while the law might not change, they can change their "view" of what the law means. Sales tax is a nasty area to deal with.

It might be easier to pass the bar than to sell firearms :-).