delete

[fullautoUSMC]

...

[Jeepers]

so how is it a "Straw Purchase" ?

my wife can buy a gun and give it to me or I can even add my wifes guns to my CCW without transfer

[Moemoe1]

Report it! Irony and karma is a B!

[Loubot10]

so how is it a "Straw Purchase" ?

my wife can buy a gun and give it to me or I can even add my wifes guns to my CCW without transfer

^^^
This

[CSACANNONEER]

Call the media.

[glock_this]

Seems to me you could be jumping to conclusions no? Just because she said "her" gun she might just be speaking generally (its in her family) or just showing off a bit acting like it's hers when its her husbands or just keeping it simple by saying "hers" to not make it harder since it is her husbands.

Anyway so your basic concern is that he bought for her because she cannot own? Maybe they did the $19 transfer & sent in the form and it's in the process of becoming hers. If husbands & wife's can list each others weapons on their CCW, not sure exactly what issue took place here.

But if you assume something why not just ask her?

[Canucky]

Not prohibited what's the problem?

[glock_this]

But I read nothing from your posts that proves anything like that took place.

So she said "her" and was qualifying with it. That's your proof?

She was on a list that had no known delivery. She bought a gun recently was on the 1 in 30 so timing was bad when you called. Didnt want to give up the slot and her husband also wants it or they want it in the family. He buys it. She uses it. Its in the family. Done. But like I said they could have gone 1 step further & initiated a transfer they can do themselves. Seems no issue I can read.

[CSACANNONEER]

On a serious note, if you truly believe a straw purchase took place, I believe you're bound by some condition of the FFL to report it.

[glock_this]

How do you know it's going to be her duty weapon? If she qualifies with it that de facto makes it her duty weapon? A serious question. Can qualifying with it be like a CCW gun you qualify with as 1 of your 3 but never really carry? Maybe she just "qualified" with it so in case she wants to use it in the future she can.

And if they did send in the $19 and transfer form it darn well could be hers now. No?

[keenkeen]

I very well could be jumping to conclusions, which is why Im throwing it out here to see if I'm just pissing myself off. But I'm just trying to think of it as, if I knew that the gun was going to go straight to her days after the transaction, to be USED AS HER DUTY WEAPON for her department (not just a gun listed on a CCW) at the time of the purchase, would I have continued processing the transaction? I answer myself no.

What does it being used as a duty weapon (or not) have to do with the price of tea in China?

Or should I say "DUTY WEAPON"...

[nothinghere2c]

considering the supreme court just ruled against a civilian being able to do this... i feel your frustration.

my opinion: not prohibited, not a problem.

but yeah...

[P5Ret]

So I'm just trying to think what state agencies allow personally owned weapons to be used as a duty weapon in lieu of the issued Glock or S&W. And I can't think of a single one.

[pterrell]

If it looks like fish, smells like fish and talks like a fish, chances are...


Burn them. Just my $0.02 though

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[71MUSTY]

As I understand it, California is a Community Property state which means assets are generally owned jointly between husband and wife. This is why the laws make special exemptions for transfers between spouses. It really doesn't matter if the weapon is registered to the husband or the wife. Under California Law it is treated the same, except when some IA refuses to allow you to put a weapon registered to your spouse on your CCW. They have no basis in law for doing this, but since when does that matter to an IA?

IMHO if you report it your going to look the fool. But...