delete

[BONECUTTER]

Report the suspicion to your local ATF branch. Better to have it on record that have something come back to bite you in the *** later. Chances are they won't care when you give details (husband,wife,LEO's,ect).

But in case she goes on a wackado shooting spree with a firearms you sold her husband....Id rather when investigators come a knocking say if you read line 30c (copy page a note correction) I made a note that I was suspiscous and reported the incident to XXXXX and local office XXXXX,CA on XX/XX/XXXX.

Then its on record and no longer your problem. How or if you deal with these customers again should be discussed with the license holder.

[jdben92883]

Good lord man...maybe the husband simply changed his mind and gave the wife the pistol. Who knows/who cares. Sounds like you have a beef with the agency the wife works for.

[Librarian]

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...

Aside from the long-ago 'assault weapon' registration, which allowed more than one name on the owner, CA law does not provide for more than one named owner of a firearm at one time. Community property is an entirely separate body of law.

[Jeepers]

still see no issue as long as both are legally allowed to own weapons , but hey what do i know sounds like you are one of those guys behind the counter selling them and must know the law ... turn them in its your duty if you really believe its a straw purchase ....

Parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, husband/wife only
Note the text in Penal Code 16720. It really means ONLY those relationships, in either direction. Your brother, uncle, cousin or any 'in-laws' are NOT included.

However, in a slightly different operation, husbands and wives can give guns to each other, in an 'operation of law' called 'transmutation' (Family Code 850 The implication here is that firearms are separate, not community property - but why that should be so is not clear; further discussion of community property and related topics is far outside the scope of this article).

[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...

[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

[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.

[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...

[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"...

[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?

[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]

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.

[Canucky]

Not prohibited what's the problem?

[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?

[CSACANNONEER]

Call the media.