Has anyone done a DES/DROS "loan"?

[lugnutwrench]

Has anyone ever done one of these?



The forms look very close to PPT transfers, but I'm wondering what happens when the loaned gun is returned? Is there a return DROS (and fee)? If so, is the "loan" designation only to avoid the appearance of a straw transfer since it is only short-term?

I'm going to call compliance (916.227.7527) tomorrow and see if I can get details, but if anyone has any experience with these, I'd love some input.

[Condorguns]

Nope, never used it.

Looking forward to more info.

[lugnutwrench]

Update from Compliance

TL;DR (So Far)

I placed two calls this morning. Based on the level of detail and background provided, coupled with the fact that the loan page has a place for the "seller" like a PPT, I trust the response I received from my second call a lot more than my first one (details for each below). In other words, they have no idea what that functionality is for and no one has ever used it. However, see below.

Call #1

I spoke with a woman who informed me that those buttons were for loaning firearms out of the FFL's inventory (e.g., as movie props), not to facilitate a loan between two private parties. She sounded very confident in her assertions.

She then referred me to several sections in the Penal Code that described the requirements of private party loans. She highlighted the fact that one could not lawfully loan a firearm to a prohibited person. Then she asked (rhetorically), how do you know the person isn't prohibited? When I suggested that perhaps it was where the lender didn't know or have reason to believe the recipient was prohibited, she said that if the recipient was prohibited, the lender could be charged with a felony, regardless of knowledge or reasonable belief. When I asked if it was a strict liability crime, she said she couldn't provide legal advice. I thanked her for her time and we hung up.

Call #2

Of course, as soon as I did, I remembered that the loan screen looked very much like a PPT and had a section to be filled out by the "seller" which is inconsistent with an FFL lending out firearms from inventory. So I called back, and ended up speaking with a different person who right away said they have no idea what those buttons were for.

She explained that they were present in the old (Verizon) system, and several investigators had spent hours trying to find support in the Penal Code for some motivation for that functionality, but came up with nothing. When I asked if they could see if anyone had ever used them, she said at one time they performed a search, but no one has ever performed a DROS using those screens. However, when designing the new DES, they were reluctant to remove the functionality, lest someone more informed on the law legitimately need it all of a sudden.

We kicked around ideas for several minutes and came up with two possible scenarios which might explain the motivation to provide a loan DROS. Warning: what follows is pure speculation and should not be relied upon.

First, among other constraints, the penal code says that one cannot loan a firearm to another for more than 30 days. We thought that maybe it was for the purpose of handling a true long-term loan (e.g., where one private party wants to loan--but not sell--a firearm to another for a few months). In that scenariou, the lender expects the firearm to be returned, so neither party wants to characterize the loan as a sale. One concern this hypothetical doesn't answer is that the law suggests (as it often does by redefining lay meanings of common words in perverse ways) that anything past 30 days can't be a loan (regardless of what the parties actually intend), or if it is, it's unlawful.

Second, as mentioned above, the penal code prohibits loaning firearms to a prohibited person. If the lender wants to make a short-term loan in compliance with the law (i.e., under 30 days), but also wants to preserve his defenses to being charged with a crime, perhaps this functionality was intended to allow a background check and recording of the transfer without (mis)characterizing it as a sale.

One problem we identified with both hypotheticals is that no one knows the proper procedure to indicate the firearm was returned to the lender. She didn't know whether there was a redemption button. I also suggested that if there isn't one, it may be a flaw in the design, not a problem with the law, but there has yet to be a complaint since no one has used it. Traveling further down the rabbit hole, I suggested to return the firearm once the loan was over, perhaps the recipient would do a PPT back to the lender, but the FFL would note on the form that it was the return of a loan facilitated by loan DROS #XXXX.

I asked if there was a way to test the functionality of the loan pages without actually performing a live DROS. She seemed genuinely curious too, so she said she'd follow up with the DES folks and call me back. I thanked her and we hung up. I am currently awaiting the return phone call, and will update this entry when I receive it.

[Condorguns]

Interesting.

I have always ran with the idea a loan was 30 days or less, no FFL required. Over 30 days they will need to PPT.

Got to love it when DOJ also has no clue what a section of their program is for.

[lugnutwrench]

... I have always ran with the idea a loan was 30 days or less, no FFL required. Over 30 days they will need to PPT. ...

I'm guessing this is what most FFLs do. There are two potential problems that come up for true loans though (as I alluded to above).

First, for 30 days and under, if the DOJ is right (and that may be just FUD), it's possible the lender might be charged with a crime if they lend to a prohibited person. In that scenario, I think the DROS is a bit heavy-handed. I'm guessing it's sufficient for the lender to require the recipient to sign a statement (e.g., under penalty of perjury) that the recipient is not a prohibited person. But who knows?

Second, for loans more than 30 days, a PPT is probably not the best vehicle, since it requires a 4473 and is characterized as transfer of title, which is inaccurate. lorax3 mentions similar problems in this post.

That being said, if you're right, in a longer term loan situation (since there is no buyer), does one do a PPT for the loan without filling out a 4473, and then another PPT for the return (again without the 4473)?

It seems California law creates more problems for firearm loans than it aims to solve. But what else is new?