What would be a 'fair' PPT charge?

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

Way too many avenues for fraud, straw purchase and would be a logistical nightmare. Basically your suggestion would require DOJ "tellers" to be on-hand to "verify pic match and thumb print". Also, why make them both show up twice when in the current system the seller only has to show up once, drop off the firearm, have his ID swiped, sign and he's done?

I think the whole government-envolved PPT is crap. Criminals are going to buy street guns and people who nut up, buy a gun, and kill people are just going to use a knife or a street gun if they don't already own guns. The 14 day wait is an encumbrance that needs to go away. Other states have instant background checks, cash and carry. There is no reason California can't do that for PPTs as well.

[Matt C]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

Transfer only dealers work in volume...they have lower transfer fees than retailers...obviously they would be more successful in urban areas with large populations. You might be surprised at the level of revenue.

If they are making a lot of cash off people who have no choice but to use them, and would have no use for the service otherwise, because of a stupid law, then it's pretty asinine for them to complain that they can't get even more money from another government mandated scheme.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

That's fine for dealers who have accessories to sell...my whole point was geared toward the dealer who only does transfers, not retail...the thing that sticks the most in my craw is the DROS fee has gone up over the years...so the state recognizes the increase in costs for themselves, but not the dealers.

This excuse isn't going to fly either. First, if transfers are your bread and butter, having a customer come in and see how smooth your transfer process is will bring them back again for the only thing you sell, transfers. So the loss leader applies to you as well.

Second, I am willing to be a transfer only dealer doesn't have normal business hours and are by appointment only. How many people call up an appointment only transfer dealer and ask to schedule a PPT? I bet very few and even if they do, schedule it for the same time as a normal transfer and look at it as a loss leader.

Again, we don't do a lot of PPTs. So we don't complain about PPTs. Just look at doing PPTs as the same as having to write a new good cause letter for your Large Capacity Magazine Permit every year. Just part of the time spent maintaining your license.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by Joe

$50 for an FFL transfer is the absolute cheapest you'll find anywhere.

Incorrect. The lowest that I am aware of is $45, which I do a long gun for if the person is a member of a firearms right organization. It used to be lower, but all the permits and licenses have increased in cost.

BTW, 10 minutes for a PPT is a joke and misses many aspects. The firearm has to be logged into the bound book, the firearm marked and stored, then when the person comes back the firearm has to be found and the rest of the paperwork finished, then the bound book has to be updated and all the paperwork filed. Often you need to copy the drivers license and other documentation as well. it also assumes that you can be rude to the person and force them to quickly do all the paperwork and not talk at all. In other words, 10 minutes to do a PPT is not real when you include everything involved.

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

This excuse isn't going to fly either. First, if transfers are your bread and butter, having a customer come in and see how smooth your transfer process is will bring them back again for the only thing you sell, transfers. So the loss leader applies to you as well.

Again, I'm not saying it's all bad, and I don't want to do them. There is a balance that has to be struck between the PPT and the Dealer Transfer is all. State says I have to offer the service...ok, no problem. I would offer the service even if the State didn't mandate it. But at least raise the maximum fee to adjust for inflation? Is that asking too much? I've never said I want to be able to charge whatever I want for a PPT. What I've said is I would like it to be about $20...$15 would be ok...or should I have to offer the same service, for the same fee, for another 20 years?

Second, I am willing to be a transfer only dealer doesn't have normal business hours and are by appointment only. How many people call up an appointment only transfer dealer and ask to schedule a PPT? I bet very few and even if they do, schedule it for the same time as a normal transfer and look at it as a loss leader.

In an urban area a transfer only dealer can do between 150-250 transfers a month...more in some months...you may not do that many, being a retailer...what's the population where you are as opposed to LA County? Some don't have normal business hours...the part-timers, kitchen table guys, hobbyists. Some do have hours, because it's their primary income. But I kinda think whether they have hours or not...big or small, loss leader or not...setting a fee 20 years ago and not adjusting it at the very least for inflation is ridiculous.

Again, we don't do a lot of PPTs. So we don't complain about PPTs. Just look at doing PPTs as the same as having to write a new good cause letter for your Large Capacity Magazine Permit every year. Just part of the time spent maintaining your license.

The only time that takes is opening a Word file and changing the date.

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

I think the whole government-envolved PPT is crap. Criminals are going to buy street guns and people who nut up, buy a gun, and kill people are just going to use a knife or a street gun if they don't already own guns. The 14 day wait is an encumbrance that needs to go away. Other states have instant background checks, cash and carry. There is no reason California can't do that for PPTs as well.

Agreed...C&R rifles can do everything modern rifles can do...but they are cash and carry...there is no logical reasoning for the restriction...but it's Kalifornia

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

Way too many avenues for fraud, straw purchase and would be a logistical nightmare. Basically your suggestion would require DOJ "tellers" to be on-hand to "verify pic match and thumb print". Also, why make them both show up twice when in the current system the seller only has to show up once, drop off the firearm, have his ID swiped, sign and he's done?

the point about seller holding gun is in response to dealers not wanting to take custody of firearm for 10 days
also if they did not take custody they would not need to have it on their bound books they should just have to do the background check on the buyer

ppt needs reform the aft thinks its just fine for a private party to sell a gun to another party why should california require it to be on the bound books seems to me legally their authority only requires the sale to go through the california dros system

[Burbur]

Since the government is the one requiring the transfer, how about they pay for it. Start by removing the DROS fee, and then going the other direction a few dollars to cover the FFL's costs.

End results: FFL makes more than his current $10 margin, and it costs the consumer nothing

[/pipedream]

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by Burbur

Since the government is the one requiring the transfer, how about they pay for it. Start by removing the DROS fee, and then going the other direction a few dollars to cover the FFL's costs.

End results: FFL makes more than his current $10 margin, and it costs the consumer nothing

[/pipedream]

Except that the government is funded by tax money and it costs money to maintain the database.

Do away with the 14 day wait and do instant NCIC background checks like the free states do. Then there is no need for any of it.

[dachan]

Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum

Except that the government is funded by tax money and it costs money to maintain the database.

Do away with the 14 day wait and do instant NCIC background checks like the free states do. Then there is no need for any of it.

What is the 14day wait you keep refering to?

[E Pluribus Unum]

Originally Posted by dachan

What is the 14day wait you keep refering to?

Sorry... 10 days... It used to be 14 so it sticks in my head.

[kemasa]

It used to be 15 days, the 5 days were due to the fact that the forms were mailed in. Since it is done electronically now, the time for the mail has been removed.

[00BuckShot]

Originally Posted by dachan

Think about what you're saying. Let's say you own a car dealership and CA passed a law saying that all car sales must go through a dealership, but dealerships must handle the transaction upon demand and process all the paperwork for free. In addition, they must store the car in their lot for 10days during the "registration period" for free. Is that reasonable?



Potential customers, possibly, but someone who just completed a significant purchase. And with the internet and big box stores, a diminishing possibility for sales of accessories. All said, the possibility of an additional sale is not enough to cover the cost of the service.


Maybe because they can't average the 20% markup needed to make this even come close to breaking even.

Are you kidding me??? If everyone who PPT'd a Dirt Bike was required to come to my dealership and do the DMV transfer and I could charge them my$55 DOC fee to do it, I'd jump all over it. My DMV lady wouldn't be too happy about it but I'd love to have all those customers know where I was. Walk through my accessory department? Man, I'd kill to have that customer base!

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by 00BuckShot

Are you kidding me??? If everyone who PPT'd a Dirt Bike was required to come to my dealership and do the DMV transfer and I could charge them my$55 DOC fee to do it, I'd jump all over it.!

How about for a $10 DOC fee?

[bohoki]

hmm this does have me a bit curious to what the exact law states how a ppt is done i think it may make it easier if the dealer didnt have to log in the gun store it then log it out

if the buyer and seller could just come in twice that would be cool and if the seller didnt want to come back then the dealer could charge an appropriate storage fee

i dont see how the federal firearms licencees should have to even do a 4473 as that is a federal requirement for a sale and a ppt is only a "california"aka STATE thing how can a state require it to be added to federal paperwork when it is not required federaly

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by bohoki

i dont see how the federal firearms licencees should have to even do a 4473 as that is a federal requirement for a sale and a ppt is only a "california"aka STATE thing how can a state require it to be added to federal paperwork when it is not required federaly

Because it's the law:

From CA PC 12071:

(17) The licensee shall maintain and make available for inspection
during business hours to any peace officer, authorized local law
enforcement employee, or Department of Justice employee designated by
the Attorney General, upon the presentation of proper
identification, a firearms transaction record.


(4) For purposes of paragraph (17) of subdivision (b):

(A) A "firearms transaction record" is a record containing the
same information referred to in subdivision (a) of Section 478.124,
Section 478.124a, and subdivision (e) of Section 478.125 of Title 27
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

From Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

§ 478.124 Firearms transaction record.

(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, unless the licensee records the transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473: Provided, That a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.

[blakdawg]

Originally Posted by Blackwater OPS

That goes with operating this particular type of business, since I knew the rules, including PPT requirements, going in I don't see why I would have any right to ***** about it now.

Right, but on ordinary sales or FFL transfers the business owner can build that overhead into his price/fee.

But if the state of CA, in its ultimate wisdom, decides to send the business owner some time-waster guy who wants to spend an hour arguing over the 4473 AND sets the maximium price the guy can be charged at $10, (a) it's tough to make money with even a $15/hr wage-earner, and (b) there's a lot of risk in delegating the paperwork to a moron, because if the paperwork is done incorrectly or the buyer/seller say the wrong things, it can cost the business owner thousands in fees or ultimately their right to do business. Traders' was shut down, ultimately, because the employees who were supposed to be keeping the log of guns in/out didn't do it right. It may be the "fault" of some $15/hr clerk - but it's the owner who lost his business.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

Because it's the law:

From CA PC 12071:

(17) The licensee shall maintain and make available for inspection
during business hours to any peace officer, authorized local law
enforcement employee, or Department of Justice employee designated by
the Attorney General, upon the presentation of proper
identification, a firearms transaction record.


(4) For purposes of paragraph (17) of subdivision (b):

(A) A "firearms transaction record" is a record containing the
same information referred to in subdivision (a) of Section 478.124,
Section 478.124a, and subdivision (e) of Section 478.125 of Title 27
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

From Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

§ 478.124 Firearms transaction record.

(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, unless the licensee records the transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473: Provided, That a firearms transaction record, Form 4473, shall not be required to record the disposition made of a firearm delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing when such firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received.

His point is, how does CA have legal jurisdiction to require that one complete FEDERAL paperwork for a transaction that is only required by the state.
California has it's own DROS paperwork and DROS system.
The requirement for the 4473, and perhaps even entry into the dealer's bound book, appears to not be legal.

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

His point is, how does CA have legal jurisdiction to require that one complete FEDERAL paperwork for a transaction that is only required by the state.
California has it's own DROS paperwork and DROS system.
The requirement for the 4473, and perhaps even entry into the dealer's bound book, appears to not be legal.

I know...it's an interesting point...BUT, who's gonna run that one by the legal system for me?

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

His point is, how does CA have legal jurisdiction to require that one complete FEDERAL paperwork for a transaction that is only required by the state.
California has it's own DROS paperwork and DROS system.
The requirement for the 4473, and perhaps even entry into the dealer's bound book, appears to not be legal.

thank you i'm glad someone gets my point

also if the dealer never takes possession of the firearm they are not disposing of "it" the "unlicenced seller" is the ffl is only doing a background check applying a waiting period and for pistols registering and verifying a handgun safety certificate which also seems on shaky ground if it is not being transfered "from" the ffl dealer no lock should be required either since those laws only apply to licencees not occasional unlicenced sellers

major reform must be enacted

california should only be allowed to require its populace to transfer "through" an ffl dealer not "transfering to" and that is how the system seems to be flawed

in my ideal world

seller and buyer go to ffl dealer dealer does the dros

both parties leave

return in 10 days the dealer says the buyer checks out hand the firearm over the buyer hands the cash to the seller both walk away

no lock requirement no handgun safety required(since its only required by the state that an ffl has to verify the buyer has one before it(pistol) can be transfered from the dealer

the $10 charge would then only cause the dealer to use the computer not have to log in bound book do a 4473 form log out

what law requires the ffl dealer to take possession of the firearm

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by bohoki

no lock requirement no handgun safety required(since its only required by the state that an ffl has to verify the buyer has one before it(pistol) can be transfered from the dealer

HSC is also required for loans, so it would still be applicable to a private party sale.

[jtmkinsd]

I agree with the "ideal world" scenario...I'd love to see it...but I don't think I will in my lifetime.

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by Cokebottle

HSC is also required for loans, so it would still be applicable to a private party sale.

who is doing the loaning?

according to the law i am not bound by the atf regulations for dealers and i'm also not bound by rules set forth for california licensed dealers

where in the law does it require a non licensed individual before loaning a gun verify the person has a hsc

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by bohoki

who is doing the loaning?

according to the law i am not bound by the atf regulations for dealers and i'm also not bound by rules set forth for california licensed dealers

where in the law does it require a non licensed individual before loaning a gun verify the person has a hsc

I don't see where the loan exemption to the PPT requirement says that the loaner personally verify that the recipient has an HSC, but if the recipient doesn't have an HSC, then you don't qualify for the exemption.

12078(d)(1) Subdivision (d) of Section 12072 shall not apply to the infrequent loan of firearms between persons who are personally known to each other for any lawful purpose, if the loan does not exceed 30 days in duration and, when the firearm is a handgun, commencing January 1, 2003, the individual being loaned the handgun has a valid handgun safety certificate.

[kemasa]

If the firearm transfer go through a FFL, then all of the paperwork is required, which would be a Federal law.

If two people in another state came to a FFL to do the transfer (where it is not required) because the seller wanted to ensure that the buyer was not prohibited, then the FFL would have to fill out all the required paperwork, including the 4473.

So, because CA law requires the transfer be done at a FFL, then means that the normal paperwork is required.

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by kemasa

If the firearm transfer go through a FFL, then all of the paperwork is required, which would be a Federal law.

If two people in another state came to a FFL to do the transfer (where it is not required) because the seller wanted to ensure that the buyer was not prohibited, then the FFL would have to fill out all the required paperwork, including the 4473.

So, because CA law requires the transfer be done at a FFL, then means that the normal paperwork is required.

that is my point the words "through" or "at" are the contention

the minute the ffl takes possession of the firearm all federal forms must be adheared to but if the ffl never takes possession then only california law should apply and i dont see how california could require the ffl to do excessive work on forms they have no juristiction over

ive come to the opinion that the letter of the law is on my side as they ppt fee cap is not taking into account the excessive federal forms

which is why the dros form is redundant with the preliminary disqualifier questions that are repeated on the 4473 form

if everyone who does a dros does a 4473 why have those questions it seems to me that the system is set up to be separate

[kemasa]

If the transfer is done "at" the FFL and if the FFL does the transfer, then the FFL takes possession of the firearm. The FFL has to look at the serial number for the handgun, as that is required for the DROS.

I have to ask if you really would want both the buyer and seller to have to go to the FFL twice.

Honestly, if you wanted to do it the "easy" way, the paperwork should just be sent into the DOJ and if everything is ok, then the seller could give the firearm to the buyer and no FFLs would be involved at all. Much like a family transfer.

[jtmkinsd]

Yeah...but then we're right back to the whole reason the PPT was created in the first place...to end FTF transactions and bring them into a "controled" circumstance where the buyer is checked before taking possession of the firearm. Not saying that's not the way it should be...but the entire 12082 would have to be striken, and 12071 would have to be revised.

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by kemasa

If the transfer is done "at" the FFL and if the FFL does the transfer, then the FFL takes possession of the firearm. The FFL has to look at the serial number for the handgun, as that is required for the DROS.

I have to ask if you really would want both the buyer and seller to have to go to the FFL twice.

Honestly, if you wanted to do it the "easy" way, the paperwork should just be sent into the DOJ and if everything is ok, then the seller could give the firearm to the buyer and no FFLs would be involved at all. Much like a family transfer.

the main complaint by the ffls is that $10 is not enough to cover paperwork and i am in agreement soas a consumer the goal should not be to increase cost but to reduce the burden on the ffl


if a person wants to transfer the firearm to the ffl then i think the ffl shoudl be able to charge a storage and safety (insurace) and federal form filing fee

but if the firearm never comes into possession of the ffl then the only thing the ffl should have to do fill out the california dros background,pistol info input for registration
and i suppose since the form requires it the hsc number for handguns

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by bohoki

the main complaint by the ffls is that $10 is not enough to cover paperwork and i am in agreement soas a consumer the goal should not be to increase cost but to reduce the burden on the ffl


if a person wants to transfer the firearm to the ffl then i think the ffl shoudl be able to charge a storage and safety (insurace) and federal form filing fee

but if the firearm never comes into possession of the ffl then the only thing the ffl should have to do fill out the california dros background,pistol info input for registration
and i suppose since the form requires it the hsc number for handguns

All of which could be done by the private parties themselves...in a perfect world of course.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

Yeah...but then we're right back to the whole reason the PPT was created in the first place...to end FTF transactions and bring them into a "controled" circumstance where the buyer is checked before taking possession of the firearm. Not saying that's not the way it should be...but the entire 12082 would have to be striken, and 12071 would have to be revised.

The reason for PPT is to ensure that the buyer is allowed to own a firearm. There is really no reason why the seller can not retain the firearm until the response from the form is received and perhaps a 10 day wait if you want to have it the same as others. Yes, this is closer to the way it should be, but not the way it will ever happen.

[Datdarkness]

soooo all you with shops that "lose" all that money from being busy with the ppt.
just hire me and ill sell other stuff while youre busy

[RobG]

Something I have yet to see brought up is the fact that the fee is low so as to encourage legal transactions while doing a PPT. If they were 50+ dollars plus the price of DROS I can see many transactions being done on the "down low."

There is no reason that the PPT could not be set up like an intrafamilial transfer. The buyer could send in a form to check eligibility and then give the approval letter to the seller to cover him/her. The money for the check goes to the .gov and no gun store is involved. The letter could be good for say 30-90 days. And/or the seller could check online at the DOJ website.

To the FFL's that have an issue only making 10.00, we get it. It sucks for you and you don't make money from it. But, its a part of being in the gun business. And unless you were in it before 1991, you knew that going in. I'd like to know the average number of PPT's stores do per month. I'd also be interested in the value of having two potential customers in your store. Its forced foot traffic, it has to have some value.

[jtmkinsd]

Originally Posted by RobG

Something I have yet to see brought up is the fact that the fee is low so as to encourage legal transactions while doing a PPT.

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway. So yes, back in 1991 $10 was cheap, now it's even cheaper, and 20 years from now it'll be even cheaper. Nobody can tell me with a straight face the fee should be $10 forever and all time, right? So the question is when do you adjust it, and by how much? Me personally? I'd say there should be an automatic adjustment every 10 years using inflation as the index.

[bohoki]

Originally Posted by kemasa

The reason for PPT is to ensure that the buyer is allowed to own a firearm. There is really no reason why the seller can not retain the firearm until the response from the form is received and perhaps a 10 day wait if you want to have it the same as others. Yes, this is closer to the way it should be, but not the way it will ever happen.

yup i still have yet to see the law say that the ffl has to take possession of the firearm

this is a case of a "suggested procedure" having been morphed into a pseudo law

[RobG]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway. So yes, back in 1991 $10 was cheap, now it's even cheaper, and 20 years from now it'll be even cheaper. Nobody can tell me with a straight face the fee should be $10 forever and all time, right? So the question is when do you adjust it, and by how much? Me personally? I'd say there should be an automatic adjustment every 10 years using inflation as the index.

Based on that, the fee would be approx. 15.00. Would that extra 5.00 be enough for the FFL's time in your opinion? It can't be too big of an issue as I have never heard of a dealer closing its doors purely because of the 10.00 fee.

I still think there could be a way to eliminate the dealer altogether in a PPT. That or an instant check system like available in other states. Will it ever happen? Not likely.

[kemasa]

Originally Posted by bohoki

yup i still have yet to see the law say that the ffl has to take possession of the firearm

this is a case of a "suggested procedure" having been morphed into a pseudo law

Read the CA PC and Federal laws. How can the FFL do the transfer if they do not have the firearm? You are trying to claim that the PPT is something special, but under Federal law there is nothing special about it, it is just a dealer transfer. For CA, it is also a transfer, but with different restrictions (less).

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by jtmkinsd

I would think the misdemeanor violation would be motivation enough...on the average, legal gun owners are a little more hyper-sensitve about complying with laws anyway.

That assumes you get caught.

With a handgun, sure... cops runs the numbers, it's registered to someone else, you're busted unless your brought it in from out of state and both you and the gun are old enough so that you can say with a straight face that you've owned it since before 1991.

Long guns? No registration. The only place the serial number is recorded is on the 4473, and it doesn't "go" anywhere unless and until the FFL closes shop and ships the pile to the BATFE... where it goes into a warehouse never to be seen again.

The only time a long gun serial number would (or should) show in the system is if someone does a vol-reg, reports it stolen, or it's a RAW.

And I've met plenty of gun owners who have transferred long guns illegally. Got it from a friend, bought it PPT out of state, etc....
Most legal gun owners are not on Calguns, and many (perhaps even most) are not aware of the requirement to execute transfers through an FFL. When you're on this forum, you're looking at the cream of the crop WRT California gun law awareness. Witness the dozen or two new threads every week posted by newbies who run the gamut from not knowing about the FFL transfer requirement to believing that all guns must be registered, and/or you need a permit to own a gun.

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by kemasa

Read the CA PC and Federal laws. How can the FFL do the transfer if they do not have the firearm? You are trying to claim that the PPT is something special, but under Federal law there is nothing special about it, it is just a dealer transfer.

Under Federal law, I can buy a gun from a non-FFL in a Wal Mart parking lot, just like in most free states.

If the FFL never takes possession, the bound book entry is not required, since he only has to hold it long enough to verify the serial number, make, and model. It never has to be checked into inventory.
California only cares about the DROS information, they don't get the 4473 until they do an audit.

[kemasa]

You have to also follow the laws of the state that you are in, which in this case we are talking about California. So, it does not matter that Federal law does not force you to go to a FFL to do a transfer. If you do the transfer in CA you are violating CA State law if you don't go through a FFL.

In the case of a PPT, there is also a waiting period. So the FFL has to keep it for 10 days, which means that it has to be entered into the bound book, so it is not correct that the FFL only has to keep it long enough to verify the information. If the FFl does not take possession, then the transfer should be canceled and then you no longer have a transfer.

Personally, I don't care for many of the laws, if not most of them, but I also don't want free room and board, so it is best to follow the laws. If you want things to be different, that is fine, but then get it changed. Until then, things have to be done in a certain way.

So, making comments which really don't apply in CA does not do any good.