Problem with California FFL Transfer

[mbcris]

"Because of your threats of a law suit, nothing will be returned, On advise of counsel, if you both sign notarized affidavits releasing me of all liability. I will release the metal."

My response...

Unfortunately, you may have assumed the financial responsibility unless we can more fully understand the law that you relied upon to destroy the Firearm. And since you supposedly followed the law that authorized you to destroy the Firearm, it shouldn't be difficult for you to put together a cogent summary that both the buyer and I can understand.

I as a nonlicensee and you as an FFL are required to follow certain state and federal law when transferring a firearm to another party.

Generally speaking, when laws are not properly followed, there are a whole host of remedies, and one of those remedies may in fact be the necessary destruction of the firearm. But that is as yet undetermined.

As the transferor, I believe I've followed the law. And, after being falsely accused of illegally transferring the Firearm (across state lines from a nonlicensee to an FFL), I've successfully demonstrated that you as an FFL were misinformed on both state and federal law regarding the interstate transfer of firearms by nonlicensees.

So it stands to reason that by carrying out the destruction of the Firearm, that you may have relied on misinformation, your own misinterpretation or fabrication of the law in your timely pursuit of a remedy.

I intend to get to the bottom of this and the law that you ultimately relied upon to destroy the Firearm. And, if you didn't follow the law, then you should bear the financial responsibility.

Because you have not provided any proof that the Firearm was destroyed, other than your word, I have questions and concerns about its disposition and that it could ultimately fall into the wrong hands. You have now assumed possession of a registered Firearm without authorization. If you don't return the Firearm or its pieces (as the case may be) than we will ask the DOJ and ATF for guidance in classifying it as stolen.

 

[mbcris]

"You have no worries. I followed the law correctly. I had two choices, destroy or turn over to law enforcement for destruction. I didn't want to disclose your name and the serial number. So I destroyed it. I cited the business and profession code explaining second hand dealers, you elected not to listen to me. I'm done explaining."

My response:

As I see it, you have two options to make this go away.

You can either a) produce a check made payable to me in the amount of $2,500 and send it along wit the pieces of the firearm to my return address, or b) you can put together a cogent summary of the facts with any reference to the law you relied upon to justify destruction of the Firearm, along with the names and contact information of any DOJ or ATF personnel to whom you discussed this matter.

If you fail to demonstrate that every "i" was dotted and every "t" was crossed in accordance with the law, and that there was no other remedy other than the destruction of the Firearm, then you should be held financially responsible.

If you choose option "a" the buyer and I will not pursue this matter any further and we'll relieve you from any future liability. But if you choose option "b", we feel obligated to investigate this matter through all necessary channels which include but are not limited to the DOJ and ATF.

 

[mbcris]

I don't know anything about that lower 716 and I'm assuming what you and the buyer/friend were attempting to do was legal. Having said that....


I'd still like to know what the buyer/friend has done so far with the FFL?

Refer back to my post above.

I seriously doubt he'd be required by law to destroy that 'gun' and being in CA there would some paperwork filed (kind of like the opposite of the CA DROS paperwork) for people to file when they no longer are in possession of a gun in CA; particularly since he's a FFL

For ex; this CA 'No Longer in Possession' form actually has an option box to check for guns that were "verified destroyed".

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/BOF4546NLIP0209.pdf


What has the friend/buyer done so far....?

In a normal transaction, the buyer prepays for the firearm before it's shipped to the FFL. In this case, he's a close friend and I don't care when I get paid. Because he hasn't paid me yet, it would be hard for him to have standing if this end up going to court...which is where it's headed.

We're both doing the research, but I've taken the lead on memorializing this matter in writing.

 

[mbcris]

I don't know anything about that lower 716 and I'm assuming what you and the buyer/friend were attempting to do was legal. Having said that....


I'd still like to know what the buyer/friend has done so far with the FFL?

Refer back to my post above.

I seriously doubt he'd be required by law to destroy that 'gun' and being in CA there would some paperwork filed (kind of like the opposite of the CA DROS paperwork) for people to file when they no longer are in possession of a gun in CA; particularly since he's a FFL

For ex; this CA 'No Longer in Possession' form actually has an option box to check for guns that were "verified destroyed".

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/BOF4546NLIP0209.pdf


What has the friend/buyer done so far....?

I agree...I can't imagine destruction of the firearm was the only remedy.

But keep in mind, I have no idea what he told the DOJ.

I just can fathom how not being licensed as a "second hand dealer" gives him the authority to destroy the firearm the after taking possession.

 

[mbcris]

Thanks for all the input...

 

[dogtown tom]

mbcris .......Tom, would you be comfortable if an FFL just kept your gun? No explanation. No compensation. How is that not the definition of stealing?

I wrote that its not THEFT......you willingly shipped him the firearm. I highly doubt that meets the definition of theft in any jurisdiction. ATF most certainly will not view it as left, instead they will tell you it's a civil matter.

It may meet the definition of CONVERSION however.

col.lemat Dog town Thank for the compliment of calling me an idiot!

I didn't call you anything. I DID say that only an idiot would file a report that it was stolen.............because you would be filing a false police report. That ain't real bright is it?

 

[jerkface11]

The idea that it wasn't stolen is the only idiotic thing about this. The dealer agreed to transfer the gun and instead took it and destroyed it.

 

[dogtown tom]

jerkface11 The idea that it wasn't stolen is the only idiotic thing about this. The dealer agreed to transfer the gun and instead took it and destroyed it.

The dealer didn't steal the firearm............it was shipped to him by the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

I find it hard to believe that the dealer actually destroyed the firearm, and if he did I'm positive ATF would love to look at his books.

 

[chiggerbyt]

I find it hard to believe that the dealer actually destroyed the firearm, and if he did I'm positive ATF would love to look at his books.

I've only been transferring firearms for 25 or so years and I agree with Dogtown Tom. This just isn't something a regular dealer does in my opinion. A manufacturer (original) may destroy a receiver to replace one with the same serial number but that's not anywhere close to this scenario as described by the OP. You may want to consider calling your local ATF and see if they can give you some direction on this. Perhaps they will connect you with the local branch where the transferring FFL does business. What does the California dealer care if the ATF has your information after doing all he says he did??? Obviously he could care less about you. Can't hurt at this point?? Did the firearm have to be complete to be compliant? It just doesn't add up for me.

 

[joe4702]

The dealer didn't steal the firearm............it was shipped to him by the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

I find it hard to believe that the dealer actually destroyed the firearm, and if he did I'm positive ATF would love to look at his books.

So if he didn't destroy it, then he's lying to the OP.
For what reason? So he can keep the gun for himself?
Sell it to a friend cheap? Ship it to a Mexican cartel?

This FFL sounds like a jerk.
Hope the OP gets his gun or the money back.

 

[mbcris]

The dealer didn't steal the firearm............it was shipped to him by the OP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

I find it hard to believe that the dealer actually destroyed the firearm, and if he did I'm positive ATF would love to look at his books.

From the FFL:

"You have no worries. I followed the law correctly. I had two choices, destroy or turn over to law enforcement for destruction. I didn't want to disclose your name and the serial number. So I destroyed it. I cited the business and profession code explaining second hand dealers, you elected not to listen to me. I'm done explaining."

 

[mbcris]

I've only been transferring firearms for 25 or so years and I agree with Dogtown Tom. This just isn't something a regular dealer does in my opinion. A manufacturer (original) may destroy a receiver to replace one with the same serial number but that's not anywhere close to this scenario as described by the OP. You may want to consider calling your local ATF and see if they can give you some direction on this. Perhaps they will connect you with the local branch where the transferring FFL does business. What does the California dealer care if the ATF has your information after doing all he says he did??? Obviously he could care less about you. Can't hurt at this point?? Did the firearm have to be complete to be compliant? It just doesn't add up for me.

He was very quick-to-anger when challenged on the law. He destroyed this firearm out of spite.

You would think if he was assured what he did was justified, he would be cooperative in providing the law and those contacts at the DOJ and ATF with whom he allegedly spoke.

Instead this was a response I got from him yesterday...

LMAO!

 

[mbcris]

Destroying and keeping possession of the firearm is just part of the issue.

He told the buyer I needed to get a letter from my local FFL with a CFLC Firearms Shipment Approval Number and an affidavit of shipment.

My local FFL didn't ship the firearm. I did.

I would classify this as an inducement to commit a federal firearms violation. No?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I would classify this as an inducement to commit a federal firearms violation. No?

What you would classify it as is irrelevant.

The discussion is getting circular, and there's nowhere constructive for it to go. It's a matter for lawyers and the courts if the OP wants to pursue it.