Dreaming100Straight If it wasn't so sad this would be funny.
True, but those who hold an FFL see you as a sad, sad troll.
In response to post #98 I will address the peron's comments in the order they appear.
I'm starting to think Theohazard is on to something with his last post. Now I'm just a "person"? You don't even exhibit the common courtesy to use my name? Classy.
1. That was a backhanded compliment, when I noted that you know your stuff "compared to too many FFL's." Too many are close to brain dead.
I'll bet 99% of FFL's know ATF regs better than you. So far in this thread, 100% of FFL's do.
2. Readers will judge whether you are a "Hemmingway", but I think not.
It's Hemingway, not "Hemmingway" and since I can at least spell his name correctly I'm one up on you.
3. Who cares about California law? Doh, that is a tough one. Persons that are CA residents care, and there are more that a few of them on TFL. Dealers in other states need to care if they ever sell to a CA resident.
In a thread about ATF regulations and rulings try and stick to the topic. Seriously, if the thread was about buying a shotgun in California, or a California resident buying a firearm out of state, then California firearms law would be interesting. But since California law has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question bringing it into the discussion derails the thread.
5. Sorry, but you still miss earning enough points to get an A.
Nah. I nailed every little nuance of your hypothetical and you know it.
Quote:
I wrote: "If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address, then Joe did not truthfully answer Que 2 on the 4473 for the shotgun."
Joe is NOT a FFL. You said, "If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address . . . ." Is it and if you do not know, how is the Joe, a layman, to know and why would you say he is being untruthful if he didn't know that it wasn't his address, if it wasn't?
The burden to answer each question on the Form 4473 truthfully has always fallen on the buyer/transferee. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
If Joe can't figure out that his current residence address in State X isn't really his current address........that's his own problem. Claiming ignorance because he's a "layman" is naive.
You dreamed up the hypothetical, I answered it as given. Now you bring up the nonsense that Joe didn't know he was being untruthful. It doesn't change a thing. As Bruce Abramski discovered, lying on a 4473 is a crime.