Any IPs have a handle on the "purchase order" requirement pre 10/1?

trbon8r · Aug 16, 2013

I'm wondering if any IPs have a policy in place yet regarding how they are going to handle the SB281 language about "purchase orders?" Will a purchase order have to be paid in full before 10/1, or would a deposit/layaway arrangement constitute a purchase order? Like most folks, I've been rounding out my collection in preparation for 10/1. I'd really like a Steyr AUG, but the fun money fund is tight. If I could put a deposit down on one I'd be interested.

haoleboy · Aug 16, 2013

Being LEO, aren't you exempt from all that mess?

-Z/28- · Aug 16, 2013

haoleboy said:
Being LEO, aren't you exempt from all that mess?

I believe he would need an official reason to buy it.

trbon8r · Aug 17, 2013

Nope, not exempt. It would have to be an official agency purchase. Police officers are just as screwed as everyone else except for the training requirement to purchase a handgun. I disagree with this exemption that has been carved out for us since the rules should be the same for everybody, but I didn't write the law.

TheDevilHimself · Aug 17, 2013

Generally, we have a policy of 50% down for special orders, but we will work out purchase order deposit prices on a case by case basis. PM me and we will work something out.

Vile Shadow · Aug 17, 2013

trbon8r said:
I disagree with this exemption that has been carved out for us since the rules should be the same for everybody, but I didn't write the law.

I definitely appreciate that sentiment sir. :thumbsup:

aireyc · Aug 17, 2013

I do believe it was stated at one of the meetings that a layaway does not apply and it has to be an order for something not in the shop.

fabsroman · Aug 18, 2013

aireyc said:
I do believe it was stated at one of the meetings that a layaway does not apply and it has to be an order for something not in the shop.

The reason for the layaway not working is because the buyer can already start the paperwork with the MSP since the firearm is at the shop.

Another pre-requisite was that there was some sort of deposit.

Mind you, this is all coming from MSP and the Courts might very well disagree. Thing is, if this ever gets to the Courts it will be quite a while down the road before we know what Verifiable Purchase Order really means and it will be moot for our purpose at that point.

BeerHunter · Aug 18, 2013

trbon8r said:
Nope, not exempt. It would have to be an official agency purchase. Police officers are just as screwed as everyone else except for the training requirement to purchase a handgun. I disagree with this exemption that has been carved out for us since the rules should be the same for everybody, but I didn't write the law.

and

Andronitis · Aug 23, 2013

aireyc said:
I do believe it was stated at one of the meetings that a layaway does not apply and it has to be an order for something not in the shop.

How is MSP going to prove that it is in the shop?

fabsroman · Aug 23, 2013

Andronitis said:
How is MSP going to prove that it is in the shop?

Doesn't an FFL have to record in a "book" when he receives a firearm, and again when it leaves the shop?

I think that would be a pretty easy way to prove when the firearm is in the shop. Maybe I am wrong about the entire "book" thing though.

The record keeping is a little more involved than selling sugar, flour, spices, etc.

Andronitis · Aug 23, 2013

fabsroman said:
Doesn't an FFL have to record in a "book" when he receives a firearm, and again when it leaves the shop?

I think that would be a pretty easy way to prove when the firearm is in the shop. Maybe I am wrong about the entire "book" thing though.

The record keeping is a little more involved than selling sugar, flour, spices, etc.

Yes. Is it possible to figure out. But I meant logistically speaking. They can't even handle current applications how are they going to figure out if you have a "sales order" or "layaway."

For that matter, how is it fair that you can have a sales order for a non-existent firearm but a dealer cannot sell something that they had in stock prior to 1 October?

fabsroman · Aug 23, 2013

Andronitis said:
Yes. Is it possible to figure out. But I meant logistically speaking. They can't even handle current applications how are they going to figure out if you have a "sales order" or "layaway."

For that matter, how is it fair that you can have a sales order for a non-existent firearm but a dealer cannot sell something that they had in stock prior to 1 October?

MSP position on the layaway is that the Form 77r can be started prior to October 1, 2013 since the firearm is in the shop. So, no need to apply the PO exemption to the layaway since it will fall into the Form 77r filed on or before October 1, 2013 exemption.

What MSP will rely on is that most dealers will not want to take the risk of getting caught, so they will not do it. That usually works for most people. If you make the chance of getting caught slight and the penalties slight, people will do the risk/reward analysis and break the law. In this case, the penalties are somewhat steep.

swinokur · Aug 23, 2013

If a fiream is in an FFL's possession, it better be in his bound book or he's in big trouble with BATFE. Same for when it leaves his possession.

I am not an FFL and IANAL.

jrumann59 · Aug 23, 2013

swinokur said:
If a fiream is in an FFL's possession, it better be in his bound book or he's in big trouble with BATFE. Same for when it leaves his possession.

I am not an FFL and IANAL.

I mean there are ways around this that would be considered illegal. Its all in how you write description it is not like the PO would need the serial number on the firearm that may not even be built yet.

swinokur · Aug 23, 2013

Not really. If they examine your firearm and get the serial number, then match it to the bound book, it will be obvious the gun was in the FFL possession before Oct.1. I doubt FFL's will take a chance on getting in a legal quagmire over a single purchase. If the gun isn't biuuilt yet, that's a different story.

But I am neither an FFL or an attorney. trying to sneak past statutes doesn't seem worth it IMO.

I'm betting at some point someone will have to give a definition of a PO and what needs to be on it to make MSP happy.

bnich82 · Aug 23, 2013

What about a layaway from an out of state FFL? That way, it's not in the possession of a local FFL or "in the shop".

Ragnar · Aug 23, 2013

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=2630079#post2630079

Any IPs have a handle on the "purchase order" requirement pre 10/1?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

1/2 Banned

I wanna go fast

Ultimate Member

, Duffy's Gun Room

...

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Don't ReMember

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

DILLIGAF

In a State of Bliss

African American w/a Gun!

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics