Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > FFL's Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

FFL's Forum For open discussion between FFLs and polite questions for FFLs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-14-2019, 9:57 AM
Nardo1895 Nardo1895 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Selling an Unregistered Handgun

I have a potential client who has a number of firearms he wants to sell. Some may end up as PPTs, others may get sold on Gunbroker. He wants me to handle the PPTs and mail the GB sales. Many of these are off-roster and some are unregistered. At this point he's looking for me to advise him on how to legally sell without creating headaches along the way.

Here’s what I think;

Prior to 1990 there was no requirement for private sales of firearms to go through a dealer. There is also no requirement to register firearms you already possess. So, if he acquired these before 1990, there should not be a problem selling them in state or out of state. The ones that are off-roster could not be sold in CA except as a PPT, unless they are C&R in which case they can go anywhere in the state.

What if one of the unregistered firearms wasn’t made prior to 1990? Can it still be PPT’d in CA or does it need to go out of state? If its off-roster I think it needs to go out of state. If it’s on-roster it can be sold anywhere in CA, but will that raise a red flag with DOJ since it should have been registered?

When did handgun registration start in CA? I have read on this forum that DROS started in 1924, but DROS does not necessarily = registration. Long guns required DROS for a long time but registration didn’t start until 2014.

What about inherited firearms that were not reported? There is a lot of advice on Calguns (some of the other subforums) about “letting sleeping dogs lie” when it comes to unregistered firearms, but it does seem to complicate future sales.

I’m under the impression that DOJ is more concerned about getting firearms legally registered than they are how you got them (assuming they were not stolen). Thoughts on that?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-14-2019, 11:38 AM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,912
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

From what I have heard, the CA DOJ doesn't seem to care about the past, just that current transfers go through a dealer. That could obviously change at any point in time.

There could be exceptions, such as it mentions that if you move to CA you had to report (aka register) firearms in 1998.

There is a calguns wiki that has the timeline for the CA laws.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in..._Firearms_Laws

If the person illegally transferred a firearm and is aware of it, doing a CA PPT could document that they had the firearm. There is the statue of limitations, but it still might need to be considered and that could involve lawyers.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein

Last edited by kemasa; 02-14-2019 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2019, 12:12 PM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 6,080
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
From what I have heard, the CA DOJ doesn't seem to care about the past, just that current transfers go through a dealer.
This is my understanding too. As long as the firearm doesn't come up as having been reported stolen, they don't care. They just register it now.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2019, 5:49 PM
RoundEye's Avatar
RoundEye RoundEye is offline
CGSSA Director, LA Chapter Leader, Captain: Calguns.net Shooting Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northridge
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 66 / 99%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
From what I have heard, the CA DOJ doesn't seem to care about the past, just that current transfers go through a dealer.
This has been my experience as well. All they care is that it isn't stolen, and that it gets into the system. Assuming that none of them are banned, he should not have a problem selling any of them in or out of California.

Now, on to the more important question. Whatcha got?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-18-2019, 9:03 AM
Nardo1895 Nardo1895 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the input.

As to "Now, on to the more important question. Whatcha got?" I don't know yet. May find out today.

I did check out the Wiki on the timeline. That's where I got DROS starting in 1924 and all firearms through a dealer in 1991, but it doesn't say when actual handgun registration started. DROS of longguns started before registration of longguns so I assumed the same may have been true for handguns? Does anyone know?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:18 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,174
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo1895 View Post
Thanks for the input.

As to "Now, on to the more important question. Whatcha got?" I don't know yet. May find out today.

I did check out the Wiki on the timeline. That's where I got DROS starting in 1924 and all firearms through a dealer in 1991, but it doesn't say when actual handgun registration started. DROS of longguns started before registration of longguns so I assumed the same may have been true for handguns? Does anyone know?
'Registration' is an artifact of transfer documents.

So, handguns transferred through CA gun dealers were reported to DOJ from 1924. It was paper only until the leg. mandated electronic; DOJ is slowly entering the paper info into the database - the earliest I've heard of here on Calguns is sometime in the 1970s, but likely they have progressed further.

The legislature required substantially all transfers to go through a CA gun dealer - FFLs since 1969 (GCA68) - in 1991, and also required Operation of Law docs for several kinds of transfers about that time. But transfers NOT through CA gun dealers before 1991 were not documented, and that's how the law was, so that's fine. 'Registration' is not a required attribute of a gun.

2014 was the date that DROS was changed to require and record the same info that had been, and still is, recorded for handguns. ETA the 'self-reporting' paperwork - OPLAW, New Resident, VOLREG, C&R report - all were changed to conform to collecting long gun info at that time.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 02-18-2019 at 1:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-19-2019, 6:50 AM
Nardo1895 Nardo1895 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
'Registration' is an artifact of transfer documents.

So, handguns transferred through CA gun dealers were reported to DOJ from 1924. It was paper only until the leg. mandated electronic; DOJ is slowly entering the paper info into the database - the earliest I've heard of here on Calguns is sometime in the 1970s, but likely they have progressed further.

2014 was the date that DROS was changed to require and record the same info that had been, and still is, recorded for handguns. ETA the 'self-reporting' paperwork - OPLAW, New Resident, VOLREG, C&R report - all were changed to conform to collecting long gun info at that time.
This may be straying a bit off topic but I'll ask anyway...

Based on the above quote from Librarian, is the same true with longguns? Is/has/will DOJ in effect "register" pre 2014 longguns based on prior DROS documentation? I thought that DOJ was not supposed to retain the longgun DROS records (before longgun registration went into effect). I recall discussions on this forum (I think) about whether or not DOJ really did retain them. Maybe I dreamed all this...

I get that "Registration" may be a somewhat meaningless term, its really what DOJ has documented.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-19-2019, 9:17 AM
RoundEye's Avatar
RoundEye RoundEye is offline
CGSSA Director, LA Chapter Leader, Captain: Calguns.net Shooting Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Northridge
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 66 / 99%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nardo1895 View Post
This may be straying a bit off topic but I'll ask anyway...

Based on the above quote from Librarian, is the same true with longguns? Is/has/will DOJ in effect "register" pre 2014 longguns based on prior DROS documentation? I thought that DOJ was not supposed to retain the longgun DROS records (before longgun registration went into effect). I recall discussions on this forum (I think) about whether or not DOJ really did retain them. Maybe I dreamed all this...

I get that "Registration" may be a somewhat meaningless term, its really what DOJ has documented.
I recall there being some kind of audit that found the DOJ did not destroy the documents as they were "required".
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-19-2019, 4:24 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,912
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundEye View Post
I recall there being some kind of audit that found the DOJ did not destroy the documents as they were "required".
A long time ago, I heard they got around it by copying the data and then destroying the documents as required, saying that there wasn't anything which prohibited them from copying the information first.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:33 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.