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 > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-27-2015, 8:19 AM
kryptonicrxn kryptonicrxn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: anaheim, orange county, republik of kalifornia
Posts: 62
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Thank you, will do.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-14-2015, 11:17 PM
rckjeep's Avatar
rckjeep rckjeep is offline
CGSSA Leader
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Bay
Posts: 416
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

With the interstate transfer law recently deemed unconstitutional can I buy a CA legal Rimfire rifle in Nevada since CA prices and availability are crap? Also would the 10 day waiting period be used since its bought in NV?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-14-2015, 11:27 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 20,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rckjeep View Post
With the interstate transfer law recently deemed unconstitutional can I buy a CA legal Rimfire rifle in Nevada since CA prices and availability are crap? Also would the 10 day waiting period be used since its bought in NV?
Federal laws have allowed a FFL dealer in transferring a rifle or shotgun to a non-resident, as long as the transfer complies with both the State laws of the FFL dealer and the non-resident. Handguns and other firearms can only be transferred through a FFL dealer in the recipient's State of residence.

The decision (Mance v Holder) would change that, so a FFL dealer can transfer a firearm (handgun, other, rifle, shotgun) to a non-resident, as long as the transfer complies with both the State laws of the FFL dealer and the non-resident.

This decision does not change the fact it will still be Federal felonies for residents of different States to transfer firearms without the use of a FFL.

Therefore...
If the decision is upheld and goes into effect, as a CA resident, any firearm acquired in another State needs to be done in a method that complies with CA laws and the State laws of the FFL dealer.

Current CA laws [PC 27585], requires any firearm acquired by a CA resident in another State to be transferred to them through a CA FFL dealer in order to be legally imported into CA.

So, unless CA laws change, a CA resident may be able to acquire a firearm from a FFL dealer in another State but they will need to keep that firearm in that other State and never bring it to CA, unless it is transferred through a CA FFL dealer.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 02-14-2015 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-15-2015, 12:08 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,821
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rckjeep View Post
With the interstate transfer law recently deemed unconstitutional can I buy a CA legal Rimfire rifle in Nevada since CA prices and availability are crap? Also would the 10 day waiting period be used since its bought in NV?
I'm assuming that you're referring to the trial court decision in Mance v. Holder.

That doesn't change anything here in California.

That decision was reached by a District Court judge in a matter before that court. For the moment, that's a far as the holding reaches. Should the government appeal (its a pretty sure bet that they will), then the Fifth Circuit will hear the case. If they publish their decision, then it will only reach Fifth Circuit. It still will not do anything for California. If the Fifth Circuit decision is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if the court agrees to hear the case, and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Mr. Mance, then we'll have something that is authoritative in California.

Please count up the number of "ifs" that have to occur, and then consider the glacial time-line required for all of that to occur.

Short answer: No, you cannot simply buy a rimfire rifle in Nevada and bring it back to California. If you're a dual-resident, you may proceed as Quiet has suggested above, but I doubt that you would be saving any money after paying the California FFL.

Last edited by RickD427; 02-15-2015 at 12:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-06-2015, 8:52 AM
swamp2 swamp2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 319
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I think it has been covered, but just want to make 100% sure. A family member resident in another state may gift an off roster pistol to their CA resident relative through a CA FFL? Any difference if friend instead of family from another state? Thanks much.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-06-2015, 9:37 AM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,115
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I think it has been covered, but just want to make 100% sure. A family member resident in another state may gift an off roster pistol to their CA resident relative through a CA FFL? Any difference if friend instead of family from another state? Thanks much.
Yes there is a difference - intrafamilial transfers are roster-exempt; other out-of-state transfers are not.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-06-2015, 1:00 PM
Kate Kate is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default A New Scenario?

Here's a weird scenario that I didn't see covered in the thread, but is in fact a real case:
Joe Doe bought a long gun (legal in CA) in CA in the 1980s. Joe gave that rifle to his son, John, at that time. No paperwork was done. But John let Joe keep the gun in Joe's possession. 30 years later when Joe dies, John does not take back the rifle, but asks his brother Jack, who lives in NV, to hold on to it, and Jack takes it back to NV. Two years later, John wants his rifle back.

The rifle has technically been John's since the 1980s. True? Is it legally still John's rifle? Is there a legal way for John to take back possession of his rifle? If so, can Jack just ship the rifle to John? Does Jack have to ship it to a CA FFL? What if John drives to NV to pick up his rifle? Would that be legal?

Thanks for your insights!
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-06-2015, 1:47 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,906
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate View Post
Here's a weird scenario that I didn't see covered in the thread, but is in fact a real case:

1) Joe Doe bought a long gun (legal in CA) in CA in the 1980s. Joe gave that rifle to his son, John, at that time. No paperwork was done.

2) But John let Joe keep the gun in Joe's possession.

3) 30 years later when Joe dies, John does not take back the rifle, but asks his brother Jack, who lives in NV, to hold on to it, and Jack takes it back to NV.

Two years later, John wants his rifle back.

4) The rifle has technically been John's since the 1980s. True? Is it legally still John's rifle?

Is there a legal way for John to take back possession of his rifle?

5) If so, can Jack just ship the rifle to John?

6) Does Jack have to ship it to a CA FFL?

7) What if John drives to NV to pick up his rifle? Would that be legal?

Thanks for your insights!
3) "Jack takes it back to NV" was an illegal interstate transfer. Should have gone through a NV FFL.

4) Probably not true

5) No

6) that would be the legal way to do a NV --> CA transfer

7) No, not legal.

Please remember, as clearly explained by Fiddletown in another post this morning, Federal gun laws are really concerned with possession.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 06-06-2015 at 1:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-07-2015, 6:53 PM
Kate Kate is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks, Librarian!!!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-02-2015, 8:01 PM
FireCloud9's Avatar
FireCloud9 FireCloud9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 681
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It was my understanding that as a CA resident, I could NOT go to a different state and buy a G43 (LEO only in CA) or Walther PPS (not on roster) and have it shipped directly to my CA FFL, wait the 10 days, go through whatever paperwork I need and take possession.

And yet, that's what it says in one of the early posts on this thread.

Am I just wrong about this? If so, can you point me to the CA code where it indicates that I could buy a handgun this way?

I'm near Tahoe, so if that's true, I can simply go to NV, buy the off roster handgun, have it shipped to CA FFL and pick it up.

I've always thought that it MUST BE on CA roster regardless of whether you buy the handgun IN California or another state. Is that not correct?
__________________
G43, Walther PPS M1, P99C, PPQ M1 (Classic), HK P2000

GUNS & WEED: THE ROAD TO FREEDOM

POLL: BEST GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-02-2015, 8:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,906
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireCloud9 View Post
It was my understanding that as a CA resident, I could NOT go to a different state and buy a G43 (LEO only in CA) or Walther PPS (not on roster) and have it shipped directly to my CA FFL, wait the 10 days, go through whatever paperwork I need and take possession.

And yet, that's what it says in one of the early posts on this thread.

Am I just wrong about this? If so, can you point me to the CA code where it indicates that I could buy a handgun this way?

I'm near Tahoe, so if that's true, I can simply go to NV, buy the off roster handgun, have it shipped to CA FFL and pick it up.

I've always thought that it MUST BE on CA roster regardless of whether you buy the handgun IN California or another state. Is that not correct?
It IS correct.

Nothing in this thread suggests one can get off-Roster handguns by buying out of state; one must still be exempt from the Roster (e.g. LEO), or use a transaction exempt from the Roster (e.g. intrafamilial) or buy a gun itself exempt from the Roster (e.g. C&R).

See also post 3 in this thread.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-03-2015, 12:42 PM
FireCloud9's Avatar
FireCloud9 FireCloud9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 681
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Well, I guess I'll just let lease expire, move out of CA for a few months, establish residency elsewhere, buy the firearms (off CA roster) that I want and then move back in 6-9 months re-establishing CA residency.

Thank goodness there are 49 other States!

Now, to find out which of those 49 States have the shortest residency requirements, get an apartment, driver's license, voting registration and part-time minimum wage job should do it.
__________________
G43, Walther PPS M1, P99C, PPQ M1 (Classic), HK P2000

GUNS & WEED: THE ROAD TO FREEDOM

POLL: BEST GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-04-2015, 10:19 AM
KingChiron's Avatar
KingChiron KingChiron is offline
Captain of the Gun Boat
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Rampart
Posts: 647
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

As far as I know, other states require you to be there for at least 6 months before acquiring residency. In Nevada, you have residency as soon as you claim you do AND Nevada doesn't have income tax :-)

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division.../Residency.pdf
__________________

*Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer. So don't take my advice as counsel.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." -Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-20-2015, 12:42 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,428
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
It IS correct.

Nothing in this thread suggests one can get off-Roster handguns by buying out of state; one must still be exempt from the Roster (e.g. LEO), or use a transaction exempt from the Roster (e.g. intrafamilial) or buy a gun itself exempt from the Roster (e.g. C&R).

See also post 3 in this thread.
Just so we're clear, isn't the word of law wrt the roster that a handgun not on the roster can't be sold in CA? In the case of say, someone buying a gun from Buds and having the transfer done in say, Martin Retting, is the sale not done in TN or KY or whatever it is out of State, or is the transfer legally considered the same as the sale?

It seems to me that the gun is the buyers property when the seller accepts payment in most cases of this sort of interaction.

Or is this still TBD in court?

(No I don't want to be the test case)


Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChiron View Post
As far as I know, other states require you to be there for at least 6 months before acquiring residency. In Nevada, you have residency as soon as you claim you do AND Nevada doesn't have income tax :-)

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division.../Residency.pdf
I will def file that under "good to know" - thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-20-2015, 3:24 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,906
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
Just so we're clear, isn't the word of law wrt the roster that a handgun not on the roster can't be sold in CA?
No.

A dealer cannot sell/transfer an off-Roster handgun unless the buyer/transferee is exempt - essentially LEO. But it's perfectly legal for a FFL to sell off-Roster to LEOs.

A PPT, where one CA resident sells to another CA resident, is an exempt-from-the-Roster transaction. CA FFLs understand that (well, most of them).

You're free to make the off-Roster handgun purchase out of state - but FedLaw requires the handgun be transferred trough an FFL in your state of residence. Legal sale in, say, KY, but the CA FFL cannot transfer to you unless you are exempt.

And further Roster discussion belongs in its own thread. It'll close quickly - really nothing new to say. See the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/The_Safe_Handgun_List
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 08-20-2015 at 3:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-07-2015, 3:27 PM
Audredger's Avatar
Audredger Audredger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All this is making my head hurt but, if I understand it, I should be good if:

1. I live most of the time in California but, I live part of the time in WA and have a WA ID card. Also, have a WA CCW permit. If when in WA I purchase an off-roster gun, can I return to CA with that gun and register it?

2. If while visiting my mother in WA she gives me a off-roster gun, can I return to CA and register it?

I believe the answer to both should be yes, please confirm with your opinion.
__________________
State of Jefferson = Liberty, Representation, Fiscal Responsibility, Opportunity = Much More than Just a State of Mind
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-16-2015, 8:52 AM
Nick1236's Avatar
Nick1236 Nick1236 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North San Diego
Posts: 3,852
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Librarian,

I have a question that I don't believe has been answered.

Can one go to a class in another state on building your own firearm for personal use, say a 1911, complete the class and bring the newly built firearm back to California?

Thanks for any clarification.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtykoala View Post
dont have a gun, let crack head break your window and super man drop kick you
Quote:
Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer View Post
I grab my zipper and ask if he wants to make a little extra cash
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-16-2015, 9:28 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 20,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick1236 View Post
Librarian,

I have a question that I don't believe has been answered.

Can one go to a class in another state on building your own firearm for personal use, say a 1911, complete the class and bring the newly built firearm back to California?

Thanks for any clarification.
It's complicated and was answered in this thread.

Short answer:
Violates Federal laws, unless multiple FFLs are involved.

In addition...
The firearm needs to be CA legal and, if the firearm is a handgun, it needs to be on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale or be exempt from it.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-16-2015, 9:43 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 20,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audredger View Post
All this is making my head hurt but, if I understand it, I should be good if:

1. I live most of the time in California but, I live part of the time in WA and have a WA ID card. Also, have a WA CCW permit. If when in WA I purchase an off-roster gun, can I return to CA with that gun and register it?

2. If while visiting my mother in WA she gives me a off-roster gun, can I return to CA and register it?

I believe the answer to both should be yes, please confirm with your opinion.
Answer to both is No.

As a dual resident of CA & WA, you can legally acquire an off-Roster handgun in WA but you can not legally bring it to CA.

Starting 01-01-2015, a firearm acquired out-of-state by a CA resident or by a dual resident of CA needs to be transferred through a CA FFL dealer in order to be legally brought into CA. [PC 27585(a)] Currently, there are no exemptions that will allow an off-Roster non-exempt handgun to be transferred in compliance with this.
Failure to comply equates to one misdemeanor per long gun and one felony per handgun. [PC 27590(a)&(c)(7)]



Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

Penal Code 27590
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), a violation of this article is a misdemeanor.
(c) If any of the following circumstances apply, a violation of this article shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(7) A violation of Section 27585 involving a handgun.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 12-16-2015 at 10:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-16-2015, 10:50 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,821
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
Answer to both is No.

As a dual resident of CA & WA, you can legally acquire an off-Roster handgun in WA but you can not legally bring it to CA.

Starting 01-01-2015, a firearm acquired out-of-state by a CA resident or by a dual resident of CA needs to be transferred through a CA FFL dealer in order to be legally brought into CA. [PC 27585(a)] Currently, there are no exemptions that will allow an off-Roster non-exempt handgun to be transferred in compliance with this.
Failure to comply equates to one misdemeanor per long gun and one felony per handgun. [PC 27590(a)&(c)(7)]



Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

Penal Code 27590
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), a violation of this article is a misdemeanor.
(c) If any of the following circumstances apply, a violation of this article shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(7) A violation of Section 27585 involving a handgun.
Quiet,

I'll admit that Penal Code section 27585 is more than a little bit confusing, but I'm not so sure that it prohibits a California FFL from transferring an off-roster handgun to a dual resident.

You've very correctly cited the applicable law. If the OP is a "dual-resident" then he is clearly bound by the provisions of PC 27585 and must deliver the handgun to a California FFL (before bringing it into the state) for transfer. The transfer must comply with Penal Code section 27540 and Articles 1 and 2 of Division 6, Title 4, Part 6 of Penal Code (or in simpler terms Penal Code sections 27540 and 26700-26915).

You are also correct that there is no exemption within those Penal Code sections that would permit the transfer of an off-roster handgun, but it's also really important to note that there is no prohibition contained in those Penal Sections that prohibits the transfer of an off-roster handgun.

The prohibition on an FFL selling an off-roster handgun is contained in Penal Code section 32000. Section 32000 is not within the range of Penal Code sections that are embraced by PC 27585.

PC 32000 prohibits an FFL (along with anyone else) from the following:

"manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun..."

Interestingly, PC 32000 does not prohibit the "transfer" of an unsafe handgun.

Has anyone received any guidance from DOJ on the application of PC 27585 to off-roster handguns?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-16-2015, 10:07 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 20,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Has anyone received any guidance from DOJ on the application of PC 27585 to off-roster handguns?
Last I heard, the CA DROS system won't allow it.

So, it could be an underground regulation or an oversight on CA DOJ's part.

In any case, bottom line, it's currently a no-go.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-09-2016, 7:20 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

// Copied from another thread - this looks at the law from the 'other side', leaving CA guns
// with a person in another state. It's still the same law.
//
// Librarian
//

Someone in another State having possession of "your" gun is highly problematic under federal law.

The federal laws relating to the transfer of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another (i. e., the Gun Control Act of 1968 or GCA68) are about physical possession, not ownership. GCA68 was Congress' responding to enormous public pressure after the assassinations by gunfire of three wildly popular public figures -- JFK, RFK and MLK. The law was intended to regulate and control the interstate transfer of firearms. It was structured so that to the extent reasonably possible any transfer of possession of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another would have to go through an FFL.

And in the context of the concerns intended to be addressed by Congress through GCA68, it's possession and not ownership that matters. Someone who has a gun in his possession can use it, whether or not he has legal title to it.

Letting someone have possession of your gun in that person's State of residence will be considered a transfer. It certainly is under federal law, and would also most likely be also considered a transfer under state laws. That's just what "transfer" means.
  1. In general, any transfer of a firearm from a resident of one State to a resident of another must go through an FFL who will follow all usual formalities (e. g., completion of the 4473). There are a few limited, narrow, specific exceptions: if you have an appropriate federal firearms license; inheritance by will or intestate succession; or a loan (subject to a number of limitations which will be discussed in more detail below).

  2. The applicable federal statutes are: 18 USC 922(a)(3); 18 USC 922(a)(5); and 18 USC 922 (b)(3). The full texts of those statutes may be found here.

  3. The federal laws I've cited are about possession, not necessarily ownership.

    1. Possession means:
      Quote:
      1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
    2. Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

      Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):


    3. Let's look at the statutes:

      1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        Quote:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
      2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        Quote:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;

    4. Note carefully the words of those statutes. Words, like "transport", "receive", "obtained", "transfer", "give", "transport", and "deliver" do not necessarily imply ownership and include possession. They will be read and applied by a court according to their ordinary meanings. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
      Quote:
      ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...

  4. With regard to loans under GCA68, let's look at the applicable statutes again:

    1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      Quote:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
    2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      Quote:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
      (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest ..., and

      (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
      ..
    3. So under federal law a resident of one State may loan a gun to a resident of another State, but only temporarily and only for a lawful sporting purpose.

      1. Temporary means:
        Quote:

        : continuing for a limited amount of time : not permanent

        : intended to be used for a limited amount of time
      2. Sporting means (in this context):
        Quote:
        ...of, relating to, used, or suitable for sport...
      3. Purpose means (in this context):
        Quote:
        : the reason why something is done or used : the aim or intention of something

    4. So a court is likely to look at the "temporary loan for a lawful sporting purpose" exception to the prohibition on interstate transfers to apply when a gun is loaned so that the person it's been loaned to can engage in a specific sporting activity (i. e., a hunt, a competition, etc.) of limited duration. "Temporary" would refer to the duration of that activity. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the common meanings of the words used in the statutes and the underlying purpose (controlling interstate transfers of firearms) of GCA68.

    5. So you may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)), a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But since there is no applicable "loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a loan of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence.

  5. Can't you store your gun with someone in another State?

    1. Leaving a gun with someone in another State clearly raises interstate transfer problems when that person has access to the gun.

    2. One possible way to avoid the problem would be to secure the gun or guns in a locked case or similar container to which only you have the key or combination.

    3. That might avoid the transfer problem inherent in having someone store your guns, ATF has advised here that one may ship a firearm to himself in care of another person in another State.

      Specifically ATF has said (emphasis added):
      Quote:
      6. May I lawfully ship a firearm to myself in a different State?
      Any person may ship a firearm to himself or herself in the care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner “in the care of” the out-of-State resident. Upon reaching its destination, persons other than the owner must not open the package or take possession of the firearm.

  6. Note that violations of federal law regarding interstate transfers are punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine; and since the crime is a felony one will lose his gun rights for the rest of his life.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Librarian; 12-13-2016 at 2:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 02-16-2017, 8:18 AM
jks67ss396 jks67ss396 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry if this has been covered before:

Can I, as a CA resident, in the process of applying for CR/COE permits, purchase a 50 yo Garand rifle out of state and keep it out of state at my folks house until such time that my CR/COE is valid and then transfer back to me in CA and register it?

thanks

Last edited by jks67ss396; 02-16-2017 at 9:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:04 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jks67ss396 View Post
....Can I, as a CA resident, in the process of applying for CR/COE permits, purchase a 50 yo Garand rifle out of state and keep it out of state at my folks house until such time that my CR/COE is valid and then transfer back to me in CA and register it?....
Until you actually get your 03 FFL and your COE you're no different from anyone else. Having applied is irrelevant.

We've had multiple threads on both interstate transfers and storing guns with someone in another State. Everything discussed in those threads continues to apply to you, just like everyone else, until your 03 FFL and COE are issued to you.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:08 AM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,428
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Until you actually get your 03 FFL and your COE you're no different from anyone else. Having applied is irrelevant.

We've had multiple threads on both interstate transfers and storing guns with someone in another State. Everything discussed in those threads continues to apply to you, just like everyone else, until your 03 FFL and COE are issued to you.
My understanding might be wrong, but isn't it legal to buy a gun as a gift for someone else as long as they are the 4473 recipient of record?

IOW, does it matter who pays?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:15 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
My understanding might be wrong, but isn't it legal to buy a gun as a gift for someone else as long as they are the 4473 recipient of record?

IOW, does it matter who pays?
How is jks67ss396 buying a gift for anyone?

He wants the rifle for himself. If he provides the money and the family member completes the 4473 for the sole purpose of temporarily taking custody of the rifle until be can transfer it to jks67ss396, the family member is not the actual transferee. He is obtaining the rifle on behalf of jks67ss396, as jks67ss396's agent; and it would thus be an illegal straw purchase.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:16 AM
jks67ss396 jks67ss396 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 53
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, so that seems to conflict with what Quiet posted on 2/15/15 in this thread...He response below seems like i could keep the gun (which is legal to own in CA) in the other state without issue and when i want to transfer back to CA, I would use my then (months from now) permitted CR/COE to transfer without the 3rd party FFL. PC27585 doesnt seem to say anything contrary.

Is that correct?

Quiets response:

"Therefore...
If the decision is upheld and goes into effect, as a CA resident, any firearm acquired in another State needs to be done in a method that complies with CA laws and the State laws of the FFL dealer.

Current CA laws [PC 27585], requires any firearm acquired by a CA resident in another State to be transferred to them through a CA FFL dealer in order to be legally imported into CA.

So, unless CA laws change, a CA resident may be able to acquire a firearm from a FFL dealer in another State but they will need to keep that firearm in that other State and never bring it to CA, unless it is transferred through a CA FFL dealer."
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 02-16-2017, 10:29 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jks67ss396 View Post
Ok, so that seems to conflict with what Quiet posted on 2/15/15 in this thread...He response below seems like i could keep the gun (which is legal to own in CA) in the other state without issue and when i want to transfer back to CA, I would use my then (months from now) permitted CR/COE to transfer without the 3rd party FFL. ....
No.
  1. You get tied up in the Gun Control Act of 1968 by leaving the rifle with the resident of another State. See post 62 in this thread.

  2. Also, since you are a resident of California, if you want to buy a rifle through an FFL in another State (as required by the Gun Control Act) the FFL to lawfully do the transfer under federal law (18 USC 922(b)(3)) must do the transfer in a way that complies with California law. That would require that the out-of-State FFL submit a DROS. But he can't do that as a non-California dealer.

  3. Furthermore, Quiet's 15 February 2015 post assumes that the Fifth Circuit's panel's decision in Mance v. Holder (soon to be Mance v. Sessions) is upheld en banc. But as far as I know there's been no decision so far.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 02-16-2017, 11:02 AM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,428
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
How is jks67ss396 buying a gift for anyone?

He wants the rifle for himself. If he provides the money and the family member completes the 4473 for the sole purpose of temporarily taking custody of the rifle until be can transfer it to jks67ss396, the family member is not the actual transferee. He is obtaining the rifle on behalf of jks67ss396, as jks67ss396's agent; and it would thus be an illegal straw purchase.
Right.

I was not asking on his behalf specifically. I'm considering a thank-you gift to my brother with no intent to go and get the firearm later. It was my belief that this is completely legal as long as all I supply is the money and he is the actual owner and is the 4473 transferee.

Sort of like when my Dad gave me a deer rifle all those years ago. I know, it's a different world now.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 02-28-2017, 10:57 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The safer way to do that, cvigue, is to give your brother cash or a gift certificate in the amount of the firearm and let your brother buy it. If you buy it, you have to put your name down as the buyer. Then, when you give it to your brother, you have a second transfer by FFL.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-15-2017, 8:49 PM
thomas_y3 thomas_y3 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default dual residency rifle purchase?

Fellaz, i'm still new to this forum so pls bear with me but i live in CA and AZ (secondary home). Can i buy a "CA compliant" bolt rifle in AZ and bring it into CA? I have CA DL as well as AZ DL. I see most of the posts are related to handguns. Thx fellaz!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-15-2017, 8:58 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 3,332
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

No. As stated in the posts by Quiet further up on this page, Federal law does not recognize dual residency for a firearm purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-15-2017, 9:32 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
short bus driver
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the 909
Posts: 20,697
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas_y3 View Post
Fellaz, i'm still new to this forum so pls bear with me but i live in CA and AZ (secondary home). Can i buy a "CA compliant" bolt rifle in AZ and bring it into CA? I have CA DL as well as AZ DL. I see most of the posts are related to handguns. Thx fellaz!
Only if the firearm is shipped to a CA FFL dealer, who then transfers (DROS/10 day wait) it to you. [PC 27585(a)]

You will have to pay shipping fees, FFL transfer fees, CA DROS fees, and a CA use tax.

Failure to utilize a CA FFL dealer to import the firearms you acquire in another State equates to a misdemeanor per long gun [PC 27590(a)] and a felony per handgun [PC 27590(c)(7)].



Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

Penal Code 27590
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), a violation of this article is a misdemeanor.
(c) If any of the following circumstances apply, a violation of this article shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(7) A violation of Section 27585 involving a handgun.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-16-2017, 12:52 AM
thomas_y3 thomas_y3 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Thank u for that!

Truly appreciate the info!
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 9:09 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.