PDA

View Full Version : Ak-47's, Airports and California


chriscam2
12-22-2008, 1:25 PM
This may be a dumb question but oh-well I just want to ask.
I live in Colorado and my Wife will be flying back to California for Christmas break. Her father passed away years ago and has an old ak-47 locked up in his gun safe. I am pretty sure that AK-47ís are not legal in California and I am also sure that the AK is not licensed in California.
I want my wife to fly it back home with her to Colorado so the AK-47 can live a long life with us. Ak-47ís in Colorado are totally legal and donít have to be licensed.
Is the airport going to flip out when she declares a firearm and they see it is an Ak-47. Do the cops look at the gun at the airport or just TSA?
This would be no big deal if I was flying from Colorado to Nevada where AK-47 are ok to have. Put in a hard locked case and call it a day, but will it be a big deal getting the gun out of California via the airport because of California gun laws?
thanks

mark2203
12-22-2008, 1:36 PM
I don't think I would risk trying to fly it over. I believe you can ship it complete from a dealer in CO to a dealer in CA and have it registered in CA, although to keep the pistol grip you would need to comply to CA laws by putting a raddlock on it. You would need to disasseble any 30rd mags and rebuild them as 10rd (suck).

383green
12-22-2008, 1:39 PM
Unfortunately, merely transporting that unregistered AK-47 is a felony here in CA. I'm sure that Bill will chime in shortly with the details of what should be done with the rifle (most likely involving calling a lawyer to arrange for it to be turned into local law enforcement).

DO NOT HAVE HER TRY TO BRING IT TO THE AIRPORT! She would most likely leave the airport in handcuffs.

DO NOT HAVE HER TRY TO DRIVE IT BACK HOME! One traffic stop for a broken taillight, speeding, etc. could get her locked up in a CA prison.

The rifle just isn't worth the consequences she would face if she got caught with it. :(

Librarian
12-22-2008, 1:39 PM
It isn't clear from your post: is the AK currently in California?

If it is NOT, passing through is not going to matter to anyone, so long as it's cased, unloaded, and in checked baggage.

If it IS in California, transporting it is a felony, although possessing an unregistered California AW is a misdemeanor.

MikeWithBRD
12-22-2008, 1:40 PM
If it is an AK47 that is not on the list just take the pistol grip off (one screw) and ship it or take it home.

383green
12-22-2008, 1:40 PM
I believe you can ship it complete from a dealer in CO to a dealer in CA and have it registered in CA.

It's already in CA, not in CO. In any case, if it's listed by make and model, it cannot be made legal in CA. The opportunity for registration of guns like these closed nearly a decade ago.

hawk1
12-22-2008, 1:41 PM
Have your wife ship it home through UPS, FedEx, US postal. If she has the ability or a friend/calgunner that would help take the pistol grip off it wouldn't hurt.
If it was my wife I wouldn't put her in situation like that at the airport.
Too easy to just box it up and ship.

_Odin_
12-22-2008, 1:41 PM
Interesting case...

If it's not registered, I would assume it's illegal as AWs have to be registered in CA.

Even if it was registered though, I don't think you can technically "inherit" an AW in CA (I could be wrong though).

I wouldn't bring it to the airport if I were you....

383green
12-22-2008, 1:47 PM
Have your wife ship it home through UPS, FedEx, US postal. If she has the ability or a friend/calgunner that would help take the pistol grip off it wouldn't hurt.
If it was my wife I wouldn't put her in situation like that at the airport.
Too easy to just box it up and ship.

If it is a listed make and model, DO NOT do that! It would be a felony. The chance that the contents of the box came to the attention of law enforcement, resulting in you and/or your wife rotting away in a CA prison, is NOT worth the price of that rifle. Even successfully fighting assault weapon transportation charges successfully in court would cost more than buying a few dozen brand new AK rifles in a free state.

USN CHIEF
12-22-2008, 1:49 PM
Dang, lots of you people need reading comprehension classes. What kind of message are we sending our fellow gun owners from other states?

Best thing to do is call the CA DOJ BoF and see what they tell you to do in order to get that gun out of CA to Colorado.

Now if I was in your shoes, I would have the wife fly into CA and then on her return trip, I would have her fly out of NV/OR or AZ with said AK-47 if you wanted to avoid dealing with CA authorities.

_Odin_
12-22-2008, 1:54 PM
Now if I was in your shoes, I would have the wife fly into CA and then on her return trip, I would have her fly out of NV/OR or AZ with said AK-47 if you wanted to avoid dealing with CA authorities.

And how would you get the rifle to NV/OR? Drive it across state lines? Know the law man, that's a felony.

bwiese
12-22-2008, 1:54 PM
If it's a registered AW and estate is in probate, there's 90 day movement
allowed by executor, so a CA FFL w/AW permit is not required. The
executor could drive it out of state (i.e, to Reno) and just hand it to
the inheritee.



If it's not a registered AW, it's pretty radioactive and probably shouldn't
be touched.



If it were not a registered AW and was not banned by make/model combo (i.e.,
"Category III") and did not have a pistol grip, folder stock or flash hider, one
could ensure these evil features were not present and the rifle could be shipped
like any other.



taking possession of any hicap mags in CA is problematic, though the executor
could send them out of CA. Kinda moot and not worth the effort, since AK mags
are $10/ea in free states.



This is a lot of effort for a cheap readily acquireable gun.

USN CHIEF
12-22-2008, 1:56 PM
And how would you get the rifle to NV/OR? Drive it across state lines? Know the law man, that's a felony.

O.K, I would still get the rifle to Colorado.

dfletcher
12-22-2008, 1:59 PM
Questions about an unregistered AK floating around CA, being spirited out via the airport the week before XMas. Could this be a CHRIstmaSCAM too? :whistling:

Just wondering, I'm usually pretty slow on these things though.

USN CHIEF
12-22-2008, 2:02 PM
Like I said before, best thing to do is to contact the CA DOJ BoF on the best method of getting said rifle out of the state instead of trying to get legal advice on the internet.

tgriffin
12-22-2008, 2:03 PM
Dang, lots of you people need reading comprehension classes. What kind of message are we sending our fellow gun owners from other states?

Best thing to do is call the CA DOJ BoF and see what they tell you to do in order to get that gun out of CA to Colorado.

Now if I was in your shoes, I would have the wife fly into CA and then on her return trip, I would have her fly out of NV/OR or AZ with said AK-47 if you wanted to avoid dealing with CA authorities.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with Chief. Don't bother calling CA DOJ BoF... they will just confuse the situation AND possibly create a legal problem for you.

I suggest getting more information about make and model of the firearm, and private messaging/contacting The Calguns Foundation for further advise.

USN CHIEF
12-22-2008, 2:04 PM
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Chief. Don't bother calling CA DOJ BoF... they will just confuse the situation AND possibly create a legal problem for you.

I suggest getting more information about make and model of the firearm, and private messaging/contacting The Calguns Foundation for further advise.

There you go, even better, thank you tgriffin...:D

383green
12-22-2008, 2:06 PM
Dang, lots of you people need reading comprehension classes. What kind of message are we sending our fellow gun owners from other states?

The message we're trying to send is "don't commit a felony in CA that will get you locked up for years and unable to legally possess a firearm for the rest of your life, all over a cheap and easily-replaceable rifle".

Best thing to do is call the CA DOJ BoF and see what they tell you to do in order to get that gun out of CA to Colorado.

I think this is very bad advice. Please read what Bill (user bwiese) wrote above. Few people are more familiar with CA's AW laws than he is, including the CA DOJ.

Now if I was in your shoes, I would have the wife fly into CA and then on her return trip, I would have her fly out of NV/OR or AZ with said AK-47 if you wanted to avoid dealing with CA authorities.

If the rifle is listed by make and model, and is not already registered, that would be very bad advice. In that situation, even carrying it across the street would be a felony.

O.K, I would still get the rifle to Colorado.

If the rifle is listed by make and model (and not merely a "series" rifle whose status was changed by the Harrott case), and it is not already registered, then I do not think that there is any legal way to get it out of California.

To the original poster:

1) Please follow bwiese's advice, and ignore everything else posted here (including what I posted, aside from the recommendation to follow his advice! ;)).

2) Please ask moderators to delete this thread. The CA DOJ is known to read this forum.

3) You have our condolences that you have inadvertently gotten tangled up in our thoroughly stupid laws. We're trying very hard to change them, and there are signs that we will eventually succeed, but for now we're still stuck with them.

383green
12-22-2008, 2:09 PM
I suggest getting more information about make and model of the firearm, and private messaging/contacting The Calguns Foundation for further advise.

I think that is also good advice. The CGF folks can help you figure out whether the rifle is restricted or not, and what your best options are in either case.

GenLee
12-22-2008, 2:11 PM
Questions about an unregistered AK floating around CA, being spirited out via the airport the week before XMas. Could this be a CHRIstmaSCAM too? :whistling:

Just wondering, I'm usually pretty slow on these things though.

+1 Op = :troll:

PonchoTA
12-22-2008, 2:24 PM
Just wondering why CA DOJ would have so much heartburn getting a gun they don't want here in CA, out of CA!!

Seems like the OP or family currently here in CA could get a letter that would be encased with the weapon, stating that within X-number of days of the letter, the gun is required to be removed from the state and must be registered in the next state IAW their laws.
A One-Way sort of amnesty, if you will.


Of course this goes back to a question I've asked before: Since it's well known that some of the CA DOJ folks do peruse this forum/board, why don't they register as such and be ready to answer questions JUST LIKE THIS with some sort of verifiable and official answer?????? Even if it were via PM's, a lot of this "What if" and "Can I", etc. questions can be answered, and would also allow a lot more transparency in the bureau that seems to be so confusing. End the FUD.

I know, I know. Nobody wants to be held liable, even if they are simply doing their job. :rolleyes:

:cheers2:
Paul

Jpach
12-22-2008, 2:41 PM
Poncho, you really think DOJ is going to end the FUD? If anything theyll tell this guy that even thinking of getting an AK is illegal and that he now has a warrant for his arrest in CA and he will not be given a trial but instead get 47 consecutive life-terms in prison. And 15 death sentences due to his AR-15 posession in Colorado.

icormba
12-22-2008, 2:44 PM
That's a shame! If it's a pre-1989 import like a Polytech AK or something, those are worth some big bucks ~$2000-$3000 sometimes. One sold on Gunbroker a couple weeks ago for $2700.

I also hope he doesn't have an Bakelite mags... those could be worth ~$80-$120 a piece!

:(

DDT
12-22-2008, 2:50 PM
It would seem that you have an unregistered assault weapon on your hands per California law. If it is on the official list of assault weapons in California penal code 12276 you are out of luck, if it was not properly registered by your father-in-law you may not transport it out of state (or in-state except as noted later in this message.)

If it is an AK-style gun that is not on the list it must comply with 12276.1 and there are many that do comply.

If your gun is listed in 12276, is on the "Kasler List (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf)" or is considered an assault weapon per 12276.1 your only real option is to dispose of the weapon per 12288.



Here is the text:
12288. Any individual may arrange in advance to relinquish an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle to a police or sheriff's department. The assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle shall be transported in accordance with Section 12026.1.

If you choose to go this route I would suggest you have your attorney contact the local law enforcement agency and arrange for the drop off. I would also recommend not having them come and pick the gun up. The law specifically states that you have the right to transport the weapon for disposal.

I am not a lawyer and would never think about giving legal advice but the above is gleaned from reading the laws as posted at the California Attorney General's website at the following address:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php
You should read through this and make sure you are comfortable with any decision you make regarding the weapon.


Finally, here is an FAQ from the Attorney General that addresses the fact that you can surrender an unregistered assault weapon to the police.
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regagunfaqs.htm

383green
12-22-2008, 2:59 PM
Just wondering why CA DOJ would have so much heartburn getting a gun they don't want here in CA, out of CA!!

The legislators who created CA's AW bans, as well as the anti-gun people in DOJ BOF, don't just want some specific guns to be out of California. They want all guns to be out of civilian hands, everywhere. They would rather see the rifle destroyed than in a civilian's hands in another state, and that is why the AW ban laws were written such that an illegally-possessed restricted AW can't simply be driven or shipped out of the state.

Seems like the OP or family currently here in CA could get a letter that would be encased with the weapon, stating that within X-number of days of the letter, the gun is required to be removed from the state and must be registered in the next state IAW their laws.
A One-Way sort of amnesty, if you will.

I don't think there's a provision for that under CA law, unfortunately. There are provisions to let somebody walk away with an infraction and have the gun destroyed in some cases, because this lets them destroy another gun without going through the trouble of prosecuting somebody. And there are also conventions to look the other way and not prosecute somebody if the rifle is turned in for destruction through a lawyer.


Of course this goes back to a question I've asked before: Since it's well known that some of the CA DOJ folks do peruse this forum/board, why don't they register as such and be ready to answer questions JUST LIKE THIS with some sort of verifiable and official answer?????? Even if it were via PM's, a lot of this "What if" and "Can I", etc. questions can be answered, and would also allow a lot more transparency in the bureau that seems to be so confusing. End the FUD.

These DOJ folks create the FUD. They're not interested in ending it. Nor are they interested in helping Californians legally own AR-like or AK-like guns. They are interested in disarming civilians and locking up anybody who dares to defy them. You seem to have a mistaken impression that they're here to help us. They are supposed to be here to help us, but unfortunately, that's not what they do in actual practice. They do not read this board to help people. They read it to look for potential targets and keep tabs on their opposition.

I know, I know. Nobody wants to be held liable, even if they are simply doing their job. :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of not wanting to be held liable. It's a matter of not wanting to do the particular job that you or I think that they are supposed to do.

DDT
12-22-2008, 3:04 PM
That's a shame! If it's a pre-1989 import like a Polytech AK or something, those are worth some big bucks ~$2000-$3000 sometimes. One sold on Gunbroker a couple weeks ago for $2700.

I also hope he doesn't have an Bakelite mags... those could be worth ~$80-$120 a piece!

:(

12020 defines and restricts ownership of "Large Capacity Magazines." section (b)(2) makes an exception for inherited "weapons" as long as they are federally legal. I don't think that he'll have any trouble with those.

It may also be possible for the estate to disassemble the magazines into "kits" which are not regulated and then they can be transported out that way and assembled in accordance with local law in their new home.

Again not a lawyer just someone with too much time on their hands and a bookmark to the appropriate PC.

chriscam2
12-22-2008, 3:37 PM
WOW thank you all for your information, comments and recommendations. The AK is a unregistered Norinco MAK-90. This AK is not worth much at all. I personally already own an AK and an AR-15 so it is not like I need an AW. It is just that my wife would like to keep the gun because her father thought it was the best thing ever. He really liked the thumb hole I guess.
I did just get off the pay phone with CA DOJ. I explained the situation and that I just want to get my dead father-in-laws guns out of California legally. The conversation did not go well. I was told that I had to turn in the gun, report the address where the AK is and give my full name and address. I did none of that and kindly said good bye. The agent was a total jerk and could not just talk about it.
This makes me so made. I'm just a normal law following guy who happens to have guns and in CA I am seen as an evil person?
My local gun shop and people in Colorado are telling me to very carefully drive the 3 hours to Vegas and have the gun sent FFL to my shop in Colorado. So commit a felony to save a gun that my wife would like remember father by. I feel like at this point I have no option but to arrange for the AK to be handed over the CA authorities. I do not want my mother-in-law living with a gun if it is not legal. I just thought hey well the gun is not legal in CA so I will rescue it for my family, get out of CA and into CO so all parties are legal.
I feel very bad for you guys in CA. This just makes no sense. In Colorado we can open carry, have big mags, buy all kinds of neat AW and register none of it. But who has more crime and gun problems?

Dr Rockso
12-22-2008, 3:49 PM
I feel very bad for you guys in CA. This just makes no sense. In Colorado we can open carry, have big mags, buy all kinds of neat AW and register none of it. But who has more crime and gun problems?
Yeah, rub it in why don't ya? :( It's funny how something that seems so straightforward to an outsider is so problematic here. Not funny 'haha', but funny....well, funny 'sad' I guess.

As far as I know, the Norinco MAK 90 is a listed 'assault weapon' in California, so there is no way to remove it from the state if it is unregistered. Good luck getting this taken care of.

_Odin_
12-22-2008, 3:51 PM
I did just get off the pay phone with CA DOJ. I explained the situation and that I just want to get my dead father-in-laws guns out of California legally. The conversation did not go well. I was told that I had to turn in the gun, report the address where the AK is and give my full name and address. I did none of that and kindly said good bye. The agent was a total jerk and could not just talk about it.

Don't follow this guys advice - if you report the address and turn the firearm in they'll most likely charge you.

I feel very bad for you guys in CA. This just makes no sense. In Colorado we can open carry, have big mags, buy all kinds of neat AW and register none of it. But who has more crime and gun problems?

+1000000

And to add to that - it's funny how all the worst shootings tend to happen in "gun free" zones. How come we don't see hardcore shootings take place at gun shows, or police stations? How come we never hear about police officers in uniform being robbed at gun point?

Funny how that works.

chriscam2
12-22-2008, 4:01 PM
I did not give the agent any information. I dont plan on making any moves on it right away but its just very sad to me. I want to follow the law but not send my family to jail.

I dont mean to rub it in that CO is gun friendly but just to point out how crazy harsh gun laws are. It is even sad to me that AK's, AR's ect are flying off the shelf out here. So many people fear when Obama takes office it will be the end of AW. I was at the gun shop to buy another AR-15 lower receiver. On a normal day it takes 20 minutes to buy a handgun, do background check and walk out the store. But I have to wait 3 days just becasue sooooo many people are buying guns! It is a little scary when so many people are buying guns out of fear.

383green
12-22-2008, 4:02 PM
WOW thank you all for your information, comments and recommendations. The AK is a unregistered Norinco MAK-90.

That one is banned by make and model, so there's no way for you to make it into a non-assault-weapon under CA law at this time. :(

If you haven't already found it, this flowchart is the easiest way to determine whether a rifle is considered an assault weapon under CA law:

http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf


It is just that my wife would like to keep the gun because her father thought it was the best thing ever. He really liked the thumb hole I guess.

I share the sadness with you and your wife that she will not be able to legally keep that sentimental rifle.


I did just get off the pay phone with CA DOJ. I explained the situation and that I just want to get my dead father-in-laws guns out of California legally. The conversation did not go well. I was told that I had to turn in the gun, report the address where the AK is and give my full name and address. I did none of that and kindly said good bye. The agent was a total jerk and could not just talk about it.

I don't think that anybody here will be surprised by that story, unfortunately. At this time, the CA DOJ is adversarial to gun owners, not helpful. I wouldn't have bothered calling them at all, but I think that using a pay phone and refusing to provide incriminating evidence was smart.


This makes me so made. I'm just a normal law following guy who happens to have guns and in CA I am seen as an evil person?

It makes all of us law abiding gun owners in CA mad, too. Unfortunately, a majority of our legislature sees us as evil people, even though that is very far from the truth.

My local gun shop and people in Colorado are telling me to very carefully drive the 3 hours to Vegas and have the gun sent FFL to my shop in Colorado. So commit a felony to save a gun that my wife would like remember father by.

I think this would be far too risky.

I feel like at this point I have no option but to arrange for the AK to be handed over the CA authorities. I do not want my mother-in-law living with a gun if it is not legal.

Based on what you have stated here, I think that this is your only legal option.

I just thought hey well the gun is not legal in CA so I will rescue it for my family, get out of CA and into CO so all parties are legal.

It is unfortunate that the CA legislators didn't allow that as an option. It's not hard to understand, though, when you realize that their real desire is complete disarmament of all civilians, everywhere, and our AW bans (along with the rest of the mountain of CA's gun laws) are merely what they've been able to get away with so far.


I feel very bad for you guys in CA. This just makes no sense. In Colorado we can open carry, have big mags, buy all kinds of neat AW and register none of it. But who has more crime and gun problems?

Thank you for feeling bad for us. It's not like we enjoy the situation, either! However, we are making great progress in overcoming these laws. For example, over the last three years, many tens of thousands of new AR-like and AK-like rifles have been legally bought/built/imported into CA, despite the AW ban. They have to be configured in particular ways, and they cannot be built on a listed receiver (like that MAK-90), but they're here, and the anti-gun crowd hates this. Not only have we regained the ability to legally own AR-like and AK-like guns here, we've even managed to back the DOJ into a corner where they gave up their ability to add more makes and models to the ban list, and made it possible to plea-bargain AW possession down to a mere infraction (plus surrender of the gun) in many cases. Now we're working on gutting our "not-unsafe handgun roster". We seem to be gaining momentum, too.

Note that when I saw "we", I'm not trying to imply that I'm personally spearheading this stuff. I'm just a peripheral participant. However, many of the folks who really are personally responsible for these advances are members of this forum, and you have certainly come to the best source of honest information about CA AW laws... even much better than the CA DOJ, sadly.

Since CA is at or near the forefront of the anti-gun movement in the US, the progress that we're now making on the pro-gun side here may help folks like you in "free states", too. While it's not fun living with our restrictive gun laws here and seeing how much better folks have it in most of the rest of the US, we're not backing down. We're now firmly on the offensive, and we're taking ground, and we're gaining speed in doing so.

We're also anticipating that a CA court case whose decision is expected within a few months will gain incorporation of the 2nd amendment under the 14th amendment. Coupled with the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, this will have positive implications for gun owners all over the country.

I wouldn't have said this three years ago, but I can now envision a time in my lifetime when you will no longer need to feel sorry for us over here.

I'm glad that we could help you, even though the answer wasn't the one you hoped for.

Decoligny
12-22-2008, 4:06 PM
Just a thought.

Disassemble the entire rifle.

Ship out any parts that are not covered by the AW laws.

If there are parts that are listed that are actually considered AWs, then turn those parts in to lawyer/LE/DOJ, whichever is most appropriate and will keep you out of jail.

Then when back in a free state purchase the parts that had to be turned in and reassemble into 80% Dad's gun.

383green
12-22-2008, 4:09 PM
It is even sad to me that AK's, AR's ect are flying off the shelf out here. So many people fear when Obama takes office it will be the end of AW. I was at the gun shop to buy another AR-15 lower receiver. On a normal day it takes 20 minutes to buy a handgun, do background check and walk out the store. But I have to wait 3 days just becasue sooooo many people are buying guns! It is a little scary when so many people are buying guns out of fear.

You may be surprised to learn that AKs and especially ARs are flying off the shelves here, too! There's a subset of the older makes and models that can't be had here (like that MAK-90), but there's now a larger number of makes/models that are not on the list. The guns have to be built in particular somewhat-neutered ways, and a fairly small proportion of dealers are willing to touch them here, due in part to Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) that has been deliberately spread by the CA DOJ. Still, those lowers are just as sold-out here as they are in your neck of the woods, and literally tens of thousands have exploded into the CA market over the last three years (after a long period of unavailability).

I share your fear about the fear-based run on the firearms market. I really hope that the fear will turn out to be unfounded, but it's certainly present.

383green
12-22-2008, 4:12 PM
Just a thought.

Disassemble the entire rifle.

Ship out any parts that are not covered by the AW laws.

If there are parts that are listed that are actually considered AWs, then turn those parts in to lawyer/LE/DOJ, whichever is most appropriate and will keep you out of jail.

Then when back in a free state purchase the parts that had to be turned in and reassemble into 80% Dad's gun.

This might be a way to keep everything except the receiver, and then rebuild Dad's old gun on a new receiver. I'd check with a lawyer familiar with CA's gun laws before trying it, though. There are a few specific lawyers here in CA who are the undisputed experts on this stuff, but I'll let the folks who know them personally provide the contact information.

Edited to add: I think this approach is considered OK with AR-family guns, since it's so easy to pull all of the parts off of the serialized part of the gun. However, I don't know if it's OK with the AK family, where many of the parts are more permanently attached to the receiver. I don't know whether the law enforcement folks will be satisfied with the turn-in of a hacksawed chunk of receiver like they would with a stripped AR lower.

tgriffin
12-22-2008, 4:24 PM
Serialized trunnions confuse the issue of "destroyed" as well. I would recommend cutting bait friend, unless you want to risk it.

hawk1
12-22-2008, 4:30 PM
If it is a listed make and model, DO NOT do that! It would be a felony. The chance that the contents of the box came to the attention of law enforcement, resulting in you and/or your wife rotting away in a CA prison, is NOT worth the price of that rifle. Even successfully fighting assault weapon transportation charges successfully in court would cost more than buying a few dozen brand new AK rifles in a free state.

Well, since we don't know if it is a listed AK then we all could guess to how it should be transported.

My assumption is that it was not a listed AK

PonchoTA
12-22-2008, 4:37 PM
The legislators who created CA's AW bans, as well as the anti-gun people in DOJ BOF, don't just want some specific guns to be out of California. They want all guns to be out of civilian hands, everywhere. They would rather see the rifle destroyed than in a civilian's hands in another state, and that is why the AW ban laws were written such that an illegally-possessed restricted AW can't simply be driven or shipped out of the state.

I don't think there's a provision for that under CA law, unfortunately. There are provisions to let somebody walk away with an infraction and have the gun destroyed in some cases, because this lets them destroy another gun without going through the trouble of prosecuting somebody. And there are also conventions to look the other way and not prosecute somebody if the rifle is turned in for destruction through a lawyer.

These DOJ folks create the FUD. They're not interested in ending it. Nor are they interested in helping Californians legally own AR-like or AK-like guns. They are interested in disarming civilians and locking up anybody who dares to defy them. You seem to have a mistaken impression that they're here to help us. They are supposed to be here to help us, but unfortunately, that's not what they do in actual practice. They do not read this board to help people. They read it to look for potential targets and keep tabs on their opposition. :(

It's not a matter of not wanting to be held liable. It's a matter of not wanting to do the particular job that you or I think that they are supposed to do.
Yeah, you're right. I assumed that they were supposed to help us. Stupid me.

I just really, truly do not understand why some folks are so against me/us being able to defend myself/ourselves against those who would cause me/us harm.

Sad really. :(

Unless they issue me a policeman to stand guard 24/7, they CAN'T guarantee my safety. Even then, I probably still have more training than they do. I had a NEC of 9545, Security Police when I was on shore duty in the Navy (almost 4 yrs), and had to qualify with all my firearms every quarter (4x per year), and when I went back on ships, I was a part of the Ship's Security Detail and we drilled every duty day (2-3 times per week).

383green
12-22-2008, 4:39 PM
Well, since we don't know if it is a listed AK then we all could guess to how it should be transported.

My assumption is that it was not a listed AK

The original poster has confirmed that it is a listed AK.

hawk1
12-22-2008, 4:40 PM
The original poster has confirmed that it is a listed AK.

I see that now, thanks.

When he originally posted I took it for granted it was not listed.

He really should have the mods delete this thread.

383green
12-22-2008, 4:44 PM
I see that now, thanks.

When he originally posted I took it for granted it was not listed.

No problem. I assumed that it was probably listed, given the story of how it was acquired long before the ban when there weren't nearly so many AK or AR models on the market. Also, I think it's better to make the assumption that won't result in a felony being committed if the assumption is wrong! ;)

He really should have the mods delete this thread.

I agree, but not before getting contact information for one of the good CA gun law attorneys.

bwiese
12-22-2008, 4:51 PM
Whoever the executor handling the estate in CA is should contact local LE agency, and arrange for surrender of the rifle. An attorney shouldn't be needed in this situation as it's an estate.

It's not worth grief of stripping $75 worth of parts, being found in possession of an AW if the ADT alarm goes off or whatever.

becxltoo984
12-22-2008, 4:57 PM
disassemble the rifle and ship it to your self in Co. No way would I show up to any Ca airport with a unregistered aw.

IH8CALAWS
12-22-2008, 4:59 PM
Deill the receiver and sell the parts kit. Don't give it up to the doj, this thing can still live legally just with a new receier. Why let the doj destroy any firearm if you can do something about it?

Glock22Fan
12-22-2008, 5:29 PM
Like I said before, best thing to do is to contact the CA DOJ BoF on the best method of getting said rifle out of the state instead of trying to get legal advice on the internet.

Isn't that a bit like going into the nearest sheriff station and saying "I think I might have just robbed a bank at gunpoint?"

383green
12-22-2008, 7:11 PM
disassemble the rifle and ship it to your self in Co. No way would I show up to any Ca airport with a unregistered aw.

NO! DO NOT DO THIS!

It would be nice if folks would stop suggesting that the original poster commit a felony.

Why let the doj destroy any firearm if you can do something about it?

Because turning it in for destruction is the only available legal option in this situation.

There is a lot of very good information and advice on this forum. There is also a lot of extremely bad advice here. Both of the suggestions I've quoted here have already been suggested multiple times in this thread, and have been explained to be NOT LEGAL.

In particular, what becxltoo984 suggested would be a FELONY, and getting caught could result in losing the right to possess any firearm for life.

bwiese
12-22-2008, 7:23 PM
383,

I've tried, but people keep pouring asshatism on top of asshatism in this thread.

Apparently some souls are rich enough to risk $$$$ for legal fees for a $200 gun.

I do note a true executor (not just anyone 'helping out') of the estate does have 90 days of possession/disposal time for a registered AW. However there is a risk he could be charged - look what happened to Frank Tabor vs. Iggy.

nobs11
12-22-2008, 8:40 PM
The ONLY legal thing to do, as Bill Weise has pointed out, is to surrender the unregistered AW.

No shipping, no ifs, not buts. Give it to LE. Trying to get it out of the state is not worth it in this case. Sure the law sucks, but we are required to abide by it. If you don't care about the consequences, do what you want. Fighting unjust laws is best done legally, not by breaking the law.

I expected 100% of the members to say this. Sorry, but is this short bus day on Calguns?

tazmanian devil dog
12-22-2008, 11:20 PM
You could also, drive the weapon to LV, NV (Yes it is slightly risky, but safer than an airport where you WILL run into LEOS). Once in Vegas, catch a flight out of their airport.

tazmanian devil dog
12-22-2008, 11:25 PM
The ONLY legal thing to do, as Bill Weise has pointed out, is to surrender the unregistered AW.

No shipping, no ifs, not buts. Give it to LE. Trying to get it out of the state is not worth it in this case. Sure the law sucks, but we are required to abide by it. If you don't care about the consequences, do what you want. Fighting unjust laws is best done legally, not by breaking the law.

I expected 100% of the members to say this. Sorry, but is this short bus day on Calguns?

I guess I'm one of those short bus people who wouldn't give up a weapon for a stupid reason. BTW, I don't believe it would be illegal to ship or drive said unregistered AW out of the state. You are in fact complying with the law by removing it. I believe you can either surrender it to LEO (bad move) or remove it from the state. So what is the problem?

383green
12-22-2008, 11:51 PM
BTW, I don't believe it would be illegal to ship or drive said unregistered AW out of the state.

You are wrong about this. Transporting an unregistered assault weapon is a felony.

You are in fact complying with the law by removing it.

Wrong, again. The AW laws spell out the only legal options, and removing it from the state in this manner is not one of them.

I believe you can either surrender it to LEO (bad move) or remove it from the state.

Again, this it not correct.

So what is the problem?

The problem is that what you have stated is neither correct nor legal, and what you suggested is felony transport of an unregistered assault weapon.

I suggest that you study the AW laws a bit more carefully, because you have some dangerous misconceptions about them:

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12020-12040 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+16+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12275-12278 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0180985202+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12280-12282 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12285-12289.5 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

Those may not be all of the relevant sections, but they're the ones that I found while looking up citations to show you why what you have suggested is a felony.

In particular (emphasis added):

12280. (a) (1) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or
causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into
the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who
gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as
provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six,
or eight years.

This states that transporting an unregistered assault weapon is a felony.

(b) Any person who, within this state, possesses any assault
weapon, except as provided in this chapter, shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or
by imprisonment in the state prison. [...]

This states that possession is just a misdemeanor (or even less, as described in the part that I cut out). This is why trying to remove the AW from the state is MUCH WORSE than other options: It turns an infraction or misdemeanor into a felony.

One of the exceptions to the misdemeanor charge above is this:

(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 12288,
in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to
Section 12028.

And here's the text about relinquishing it:

12288. Any individual may arrange in advance to relinquish an
assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to a police or sheriff's
department. The assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle shall be transported
in accordance with Section 12026.1.

I'll let you read all of the rest... it's not fun. ;)

Spyder
12-22-2008, 11:51 PM
Taz...listen to Bweise and Hof and 383 and the rest. They know what they're talking about...and what you suggest would be illegal. We live in California, remember? :D

Spyder
12-22-2008, 11:54 PM
Damnitt...like I said, 383 knows better than most...and what he posted seconds before my meager post is what must, unfortunately, be done.

383green
12-22-2008, 11:57 PM
Damnitt...like I said, 383 knows better than most.

Thanks for the compliment! That being said, if there's ever a conflict between what I write and what Bill (bwiese) or Gene (hoffmang) writes... forget what I wrote and listen to those guys! ;)

CRQuarto
12-23-2008, 12:52 AM
Thanks for the compliment! That being said, if there's ever a conflict between what I write and what Bill (bwiese) or Gene (hoffmang) writes... forget what I wrote and listen to those guys! ;)

It really is amazing that people will form assumptions, and then further form those assumptions into "truths", before gathering all the facts, and reading what is blatantly spelled out in front of them. Thanks for being a voice of reason and hopefully keeping this guy and his family out of trouble.

5968
12-23-2008, 12:53 AM
Dang, lots of you people need reading comprehension classes. What kind of message are we sending our fellow gun owners from other states?

Best thing to do is call the CA DOJ BoF and see what they tell you to do in order to get that gun out of CA to Colorado.

Now if I was in your shoes, I would have the wife fly into CA and then on her return trip, I would have her fly out of NV/OR or AZ with said AK-47 if you wanted to avoid dealing with CA authorities.

:iagree:

bwiese
12-23-2008, 12:56 AM
:iagree:

Then you agree with committing crimes.

SJgunguy24
12-23-2008, 1:02 AM
LISTEN TO BILL!!!

He may not know you, but he dosen't want to see anybody go to prison.(unless they really deserve it)

383green
12-23-2008, 1:03 AM
Furthermore, if you actually read this thread:

1) He already called the DOJ BOF like USN CHIEF suggested. DOJ was not helpful, and tried to get him to incriminate himself and others.

2) Transporting that rifle is a felony. Taking it into Nevada is a felony. Carrying it next door is a felony.

The only legal option is pre-arranged surrender of the rifle (unless it's in a particular probate situation, as Bill explained).

383green
12-23-2008, 1:10 AM
One more thing: If any of y'all feel that you would rather keep a cheap, easily-replaceable P.O.S. Chinese rifle on principle rather than letting it be destroyed by the evil gun-grabbers, then that is your decision to make. Just please do two things:

1) Realize the huge risk you're subjecting your freedom and finances to for that crappy rifle. Decide if it's really worth it.

2) If you value the rifle more, then please don't be stupid enough to talk about committing felonies on a public forum which is known to be monitored by law enforcement agencies. Besides putting yourself in greater risk, it makes all of us look bad.

If you want to be a principled felon, then please do everybody a favor and keep it under your hat.

bwiese
12-23-2008, 1:17 AM
The only legal option is pre-arranged surrender of the rifle (unless
it's in a particular probate situation, as Bill explained).

While that probate situation would work with a registered AW, I don't think it really applies to contraband, as is the case here (unreg'd listed AW) - which is what an unreg'd AW is. It simply doesn't miraculously get a clean bill of health just because its owner kicked the bucket.

Also, conversion of an unreg'd Category III ('by features') AW into a legally configured off-list rifle just stops the ongoing crime, and doesn't erase the past crime (however it significantly raises burden of proof). An executor trying to do this without care might dig himself into a hole.

ke6guj
12-23-2008, 1:22 AM
here's a hypothetical,

12288. Any individual may arrange in advance to relinquish an
assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle to a police or sheriff's
department. The assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle shall be transported
in accordance with Section 12026.1.

Anything say that the police station tht one would arrange to relinquish to must be in CA ? Wouldn't arranging to relinquish it to an out-of-state LEA allow for transport out of the state?

oaklander
12-23-2008, 1:22 AM
disassemble the rifle and ship it to your self in Co. No way would I show up to any Ca airport with a unregistered aw.

OK - here's the deal. There is already a DOJ opinion letter that states that a disassembled rifle is still a firearm. You can't make it "not illegal" by just taking it apart.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266160/Opinion-of-the-California-Attorney-General-981004

EDIT: see Bill's post however below - a named BARE receiver appears to be a defensible case.

bwiese
12-23-2008, 1:28 AM
OK - here's the deal. There is already a DOJ opinion letter that states that a disassembled rifle is still a firearm. You can't make it "not illegal" by just taking it apart.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266160/Opinion-of-the-California-Attorney-General-981004
[/quote]

Oak,

A stripped listed receiver is a defendable case (but in no way recommended conduct).

12276PC R-R list bans named semiauto rifles, and stripped receivers aren't that. This broad discussion came up in legislative analysis of AB2728.

I agree that a missing part doesn't remove AW status from a 'listed' gun,
but a person finding himself in possession of a listed (by name) AW should immediately strip it down to bare receiver to elevate burden of proof; again, possession of stripped receiver is defendable and a completely disassembled gun is not an AW (no constructive possession).

Yes a disassembled rifle - down to stripped listed receiver - is still a firearm, but not an AW.

doctor_vals
12-23-2008, 1:38 AM
Taz...listen to Bweise and Hof and 383 and the rest. They know what they're talking about... :D

Agreed 150%.
It will be awesome if everybody here on forum follow all advices from that trio - bweise, hoffmang and 383green.

383green
12-23-2008, 1:43 AM
Someone pointed out earlier in this thread (too lazy to look it up!) that serialized trunnions and/or other components may complicate things on the AK-like guns, and thus stripping down to a bare receiver for turn-in may not work out the same way as it does for AR-like guns. Do you have any comments on this?

Are you just suggesting the removal of any easily-removed parts to turn the rifle into a non-functional barreled receiver, or are you recommending taking off anything that's not a receiver (which will generally require cutting, drilling, etc. on an AK-like gun)?

383green
12-23-2008, 1:45 AM
It will be awesome if everybody here on forum follow all advices from that trio - bweise, hoffmang and 383green.

Hey, don't throw me in with that bunch... I'm just a guy behind a keyboard with too much time on his hands, but those two actually know what they're talking about! ;)

oaklander
12-23-2008, 1:46 AM
Ah, good point!

:D

I think the problem with AK's is that you can't easily strip them down to bare receivers (barrel and receiver pressed together).

My post was more to refute the concept that simply "field stripping" a named AK rifle would render it non-AW.



Oak,

A stripped listed receiver is a defendable case (but in no way recommended conduct).

12276PC R-R list bans named semiauto rifles, and stripped receivers aren't that. This broad discussion came up in legislative analysis of AB2728.

I agree that a missing part doesn't remove AW status from a 'listed' gun,
but a person finding himself in possession of a listed (by name) AW should immediately strip it down to bare receiver to elevate burden of proof; again, possession of stripped receiver is defendable and a completely disassembled gun is not an AW (no constructive possession).

Yes a disassembled rifle - down to stripped listed receiver - is still a firearm, but not an AW.

oaklander
12-23-2008, 1:47 AM
LOL - you are in the briar patch now!!!

Hey, don't throw me in with that bunch... I'm just a guy behind a keyboard with too much time on his hands, but those two actually know what they're talking about! ;)

Danger Close
12-23-2008, 2:05 AM
I don't suppose he can saw the receiver and deactivate it himself?

oaklander
12-23-2008, 2:15 AM
I don't know anything about the OP's exact situation. So here's a hypothetical. . .

Say that I was in possession of an "AK" AW, illegal either by features or name.

If I was in possession of a "feature-based" AK AW (like an OLL that was configured wrong), I could simply take off the evil features. Going forward, the gun would not be illegal, but it would have been illegal BEFORE I "cleaned it up." If I was found in possession of it, LE would have a hard time proving that it was previously in an illegal configuration. The crime didn't go away, it just got harder to prove.

If it was NAMED, I *could* strip it down to just the receiver - but this is hard to do with AK's. And again, the original crime still exists, it just becomes harder to prove.

I could also demil it - but again, the original crime is still there.

In sum reconfiguring, stripping or demiling does not erase the prior crime, it just makes it harder to prove.

I don't suppose he can saw the receiver and deactivate it himself?

chriscam2
12-23-2008, 7:31 AM
Thanks to everyone for such great information and discussion on this. In no way will I commit any crime. I will not strip and ship, drive to Vegas or do any other illegal thing just so I can save the rifle. I cannot go the probate route because he didn't have much and there was no legal executor of his estate. It was just "buddies."
I feel it is very important to follow the law and turn the rifle in. Breaking the law (caught or not caught) will not help California guns owners fight crazy gun laws. I talked to my wife and she agrees it is the right thing to do. No matter how much or how little the gun is worth it is not fair for me to violate California law so that I can have the AK in Colorado. It would not be fair or ethical to CALGUNS.NET
It is very clear that most of you are trying to wage this war in an honest and noble way. I could not sleep at night if I was to break the law based on something I read here. I can only feel good about myself knowing that the good people of this organization are trying to provide correct and legal advice.
When my wife gets to California she will take a picture of rifle, contact my lawyer friend and turn it in. She will have a small memory of it, be legal and not have to worry or feel bad for breaking the law.
On another note. Her dad does have some old hand guns. Taking those home via the airport should not be an issue correct?

Heatseeker
12-23-2008, 8:32 AM
^^^Good Man^^^
Breaking the law and putting you and your wife at risk is obviously not worth it in this situation.

Some of these guy really know their stuff...and some are a little rebellious. Stick with those who "know" and you'll be fine!

tpuig
12-23-2008, 9:38 AM
Hypothetically speaking, would it be possible to turn it in at a "gun buyback" from a church or city? Seems like a situation like this puts a law abiding citizen between a rock and a hard place. Getting $200 isn't much consolation, but better than nothing, especially when forced to relinquish it anyway.

383green
12-23-2008, 9:44 AM
Hypothetically speaking, would it be possible to turn it in at a "gun buyback" from a church or city?

I think Bill has previously pointed out that you would run the risk of getting tagged for felony transport on the way to the buy-back.

AaronHorrocks
12-23-2008, 10:08 AM
I'm just a normal law following guy who happens to have guns and in CA I am seen as an evil person?

Yes, and welcome to the club.

I don't know why the CA DOJ and "Law Enforcement" Agencies are still called "Law Enforcement" Agencies when they are in constant violation of the highest law of the land. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Dr Rockso
12-23-2008, 11:14 AM
On another note. Her dad does have some old hand guns. Taking those home via the airport should not be an issue correct?

I'm not the resident expert on these sorts of things, but I don't think that would be a problem. The only issues I could see would be:

-Do any of the pistols have magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds? Your father-in-law could have legally owned 10+ capacity magazines, provided he purchased them before 2000, but I'm not sure whether it would be technically legal for your wife to obtain them. This issue is nowhere near as 'hot' as the assault weapon.

-Are any of the pistols of a 'nonstandard' type (like a Tec-9, etc)? If they accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip or have a threaded barrel, you may have another AW issue on your hands.

-ADDED: I'm not sure, but to stay technically legal your wife might need a 'Handgun Safety Certificate'. They're $25 and very easy to obtain at most places that sell handguns. I don't know whether this would apply in this situation (and again, this is not nearly as sensitive as the assault weapon).

DDT
12-23-2008, 1:20 PM
I think Bill has previously pointed out that you would run the risk of getting tagged for felony transport on the way to the buy-back.

Assuming the buy back was done by a police/sheriff you should be able to call ahead and arrange surrender just like during non-buy-back times.

Bill comment re: stripping down to receiver of listed weapons is interesting and one I hadn't heard of before. I always had assumed that a "listed" weapon was an AW regardless of state of build. Can you send me a link to a good discussion of this so that I might understand it better?


Thanks.

Librarian
12-23-2008, 1:29 PM
Assuming the buy back was done by a police/sheriff you should be able to call ahead and arrange surrender just like during non-buy-back times.

Bill comment re: stripping down to receiver of listed weapons is interesting and one I hadn't heard of before. I always had assumed that a "listed" weapon was an AW regardless of state of build. Can you send me a link to a good discussion of this so that I might understand it better?


Thanks.
I think oaklander's post #71, above, covers it. But you're correct, a named 'aw' remains one, because it isn't features that made it an 'aw'.

bwiese
12-23-2008, 1:47 PM
Bill comment re: stripping down to receiver of listed weapons is interesting and one I hadn't heard of before. I always had assumed that a "listed" weapon was an AW regardless of state of build. Can you send me a link to a good discussion of this so that I might understand it better?

While you should not attempt to acquire one, it's a defendable case stating
a listed receiver is not an assault weapon... we see that12276PC: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall
mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:
...
(b) All of the following specified pistols:
...
(c) All of the following specified shotguns:
...
A stripped receiver whose name matches a listed entity is not semiauto, is not a rifle/pistol/shotgun, and does not have ability to fire.

This was discussed in the legislative analysis in the run up to AB2728 in 2006:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html

In particular, note this comment/footnote:<2> It should be noted that there is some doubt as to whether the Attorney General's Office has the statutory authority to list a bare
receiver as an assault weapon since it lacks the characteristics of an
assault weapon, including its ability to fire.

Thus while a 'named' AW can't lose its AW status by reconfiguration, if it's completely stripped down to stripped unbarreled bare receiver, possession of such a receiver is defendable (but certainly not recommended, it's a fight you don't need to have).

DDT
12-23-2008, 2:53 PM
While you should not attempt to acquire one, it's a defendable case stating
a listed receiver is not an assault weapon... we see that[INDENT]12276PC: As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall
mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:

Thanks. That makes perfect sense. Has there been any case law for this?

saki302
12-23-2008, 4:13 PM
Based on Bwiese's post- best bet would be to strip it down and ship the bare receiver with barrel (doesn't work or fire obviously) to an out of state FFL.

I would rather destroy (de-mill) the receiver and keep the parts rather than turn anything in. Ever. Generally, turning in a weapon causes more questions and problems than you'd expect. A buddy of mine turned in a broken .22LR rifle about 15 years ago, and the police didn't even know what do do with it. They ended up just giving him a receipt and tossing it behind the counter.

To de-mill it, a circular saw with metal cutting blade, or a band saw would make short work of that sheetmetal receiver. Make 2 cuts, discard the center section.

-Dave

383green
12-23-2008, 5:07 PM
:banghead:
...

tazmanian devil dog
12-23-2008, 5:12 PM
Taz...listen to Bweise and Hof and 383 and the rest. They know what they're talking about...and what you suggest would be illegal. We live in California, remember? :D

Ok. Ok, I'll admit when I am wrong. Sorry for the attitude and misinformation. I just hate the laws here and wish I wasn't stuck dealing with it all. I do and will continue to do what the law says.

tazmanian devil dog
12-23-2008, 5:13 PM
You are wrong about this. Transporting an unregistered assault weapon is a felony.



Wrong, again. The AW laws spell out the only legal options, and removing it from the state in this manner is not one of them.



Again, this it not correct.



The problem is that what you have stated is neither correct nor legal, and what you suggested is felony transport of an unregistered assault weapon.

I suggest that you study the AW laws a bit more carefully, because you have some dangerous misconceptions about them:

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12020-12040 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+16+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12275-12278 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0180985202+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12280-12282 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

CALIFORNIA CODES - PENAL CODE - SECTION 12285-12289.5 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0182555321+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)

Those may not be all of the relevant sections, but they're the ones that I found while looking up citations to show you why what you have suggested is a felony.

In particular (emphasis added):



This states that transporting an unregistered assault weapon is a felony.



This states that possession is just a misdemeanor (or even less, as described in the part that I cut out). This is why trying to remove the AW from the state is MUCH WORSE than other options: It turns an infraction or misdemeanor into a felony.

One of the exceptions to the misdemeanor charge above is this:



And here's the text about relinquishing it:



I'll let you read all of the rest... it's not fun. ;)

You are right and I was wrong. Sorry for the attitude and misinformation.

383green
12-23-2008, 5:25 PM
It's good of you to apologize for the misinformation, but there's nothing at all wrong with hating the laws here! ;) It offends me very much to see another gun destroyed, too, but we have to look at the bigger picture, and the game we're all stuck playing isn't a fair one. :(

USN CHIEF
12-23-2008, 5:29 PM
So when all guns become illegal and it is a felony to posses a firearm, all you will be turning them in to get destroyed?

383green
12-23-2008, 5:42 PM
So when all guns become illegal and it is a felony to posses a firearm, all you will be turning them in to get destroyed?

An outright ban on guns would be a very different situation than being legally required to turn in one cheap and very easily replaced gun. The risk vs. reward calculation would be different in such a case. We're still trying to work within the system and get the laws changed legally (and we're making good progress). The best course of action under an outright ban on guns might be very different than it is in the situation that's being discussed in this thread.

383green
12-23-2008, 9:49 PM
Just thinking out loud here, obviously best course of action is to turn it in... But having decided to do that, is there any legal way an LE agency near the CA/NV border could/would agree to receive the surrendered weapon and then instead of destroying it, transport it to the border, and hand it back once safely across the state line in NV?

Destruction of the gun is part of the law that erases the possession crime, unfortunately:

(4) The person relinquished the firearm pursuant to Section 12288,
in which case the assault weapon shall be destroyed pursuant to
Section 12028.

grammaton76
12-24-2008, 3:16 AM
My advice, so your wife can have part of her dad's gun:

1. Take a screwdriver and remove the thumbhole stock.
2. Take the dust cover, bolt carrier, spring, and bolt.
3. Take the upper handguard and lower handguard (it's just furniture)

Turn the rest into the authorities. The parts you're holding onto there AREN'T an AW in any way, shape, or form. You're not trying to somehow transmute the gun into a keepable configuration here. The gun itself is still getting destroyed; you're just keeping its furniture, dust cover, and bolt carrier. If you feel less safe about it, then give up the bolt carrier and bolt too - but there's no reason to have to give up the dust cover and furniture.

Buy your wife a MAK-90 in Colorado, install the parts you removed, and she'll have enough of her dad's gun for sentimental reasons. No legal complications, and you're not endangering yourself by spending a bunch of time trying to cut the rivets off and strip the receiver.

383green
12-24-2008, 9:52 AM
My advice, so your wife can have part of her dad's gun:

I don't see any problems with grammaton76's suggestion.

bg
12-24-2008, 10:46 AM
Why can't the author use this ? It states no questions
asked..200 for it via gift card might do well for him
and his.
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/local/Los_Angeles/Los_Angeles_Times/SIG=13tbv3fuu/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Flo s_angeles_metro%2Fla-me-guns24-2008dec24%2C0%2C1638553.story%3Ftrack%3Drss

In San Diego, 246 guns, including 22 assault weapons, were turned in Monday and exchanged for gift cards under a "no questions asked" effort by the San Diego-based United African American Ministerial Action Council and the San Diego Police Department. The exchange program was organized amid community outrage over the recent shooting of two black teenagers after a party.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-12/44218140.jpg

383green
12-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Why can't the author use this ?

Already asked and (partly) answered: Transporting the weapon (except as part of a pre-arranged surrender) is a felony. Somebody who's already a felon may have nothing to lose by turning in a gun that they're already carrying around illegally, but it's not such a good idea for a law-abiding non-felon like the original poster to commit a brand new felony to get the $200. While the buy-back folks may not ask any questions, that may not help if a random officer pulls him/her over for a traffic violation on the way to the buy-back, and finds the AW being illegally transported.

The only thing I see that has not been answered is whether the two things can be combined: Can somebody pre-arrange a turn-in at a gun buy-back, such that they both follow the letter of the AW law and get the gift card? I don't know the answer to that part.