PDA

View Full Version : Interfamily transfer of rifle


robnbritt
11-12-2009, 10:10 PM
Hope someone can help with this. My father lives in Idaho. He has informed that I can have a rifle that he has purchased there. Can I drive up & bring it home to CA? Talked to my ffl friend he says according to DOJ yes. But I have heard others say fed law says no (has to go through dealer). Any help would be appreciated. And yes the rifle is Ca legal.

paul0660
11-12-2009, 10:14 PM
Go get it. You do not have to report it when you get back either. It wasn't registered in Idaho and long guns are not registered here. If it is not a AW or have a mag over 10 rounds, as you seem to have figured out, no problem.

Edit.......I think I am wrong in the above, because Federal law only allows for "bequesting" firearms across state lines, that is, after the original owner is deceased.

Chapter 44. Firearms
(Title18, U.S. Code, Sections 921-929)
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business 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 of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

There is not a time limit specified for "loaning" other than it being temporary. California does not even mention "temporary" as a limit for loaning between fathers and sons (pc 12078). I think that is a huge loophole. Otherwise to legally transfer it (and own it) you would have to bring it to a FFL 01 in California, hand it over, get drossed, wait ten days, etc.

Mssr. Eleganté
11-13-2009, 1:52 AM
Federal law requires the transfer you describe to go through an FFL. As mentioned above, California has an exemption to its FFL transfer requirements if the transfer is from father to son, but the Feds have no such exemption if the father is still alive.

bwiese
11-13-2009, 2:25 AM
Please ignore paul0660's partial advocacy of criminal behavior.

Intrrafamily transfer exemption is only within California btwn CA residents.

Once state lines are crossed, there is no exemption and BATF really wants to see an FFL used by the recipient.

DOJ staff actually gives wrong answers (duh). In this case they are only partially correct (in regards to CA law) but have ignored Fed law.

Have your dad send the rifle to a CA FFL and you DROS it there.

(If your dad should unfortunately pass away and rifle is left to you as part of probate/inheritance, this is one exception to the must-use-an-FFL rule.)

robnbritt
11-13-2009, 6:31 AM
So I do have to DROS the rifle since he is alive? Or does it just need to be shipped through an FFL?

Quiet
11-13-2009, 7:17 AM
So I do have to DROS the rifle since he is alive? Or does it just need to be shipped through an FFL?

Shipped to a CA FFL dealer, where you will DROS it and wait 10 days.

Rifle can not be an assault weapon.

Librarian
11-13-2009, 8:07 AM
Otherwise to legally transfer it (and own it) you would have to bring it to a FFL 01 in California, hand it over, get drossed, wait ten days, etc.

The rest of this has been addressed, but I wanted to point out that it's usually illegal for a non-licensed person to bring a gun back himself from one state to his state of residence. "Go get it, hand it to CA FFL" does not work. "Arrange for it to be shipped to CA FFL" is the right way.

See the Wiki: Transferring firearms Interstate (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate)

robnbritt
11-13-2009, 7:51 PM
Thanks for the input have made arrangements for it to be shipped to ffl.

larryratcliff
11-13-2009, 8:27 PM
Wow, prior to his demise my father and I exchanged many guns as gifts to one another. Granted, they were either hunting rifles, shotguns or handguns (other than capacity of magazines would have no question about legality in California). I guess I would have never thought to say gee dad go pick up your Christmas present at an FFL. Granted I had only been in California for about 6 years before he passed but anywhere else in this country it would not be given a second thought. Maybe its just me but it sure seems silly to cough up money to an FFL to transfer a gun from father to son that is being given as a gift or vise versa.

larryratcliff
11-13-2009, 8:40 PM
One other note. You are driving there and picking up the rifle. Therefore, not mailing across state lines. Private party transfers without an FFL are legal in other states. I don't know which other states but It used to be a hobby of mine when I lived in Az. to look in the Sunday paper and go look at guns. If I found one I liked I just paid up and viola done! I dont even know how many guns I owned when I moved to California. Some of which I have owned for more than 30 years. It drives me nuts to see all of this red tape.

ke6guj
11-13-2009, 8:50 PM
One other note. You are driving there and picking up the rifle. Therefore, not mailing across state lines. Private party transfers without an FFL are legal in other states. I don't know which other states but It used to be a hobby of mine when I lived in Az. to look in the Sunday paper and go look at guns. If I found one I liked I just paid up and viola done! I dont even know how many guns I owned when I moved to California. Some of which I have owned for more than 30 years. It drives me nuts to see all of this red tape.

it doesn't matter if you transport it yourself or have it mailed. It is a federal felony for a non-licensee to sell/give/transfer a firearm to a non-licenssee of another state.

Sec. 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or
deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows
or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business in) the State in which the transferor resides: Provided, That
the provisions of this section:
(a) shall not apply to the transfer, transportation, or delivery of
a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or any
acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is
permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of
his residence; and
(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person
for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

It is another federal felony for a non-licensee to transport a firearm into his home state, with limited exceptions.

Sec. 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.

No person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector, shall transport into or receive
in the State where the person resides (or if a corporation or other
business entity, where it maintains a place of business) any firearm
purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State:
Provided, That the provisions of this section:
(a) Shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by
bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of
residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that
State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such
firearm in that State,
(b) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a rifle or
shotgun obtained from a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer,
licensed dealer, or licensed collector in a State other than the
transferee's State of residence in an over-the-counter transaction at
the licensee's premises obtained in conformity with the provisions of
Sec. 478.96(c) and
(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm
obtained in conformity with the provisions of Sec. Sec. 478.30 and
478.97.

Those are federal laws that apply here, not CA laws.



Wow, prior to his demise my father and I exchanged many guns as gifts to one another. Granted, they were either hunting rifles, shotguns or handguns (other than capacity of magazines would have no question about legality in California). I guess I would have never thought to say gee dad go pick up your Christmas present at an FFL. Granted I had only been in California for about 6 years before he passed but anywhere else in this country it would not be given a second thought. Maybe its just me but it sure seems silly to cough up money to an FFL to transfer a gun from father to son that is being given as a gift or vise versa.If two states are in play, it would be illegal even without the "sillyness" of CA's rules.

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 9:04 AM
it doesn't matter if you transport it yourself or have it mailed. It is a federal felony for a non-licensee to sell/give/transfer a firearm to a non-licenssee of another state.



It is another federal felony for a non-licensee to transport a firearm into his home state, with limited exceptions.



Those are federal laws that apply here, not CA laws.



If two states are in play, it would be illegal even without the "sillyness" of CA's rules.

Well it sure seems to me that this piece of law is way to wide sweeping. At the very least It should be restated to only exclude the transfer of arms that are illegal from one state to the next. Or otherwise obtained is also to wide sweeping.

Also, the "or otherwise obtained" is just the sort of blanket law that is to wide sweeping and fairly well impossible to enforce anyway unless dad is setting up his own private sting.

My grandfather left me an old goose gun (10 gauge single shot shotgun) that has been in our family for a long time. His father gave it to him and he left it to me when he passed. It is at my grandmothers house in Kansas. I dont think this is the sort of transfer the feds are looking to govern. I had never asked my grandmother to box it up and ship it purely due to the burden it would put on her (shes pushing 90). I guess now that I know about this law if I was going to do things the right way I would take it to an FFL in Kansas and have them ship it to an FFL in California. So that old goose gun that is worth nothing to anyone outside our family would cost me about 200 bucks to bring home.

If you think about this law in particular it seems like lazy legislation. Since there are many state to state differences in the legality of weapons in reading this it seems like they just punted on getting it right and put the burden on gun owners. Excluding weapons that are legal in all states would be an easy amendment. That or a specific class of weapons explicitly described would seem pretty straight forward. For example all non tactical, non automatic shotguns and rifles would seem to be a no brainer to me.

Quiet
11-14-2009, 9:16 AM
If you think about this law in particular it seems like lazy legislation. Since there are many state to state differences in the legality of weapons in reading this it seems like they just punted on getting it right and put the burden on gun owners. Excluding weapons that are legal in all states would be an easy amendment. That or a specific class of weapons explicitly described would seem pretty straight forward. For example all non tactical, non automatic shotguns and rifles would seem to be a no brainer to me.
Went into effect in 1968.
Was put into place to regulate interstate transfers of firearms, even though a bequest exemption was added, no gift exemption was enacted.

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 9:31 AM
Went into effect in 1968.
Was put into place to regulate interstate transfers of firearms, even though a bequest exemption was added, no gift exemption was enacted.

Well, to further my point just a little bit. At what point do you think an officer of the law(federal or state) would care about how a person obtained a weapon such as a remmington 870 pump shotgun with a 28" barrel that was plugged to only accept 3 rounds. For that matter take it one step futher a .410 single shot shotgun that has a 28" barrel.

Quiet
11-14-2009, 9:51 AM
Well, to further my point just a little bit. At what point do you think an officer of the law(federal or state) would care about how a person obtained a weapon such as a remmington 870 pump shotgun with a 28" barrel that was plugged to only accept 3 rounds. For that matter take it one step futher a .410 single shot shotgun that has a 28" barrel.

When it is stolen/used in a crime, they contact BATFE to have it traced and BATFE finds out it was originally transfered in one state & is now in another state.

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 10:20 AM
When it is stolen/used in a crime, they contact BATFE to have it traced and BATFE finds out it was originally transfered in one state & is now in another state.

I believe you have missed my point entirely.

If they are wasting man hours on origination of a shotgun of that nature no wonder the state is out of money. A perfect case in point would be any of the half dozen shotguns that I have owned since I was a kid. Purchased in Kansas in the early 70's I suspect there is no way I could ever prove how they wound up here in California. They went from Kansas to Arizona to Hawaii to Montana back to Arizona to California back to Arizona then back to California in the 30ish years I have owned them.

But back to why should they care. I could be wrong but I would suspect that the number of shotguns and rifles that are of the nature I described that get used in crimes are probably pretty low. I guess that legislation that is intended to make all gun owners jump through hoops just for the sake of jumping through hoops just seems ridiculous to me. Reworking the current laws to take a bit more common sense approach seems reasonable to me.

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 10:35 AM
but back on topic :) just have your dad loan you the gun until he passes:

(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person
for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

Librarian
11-14-2009, 10:55 AM
I guess that legislation that is intended to make all gun owners jump through hoops just for the sake of jumping through hoops just seems ridiculous to me. Reworking the current laws to take a bit more common sense approach seems reasonable to me.

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

Remember the law - Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968) - was finally passed (it was tried in various forms before) in 1968, substantially stimulated by the Kennedy and King assassinations.

What continues to fascinate me is that it's been in force over 40 years now, and many of its provisions are essentially unknown to the gun-buying public. Most of the less-known ones are simply impossible to reason to.

And that 18 USC 922 (a)(5)(b) loan thing? It works IN STATE - an interstate loan still runs afoul of the 'non-dealer cannot import' part in (a)(3).

Quiet
11-14-2009, 11:00 AM
If they are wasting man hours on origination of a shotgun of that nature no wonder the state is out of money.

It's not the state, it's the Feds (BATFE).
It's a Federal issue, the state does not care if you violate Federal laws.
If BATFE finds out, they will investigate (may take awhile, but it happens).

Not transfering an out-of-state firearm through a CA FFL dealer, equates to two Federal felonies. Person giving the firearm violates 18 USC 922(a)(5) and the person recieving the firearm violates 18 USC 922(a)(3).


18 USC 922
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business 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 of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 11:09 AM
It's not the state, it's the Feds (BATFE).
It's a Federal issue, the state does not care if you violate Federal laws.
If BATFE finds out, they will investigate (may take awhile, but it happens).

Not transfering an out-of-state firearm through a CA FFL dealer, equates to two Federal felonies. Person giving the firearm violates 18 USC 922(a)(5) and the person recieving the firearm violates 18 USC 922(a)(3).


Well my statement holds true for the fed too they are in a lot deeper debt than the state ;)

larryratcliff
11-14-2009, 11:27 AM
What continues to fascinate me is that it's been in force over 40 years now, and many of its provisions are essentially unknown to the gun-buying public. Most of the less-known ones are simply impossible to reason to.


I have owned guns since I was old enough to walk and to be completely honest reading this last night was the first I had ever heard of it. I have not been out shooting since I moved to California (either time ... seems difficult to find anywhere that you can actually hunt) and really have not had a need to purchase guns since I got most of what I have now when I was a kid and as stated in previous posts gifts from my dad. I actually don't think we purchased guns other than in Kansas or Arizona so that could be why I am completely oblivious. I always bought used guns for my dad out of the newspaper because he was into old revolvers and did not have much interest in new guns anyway.

A friend of mine at work is an active hunter and I decided to purchase a few newer guns and go out hunting with him.(What I own has enough sentimental value that I would rather they just stay shinned up in the gun rack and have some newer guns to bang around with) It has been a real eye opener as to how much red tape there is to buying a gun. I set out to buy a 9mm, newer .308 rifle, and a newer 12 gauge (just a cheap mossberg or remmington )that I would not care if it got a few scrapes etc... I guess at first I was kind of surprised that I could not look in the paper and just go buy them. After seeing how much additional red tape there is just boggles my mind. I guess I have not sent off enough to the NRA over the years since I am definitely ready to send some now.