PDA

View Full Version : Selling handgun NOT registered to you


Lost
01-21-2010, 2:16 PM
I apologize if this has been covered before, my quick search on the subject didn't yield much and I wasn't sure what other terms to search under.

What are the legal issues with selling a handgun not registered to you?

Let's say you take your spouse's handgun without their knowledge and sell it at the pawn shop, and it is registered in their name. Are there any legal issues involved in this?

So far I've heard no, as it is "community property".

Then I heard it depended if the handgun was purchased prior to or during the marriage.

Anyone here have any solid/concrete knowledge on this scenario? Any info or links to documentation I can read up on is appreciated. Thanks all.

xxdabroxx
01-21-2010, 3:00 PM
Start here, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=260668

If you have already been there, then good on ya!

Might just give the DOJ BOF a call and see what their take on it is. I'm sure it is physically possible, and probably legal. So long as the transfer was done properly.

If the firearms are pistols that are registered to you, you may have some grounds to retrieve the sold items, but i doubt it would be fruitful

MasterYong
01-21-2010, 3:42 PM
Well, assuming the person that legally owns it KNOWS you've taken it to have it sold it's probably OK... I am not a lawyer though...

Weird question though.

Tarn_Helm
01-21-2010, 4:25 PM
I apologize if this has been covered before, my quick search on the subject didn't yield much and I wasn't sure what other terms to search under.

What are the legal issues with selling a handgun not registered to you?

Let's say you take your spouse's handgun without their knowledge and sell it at the pawn shop, and it is registered in their name. Are there any legal issues involved in this?

So far I've heard no, as it is "community property".

Then I heard it depended if the handgun was purchased prior to or during the marriage.

Anyone here have any solid/concrete knowledge on this scenario? Any info or links to documentation I can read up on is appreciated. Thanks all.

FYI: There is no such thing as "handgun registration" in CA.

In more direct response to your question, my advice is to read up for yourself by consulting some easy to read legal authority on the subject (click here (http://www.gunlawpress.com/), for a start).

Cautionary related observations (and some speculation, with no animosity or sarcasm toward OP intended):

People who speak as if the present system constitutes de facto registration are paving the way for de jure handgun registration.

If we ever end up with real "handgun registration" in CA, it will be because too many people spoke and wrote for too many years about our present system as if it actually constituted de facto registration.

In reality, the will have been the ones who created it by lulling the masses into an unjustified fatalistic mindset.

Apologies if this seems like a threadjacking, but battling real, de jure, handgun registration should remain a top legal priority for CA handgunners who believe we should have the fullest and freest right to exercise of the Second Amendment here in CA.

We have to stop talking as if CA already has "handgun registration," because when the day comes to oppose de jure handgun registration, there will already be millions of folks who will say, "Huh? I thought we already had handgun registration here!"

And those same folks will feel no urge to defeat an enemy by whom they had previously imagined themselves to be defeated.

Likely result of any real legislative push for de jure handgun registration: Easy victory because too many folks will believe we've always already been living under the legal yoke of handgun registration--"and it wasn't that bad was it? After all we all still had our guns, right?" :shrug:

. . . but . . .

[W]e know that it is the nature of power to seek its own augmentation, and thus the loss of liberty is the necessary consequence of a loose or extravagant delegation of authority. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s29.html)
~Founding Father Robert Whitehill, speaking at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention on November 28, 1787

. . . and . . .

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. (http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-quotes-5.html)"
~James Madison (speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 16 June 1788) Reference: Bartlett's Quotations (352)
:rant::beatdeadhorse5::banghead:

Sinestr
01-21-2010, 4:44 PM
FYI: There is no such thing as "handgun registration" in CA.

:

I was under the assumption handguns were registered at the time of DROS in CA, and rifles were not.

BIGCHRIS
01-21-2010, 4:49 PM
I was under the assumption handguns were registered at the time of DROS in CA, and rifles were not.

I was under the same assumption, but I could be wrong.

RideIcon
01-21-2010, 5:39 PM
as well was I

Librarian
01-21-2010, 5:45 PM
If the state

knows who you are
has your driver's license number
takes your fingerprint
takes the make and model of your handgun
during the DROs process, and then can track your address changes via the change of address associated with your driver's license, I submit that handgun is registered.

NorCalMama
01-21-2010, 5:46 PM
I was under the assumption handguns were registered at the time of DROS in CA, and rifles were not.

Unless the people I know who work at firearms division are totally wrong (and sadly, many times I've found they are) there is basically a registry.

Tarn_Helm
01-21-2010, 5:55 PM
I was under the assumption handguns were registered at the time of DROS in CA, and rifles were not.

People talk about what we have here in CA as if it is de jure handgun registration, but what we have here in CA is not de jure handgun registration.

What we have here in CA is not even de facto handgun registration.

This is handgun (purhcaser) registration: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey . . . and you can see all the other forms of "gradual and silent encroachments of those in power" here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29).

We merely record sales of guns.

That is definitely NOT registration.

The fact that one of the best known gun retailers in Southern CA labels its DROS file, "GUN REGISTRATION RECORDS," is simply a form of suicide for the cause of opposition to registration, because it makes people believe the battle is already lost when in fact it has not even been announced yet--much less fought.

EDIT:

Let's not play word games.

Let's define or at least give an example of "registration."

What we do with our cars here in CA is "registration."

What we do with our guns here in CA is not "registration" by comparison.

Real "registration" is more costly, more subject to restriction, and will be far more invasive than what we have now.

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison (speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 16 June 1788)

Sinestr
01-21-2010, 8:11 PM
People talk about what we have here in CA as if it is de jure handgun registration, but what we have here in CA is not de jure handgun registration.

What we have here in CA is not even de facto handgun registration.

This is handgun (purhcaser) registration: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey . . . and you can see all the other forms of "gradual and silent encroachments of those in power" here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29).

We merely record sales of guns.

That is definitely NOT registration.

The fact that one of the best known gun retailers in Southern CA labels its DROS file, "GUN REGISTRATION RECORDS," is simply a form of suicide for the cause of opposition to registration, because it makes people believe the battle is already lost when in fact it has not even been announced yet--much less fought.

EDIT:

Let's not play word games.

Let's define or at least give an example of "registration."

What we do with our cars here in CA is "registration."

What we do with our guns here in CA is not "registration" by comparison.

Real "registration" is more costly, more subject to restriction, and will be far more invasive than what we have now.

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison (speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 16 June 1788)

I understand your argument that we do not have what you feel is the technical sense of registration, and what other states like NJ have are much more restrictive. None the less CA keeps all of the pertinent information on handgun purchases and their owners, ie; address, thumb print, drivers license number etc on file. For long guns and shotguns the DOJ is required to destroy such information within five days. I think it's best not to kid ourselves into believing that our rights have not already been encroached upon in CA. The battle has already began here along time ago, lets not ignore what they already have regardless of it's title.

dantodd
01-21-2010, 8:22 PM
We do have handgun registration in CA.


When you bring in a handgun as a new resident you must report the fact to the State. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ab991frm.pdf

12082(b)(2) (2) Where a personal handgun importer is selling or transferring a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to comply with clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072, to allow a personal handgun importer's ownership of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person being sold or transferred to be recorded in a manner that if the firearm is returned to that personal handgun importer because the sale or transfer cannot be completed, the Department of Justice will have sufficient information about that personal handgun importer so that a record of his or her ownership can be maintained in the registry provided by subdivision (c) of Section 11106.

Now, I don't know about you but to me requiring "sufficient information... [to be] maintained in the registry" is handgun registration.

according to the Brady Campaign:
Record-Keeping
May police maintain gun sale records? Yes

California - State law authorizes law enforcement to keep a record of every handgun sold or transferred in the state, but the state does not keep any records on the sale of rifles or shotguns. The handgun sale records are maintained by state law enforcement for use in gun tracing and related criminal investigations. People who move into California with guns must provide a record to state law enforcement. Also see: Registration.

Sinestr
01-21-2010, 8:36 PM
We do have handgun registration in CA.


When you bring in a handgun as a new resident you must report the fact to the State. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ab991frm.pdf

12082(b)(2) (2) Where a personal handgun importer is selling or transferring a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to comply with clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072, to allow a personal handgun importer's ownership of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person being sold or transferred to be recorded in a manner that if the firearm is returned to that personal handgun importer because the sale or transfer cannot be completed, the Department of Justice will have sufficient information about that personal handgun importer so that a record of his or her ownership can be maintained in the registry provided by subdivision (c) of Section 11106.

Now, I don't know about you but to me requiring "sufficient information... [to be] maintained in the registry" is handgun registration.

according to the Brady Campaign:
Record-Keeping
May police maintain gun sale records? Yes

California - State law authorizes law enforcement to keep a record of every handgun sold or transferred in the state, but the state does not keep any records on the sale of rifles or shotguns. The handgun sale records are maintained by state law enforcement for use in gun tracing and related criminal investigations. People who move into California with guns must provide a record to state law enforcement. Also see: Registration.


+1 Agreed

Librarian
01-21-2010, 9:14 PM
Let's not play word games.

Let's define or at least give an example of "registration."

What we do with our cars here in CA is "registration."

What we do with our guns here in CA is not "registration" by comparison.

Real "registration" is more costly, more subject to restriction, and will be far more invasive than what we have now.



OK, let's not.

What, in your opinion, is the principal evil from registration?

Having stated that, what about California's DROS process is less enabling of that evil than the NJ example?

ap3572001
01-22-2010, 9:42 AM
Sorry fro jumping in. But , let me ask one related question. A short story first.

" A man buys a Revolver or a 1911 at local shop in Kansas, sometimes in the 50's. That gun was never reported stolen or was involved in crime. Over the years it was bought and sold betwen different people. Face to face. Now, in CA You happen to have a gin like that. In who's name is it ? Can You take it to a shop one day and sell it? Or PPT it to someone? What record of ownership does this gun have? And finaly , IF ASKED, DO YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU GOT IT?

bwiese
01-22-2010, 10:30 AM
" A man buys a Revolver or a 1911 at local shop in Kansas, sometimes in the 50's. That gun was never reported stolen nor was involved in crime. Over the years it was bought and sold betwen different people. Face to face.

Now, in CA you happen to have a gun like that.

Q. In whose name is it?
A. THE RECORD IS JUST OUTDATED. IT'S *YOUR" GUN IN "YOUR" NAME. PERIOD. THE FACT ITS HISTORY HAS PERIODS OF ONE OR MORE UNRECORDED LEGAL TRANSFERS IS IRRELEVANT. YOU ACQUIRED IT AND POSSESSED IT LEGALLY, SO THERE'S NO OTHER ISSUES.

Q. Can You take it to a shop one day and sell it?
A. YES (Roster considerations apply, CA FFLs don't wanna end up with unsellable nonRostered handguns in their inventory.)

Q. Or PPT it to someone?
A. YES (Roster considerations don't apply; PPTs = handgun Roster exempt).

Q. What record of ownership does this gun have?
A. A non-updated one. There may be an old 4473, and any tracing has to take investigators from owner to owner starting there. If that gun was old enough and moved around quite a bit between states, there could be segments in its lifespan where it was papered, but then was legally paper-free transfered subsequently.

Remember, inherited/bequested guns can cross state lines without FFL transfer and if the states have no paperwork requirements that gun is starting down the unpapered path legally. (In CA inherited handguns are required to be registered with the Op Law form + $19 fee, and
new owner must have a valid HSC card.

Q. IF ASKED, DO YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN HOW YOU GOT IT?
A. NOT REALLY. IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT A FORM (PPT) THERE MAY BE SOME BLANKS TO FILL OUT (CAN'T REMEMBER). NOBODY WILL FREAK OUT. ALWAYS ANSWER TRUTHFULLY TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON FORMS.

IF ANYONE ELSE ASKS, F**K'EM, REFER THEM TO A LAWYER.


Muitlple millions of guns - rifles and handguns - in California have no or outdated paper on them. Up until 1991, paper-free transfers were allowed even in California. Up until 1998, people moving into CA did not have to register the handguns they moved in with. And if I recall correctly, DOJ's former head, Randy Rossi, estimated in 2004 that only a fraction of handguns in CA were papered to their owners. (That fraction will increase as new sales and papered transfers, etc. start outpacing older unpapered ownership.)

Lost
01-23-2010, 11:34 AM
Wow! Thanks for the link!

I am sorry this thread turned into a pissing match, but there is some good info put forth! Thanks a bunch guys and gals! This is a great read, whatever your thoughts on registration. ;)

Mr. Beretta
01-23-2010, 9:53 PM
Let's say you take your spouse's handgun without their knowledge and sell it at the pawn shop, and it is registered in their name. Are there any legal issues involved in this?

So far I've heard no, as it is "community property".

With all due respect, I say you just stole that handgun! It didn't belong to you! Try selling a vehicle that has just the husband's or wife's name on the DMV paperwork. You can't do it unless you have the lawful, legal owner's expressed permission and can prove it!

"without their knowledge" = no permission.

How can you sell anything that doesn't belong to you? And the "community property" reasoning doesn't wash. Just because two people are married, all property, isn't owned by both. For example, an inheritance isn't "community property".

I say you just stole that gun!

pullnshoot25
01-23-2010, 10:27 PM
It is legal to sell another's handgun. I have done it several times myself.

bruss01
01-24-2010, 9:37 AM
I see both sides here.

Basically, if you purchase a handgun in CA or bring a handgun into the state when you move into CA, that handgun must be "registered". By law you must advise BOF of your ownership, in CA, of that handgun.

If you possess a handgun which you have owned in CA since the 80's, you do not have to run out and "register" it. You can continue to own it and not have to do any paperwork to continue to own it. That is what is meant by a legitimately "unregistered" handgun.

The code does make a distinction, for instance, if you are caught concealed carrying a handgun, regardless if you are the legitimate owner, if it is registered in your name then they can cut you a break and let you off with a misdemeanor, otherwise you just bought a felony.

davescz
01-24-2010, 10:30 AM
People talk about what we have here in CA as if it is de jure handgun registration, but what we have here in CA is not de jure handgun registration.

What we have here in CA is not even de facto handgun registration.

This is handgun (purhcaser) registration: http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/njac-title13-ch54.pdf and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#New_J ersey . . . and you can see all the other forms of "gradual and silent encroachments of those in power" here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29).

We merely record sales of guns.

That is definitely NOT registration.

The fact that one of the best known gun retailers in Southern CA labels its DROS file, "GUN REGISTRATION RECORDS," is simply a form of suicide for the cause of opposition to registration, because it makes people believe the battle is already lost when in fact it has not even been announced yet--much less fought.

EDIT:

Let's not play word games.

Let's define or at least give an example of "registration."

What we do with our cars here in CA is "registration."

What we do with our guns here in CA is not "registration" by comparison.

Real "registration" is more costly, more subject to restriction, and will be far more invasive than what we have now.

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison (speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 16 June 1788)

seems like registration to me, I buy a gun they get the serial number and my name, and I am not allowed to sell it with out telling them.

Lost
01-25-2010, 6:45 AM
With all due respect, I say you just stole that handgun! It didn't belong to you! Try selling a vehicle that has just the husband's or wife's name on the DMV paperwork. You can't do it unless you have the lawful, legal owner's expressed permission and can prove it!

"without their knowledge" = no permission.

How can you sell anything that doesn't belong to you? And the "community property" reasoning doesn't wash. Just because two people are married, all property, isn't owned by both. For example, an inheritance isn't "community property".

I say you just stole that gun!


I already tried filing a theft report, local PD are the ones that said it was community property and a legit sale, even though selling it violated a court mandated restraining order from selling any community property.

With all due respect to those LEOs on here, I posted the question here because many LEOs are just as ignorant on gun laws as I am on most penal codes. :D I was hoping there was documentation someplace where I could push the issue again. Oh well.

And in case anyone is wondering, the handgun is back where it should be (but the ammunition is not), no thanks to the hassle from the pawn shop (and we didn't even try to get it back for free).