PDA

View Full Version : Interstate Intrafamily Non-Rostered Handgun Transfer... Again


navyinrwanda
01-30-2010, 3:53 PM
I was making a first-time purchase at a (new to me) gun store yesterday. My conversation with the ex-LEO salesperson eventually turned to interstate intrafamilial gifts (between a biological parent and adult child) of non-rostered handguns.

I'd previously conducted these transactions by having my mother ship the handgun to a local FFL, enclosing a "gift letter" and a copy of her driver's license. This local FFL then DROSed it as an "Curio, Relic, Olympic or Exempt" handgun, and charged me a negotiated fee (not the statutory $35.00 for a in-state PPT).

But my new salesperson claimed that the only way that a non-rostered handgun could be transferred to a non-LEO was via a face-to-face PPT. He said that any other transaction (including a gift between a mother and son) would force them to enter the incoming firearm into their inventory, and the subsequent transfer would have to be processed as a dealer sale meaning that the handgun must appear on the roster.

But he then said that the "correct" and preferred method to facilitate an interstate intrafamilial gift was for my mother to visit me in California and bring the handgun with her. Upon arriving in California, she could then give the handgun to me as a gift with no involvement of an FFL. He claimed that Federal law allowed these transactions to proceed without an FFL, and California only required that a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-familial Handgun Transaction form be filed within within thirty days of the gift. If the gift was of a long gun, then it could proceed as an entirely private affair.

This, of course, sounded too good to be true.

So I went back and reread USC 44 922, and sure enough, there's no "intra-family" exception from the prohibition against interstate transfer of firearms by unlicensed persons. The only exception is for transfers that occur in settling estates. And simply transporting one's own firearm across state lines doesn't mean that state of residence changes.

So my question is: is there any "official" document that explains how an FLL should use the DROS system to process this type of transaction? Or maybe just something that elaborates further on what sort of transfers should be categorized as "Curio, Relic, Olympic or Exempt Transaction?"

ke6guj
01-30-2010, 3:58 PM
But he then said that the "correct" and preferred method to facilitate an interstate intrafamilial gift was for my mother to visit me in California and bring the handgun with her. Upon arriving in California, she could then give the handgun to me as a gift with no involvement of an FFL. He claimed that Federal law allowed these transactions to proceed without an FFL, and California only required that a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-familial Handgun Transaction form be filed within within thirty days of the gift. If the gift was of a long gun, then it could proceed as an entirely private affair.

This, of course, sounded too good to be true.

So I went back and reread USC 44 922, and sure enough, there's no "intra-family" exception from the prohibition against interstate transfer of firearms by unlicensed persons. The only exception is for transfers that occur in settling estates. And simply transporting one's own firearm across state lines doesn't mean that state of residence changes.

yup, that salesperson basically told you to violate federal law in order to comply with CA law.

So my question is: is there any "official" document that explains how an FLL should use the DROS system to process this type of transaction? Or maybe just something that elaborates further on what sort of transfers should be categorized as "Curio, Relic, Olympic or Exempt Transaction?"I haven't seen any.

wildhawker
01-30-2010, 4:11 PM
I think this isn't something DOJ wants to publish for obvious reasons. IFT, remote PPT, non-CA resident PPT... A tangled web we weave.

Cokebottle
01-30-2010, 4:25 PM
The salesperson was wrong on two accounts.

#1 - He told you to violate the law
#2 - "C&R/Olympic" is the correct exemption to use for the transaction, and it is correct that the FFL's regular transfer fee applies.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=137527

navyinrwanda
01-30-2010, 4:35 PM
The salesperson was wrong on two accounts.

#1 - He told you to violate the law
#2 - "C&R/Olympic" is the correct exemption to use for the transaction, and it is correct that the FFL's regular transfer fee applies.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=137527
Thanks I thought Bill had written specifically about this, but I couldn't find it.

I guess there's no hope of finding (or developing) something "more formal" to help with recalcitrant FFLs?

wildhawker
01-30-2010, 4:53 PM
This just hasn't floated up to the top since it's a relatively low-volume issue and there has been much activity with others. In the meantime, FFLs can contact CGF or we can take a printed copy of Bill's post to the FFL.

Cokebottle
01-30-2010, 6:00 PM
Bingo WH.

Sadly, fighting gunshop FUD is difficult. Their license is on the line, and when they believe they are right, and have believed that for 40 years, it's difficult to get them to see the light. They aren't going to be willing to listen to advice that someone got from the "intrawebs"... if it didn't come from the DOJ, they don't want to hear it.

A shop that I use for handgun purchases is like this. It's a good shop with a nice range and VERY helpful staff, but the owner has been insisting that CWS in Highland is selling illegal guns (though he does have an AR lower in his case... marked .22lr).
He KNOWS how often DOJ and BATF run audits.
Of course, long gun DROS won't raise any suspicion on the part of the DOJ because it doesn't contain any detailed information about the gun, but he should know that the first AR or AK pistol DROS would attract a lot of attention... and if not that, the first time an auditor walks into the store and sees 12ft of handguns in the case, but nothing else but "evil black rifles", they'd be shut down in a heartbeat.

Cokebottle
01-30-2010, 6:21 PM
He claimed that Federal law allowed these transactions to proceed without an FFL, and California only required that a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-familial Handgun Transaction form be filed within within thirty days of the gift. If the gift was of a long gun, then it could proceed as an entirely private affair.
BTW: The long gun intrafamilial transfer also must be reported.
There's no 10 day wait, but if you are a prohibited person, you can expect a letter/phone call informing you that you are not allowed to own a gun and must dispose of it/them immediately.

That's the whole "spooky" thing about the DROS process.
If you read where you sign, you are affirming that you are aware that if you are found to be prohibited, not only can you not get your new gun out of jail (for transfers subject to the 10 day waiting period), that you also must "dispose of" any other guns that you currently own.

With Napolitano going nuts over at DHS, lawmakers doing their best to add minor crimes to the prohibited list of misdemeanors, overzealous agencies going out of their way to arrest people for domestic violence, and restraining orders being damned near a matter of course for many divorces, you have to walk a very tight line on the right side of the law, and do your best to avoid serious disagreements with anyone who might be a little off their rocker to ensure that you don't end up on one of the prohibited lists.

I don't have a problem with stripping violent felons of some of their rights, or even misdemeanor convicts when the offense included misuse of a firearm against another person... But Theseus's prohibition is complete BS... as would have been David's had restraining orders been issued as a condition of his divorce.

But the main thing that scares me isn't that I will do something that may end up putting me on a prohibited list... it's the fear of being added to the list by an error, oversight, or just plain laziness on the part of a public worker because my name might happen to be the same as someone else who is on the list.
How many people get jacked up at the airport because they ended up on a "no fly" list? It's not a stretch.
So I went back and reread USC 44 922, and sure enough, there's no "intra-family" exception from the prohibition against interstate transfer of firearms by unlicensed persons.
Already addressed, but just to clarify, remember that the USC is Federal and state laws may be more restrictive.
BATF follows USC, not the CalPC... BATF doesn't give a damn about the roster, beyond the fact that they require transfers to follow the laws of both states involved.

So yes, you are correct... per 922, all interstate transfers (other than by bequest) require an FFL to be involved, and also require that the laws of both states involved be adhered to. If the involved states do not require an FFL for transfers, then only one FFL need be involved, normally on the receiver's end.

That's the whole point of the 03FFL program... it allows C&Rs to be shipped "person to person" without the involvement of a normal 01/07FFL, as the receiver being an 03FFL maintains compliance with 922.

Rhys898
02-14-2010, 12:20 AM
Having read this thread and BWiese' thread I have a couple questions.

I am inheriting 4 ruger single action revolvers from an uncle who passed away in Florida. My FFL recommended going the remote op-law transfer method by way of the executor sending the guns to him, then having me fill out the op-law paperwork.

1st question: Is this kosher?

2nd question: If it is kosher does the HSC requirement apply?

3rd question: If it is kosher does the 10 day wait apply?

4th question: If it is kosher does the 1 handgun per month apply?

I'm sorry if the questions seem dense but it's late and even after reading everything I couldn't quite wring the answers I was looking for out of what I had read.

Thanks in advance.
Jer

Cokebottle
02-14-2010, 12:29 AM
Edit: Removed incorrect information.

Librarian
02-14-2010, 12:30 AM
Having read this thread and BWiese' thread I have a couple questions.

I am inheriting 4 ruger single action revolvers from an uncle who passed away in Florida. My FFL recommended going the remote op-law transfer method by way of the executor sending the guns to him, then having me fill out the op-law paperwork.

1st question: Is this kosher?

2nd question: If it is kosher does the HSC requirement apply?

3rd question: If it is kosher does the 10 day wait apply?

4th question: If it is kosher does the 1 handgun per month apply?

I'm sorry if the questions seem dense but it's late and even after reading everything I couldn't quite wring the answers I was looking for out of what I had read.

Thanks in advance.
Jer

NO, not permitted.

The reason is that 'uncle' is not 'parent, child or grandparent'.

Feds say an FFL is not required for inheritance. Unfortunately, CA only lets that work for the 'parent, child or grandparent' group.

But it's a bit late for me; can't think of what should happen next.

halifax
02-14-2010, 4:26 AM
Having read this thread and BWiese' thread I have a couple questions.

I am inheriting 4 ruger single action revolvers from an uncle who passed away in Florida. My FFL recommended going the remote op-law transfer method by way of the executor sending the guns to him, then having me fill out the op-law paperwork.

1st question: Is this kosher?

2nd question: If it is kosher does the HSC requirement apply?

3rd question: If it is kosher does the 10 day wait apply?

4th question: If it is kosher does the 1 handgun per month apply?

I'm sorry if the questions seem dense but it's late and even after reading everything I couldn't quite wring the answers I was looking for out of what I had read.

Thanks in advance.
Jer

This quote is from a communication I had with with Bill:

...Note that bequest/inherited handguns are Roster-exempt. Bequest does not have to be a family member - "family" really means nothing except for the specific intrafamily xfers, and this is an "operation of law" situation.

Gun bequests/inheritance don't require FFL intervention - even for interstate transfer (one exception to FFL requirement criossing state lines). All that is needed is to not be a prohibited person, fill out an Op. Law form and pay fee - and to hold a valid HSC card if any inherited/bequested guns are handguns.

Regards, Bill

So, assuming Bill is correct (and I am):

Q1: YES

Q2: YES

Q3: NO

Q4: NO

Librarian
02-14-2010, 8:32 AM
Ah, there we go. Halifax has it. Do that.

Rhys898
02-14-2010, 8:54 AM
Thanks much guys.

bwiese
02-14-2010, 11:15 AM
Having read this thread and BWiese' thread I have a couple questions.

I am inheriting 4 ruger single action revolvers from an uncle who passed away in Florida. My FFL recommended going the remote op-law transfer method by way of the executor sending the guns to him, then having me fill out the op-law paperwork.


1st question: Is this kosher?YES - If you are indeed truly inheriting or being bequeathed the guns.

So that has to mean the supplying party is dead -- not "Uncle Bob is feeling not so limber, and wants to give you the guns now before he kicks the bucket."

Because it's an inheritance/bequest/etc. Fed law in 18 USC 922 has an exemption allowing avoidance of FFL use. These situations are just about the only way guns transfer across state lines between individuals without an FFL being used - there's no 'gift exemption' or 'intrafamily exemption' in Fed law, period.

Because the guns are handguns, CA requires you to file an Op Law form and $19 (per gun??? can't remember) fee. You must also have a valid HSC card (Handgun Safety Certificate) at time of taking possession. These latter two requirements are only relevant to handguns, not long guns. Long guns move paper-free.

2nd question: If it is kosher does the HSC requirement apply?
Yes. You need to have a valid HSC card at time of acquisition of the handguns. (It's not needed if you're just inheriting long guns.)

3rd question: If it is kosher does the 10 day wait apply?NO. Since these transfers don't require an FFL to receive, the 10 day wait does not apply.

4th question: If it is kosher does the 1 handgun per month apply?

NO. That's only new guns or guns from dealer inventory - PPT, OpLaw, lineal intrafamily transfer, etc are all immune from one-new-handgun-a-month, and handguns acquired thru such methods do not affect your regular 1-in-30 limit.


Now, for the practicalities:

You might have to pick up the guns yourself. It may be difficult for an individual, esp a nongunnie executor, to ship handguns to a non-FFL; UPS/FedEx etc may want to see an FFL address on the package's address label! (Maybe not, either.)

If that's the case, you might end up having to have them shipped to a CA FFL anyway. I did this when I was left a single-action revolver - too hard to ship to me directly from the decedent's executors so I just paid the FFL fees.

In your particular case, these are 12133PC-exempted dimensionally-complliant single-action revolvers so there would be no Roster issues. But even if the guns were nonexempt and nonRostered, the Roster does not apply to interstate transfers of intrafamily or inheritance/OpLaw-transferred handguns.

Cokebottle
02-14-2010, 12:53 PM
Ah, there we go. Halifax has it. Do that.
That's what I thought, but I trusted you ;)

No.. I'm not going to undo my edit :p

halifax
02-15-2010, 8:05 AM
From the horse's mouth. (Sorry Bill, no slight intended :))