View Full Version : Paperless C&R Long Rifle Xfer

03-31-2010, 3:21 PM
Under CA law you can conduct a paperless transaction / sale of a rifle older than 50 years.



Penal Code section 12078(t)(2) exempts the infrequent transfer of rifles or shotguns that are both "curios or relics" and that are at least 50 years old from the requirements of Penal Code section 12072(d).

Specifically, Section 12078 (t)(2) exemption provides that:

Subdivision (d) of Section 12072 shall not apply to the infrequent sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm that is not a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, which is a curio or relic manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof, as defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Thus, a rifle or shotgun (i.e. firearm that is not a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed) that is a "curio or relic" at least 50 years old may, on an infrequent basis, be transferred from a federally licensed dealer to a "licensed collector," and between private parties without going through a California licensed dealer.

What is your liability in this? It seems to me it would be difficult if not impossible w/o DROS to verify that the buyer is an eligible adult.

What do Calgunners do? If you're is selling an old Mosin do you conduct through an FFL anyways or just hope for the best and trust that if they're on Calguns they legally own other firearms?

Anyone know the consequences for unknowingly selling a firearm to a felon?

03-31-2010, 3:32 PM
PC 26 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/26.html) provides a bit of cover as it basically says that you didn't commit a crime if you had no intent to commit one, or did so by mistake when there was no negligence:

All persons are capable of committing crimes except those
belonging to the following classes:
One--Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof
that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they
knew its wrongfulness.
Two--Persons who are mentally incapacitated.
Three--Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged
under an ignorance or mistake of fact, which disproves any criminal
Four--Persons who committed the act charged without being
conscious thereof.
Five--Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged
through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was no
evil design, intention, or culpable negligence.
Six--Persons (unless the crime be punishable with death) who
committed the act or made the omission charged under threats or
menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did
believe their lives would be endangered if they refused.

That doesn't mean that you can play see/hear/speak-no-evil. But if you asked and the buyer told you he was not prohibited from purchasing/possessing firearms, and you had no other reason to believe that he was prohibited, then one of the above would seem to apply.

03-31-2010, 4:10 PM
Just ask them plainly if they are a person prohibited from being in possession of firearms. If they say no, then you've done your due diligence and I'd leave it at that. This is how I've done it in the past and will continue to do it. I'm under no obligation to do anything more than that.

03-31-2010, 5:34 PM
Excellent! Thanks for the help, guys.