PDA

View Full Version : Indirect Intrafamiliar transfer


BlindRacer
07-28-2010, 11:08 AM
Basically, my Father-in-law wants to give me a gun.

However, he is my wifes step father....but never adopted. So, he's technically my wife's, mom's, husband.


So how would we go about this? If he were to give it to his wife, and then, his wife (my wife's mom) were to intrafamiliar transfer it to my wife, would that work? Is this kind of a straw man type of thing? There's nothing illegal trying to happen...he's basically my dad, and wants to give me a gun (handgun).

Let me know what legal means I need to go through, and if it's hopefully the one $19 dollar fee for intrafamilar transfer.

bwiese
07-28-2010, 11:21 AM
The best way: if you and father-in-law are both in CA, meet at an FFL and just do a PPT. No Roster restrictions, etc.

If you're trying to avoid FFL use to save a buck and/or bypass Roster, that's a whole nuther thing.... I don't have the PC handy, but there's a "gotcha" statue that in essence says you're not supposed to "structure" a transaction thru alternate pathways if the person cannot directly buy it.

If an individual were to tire of a given gun and later resell or give it to someone else in an authorized lineal relationship (say, you) legally, that's OK. But having it hop up & down the line for a series of multiple short stints would be seen as "not good".

[The above does not apply if the parties are out of state and an eligible lineal family member - say, your dad in AZ - wants to give you a handgun thru interstate intrafamilial xfer. The above also does NOT apply to single-shot/non-AW conversions etc. performed out state.]

BlindRacer
07-28-2010, 11:29 AM
Isn't the gun joint owned by my wife's mom and her husband? And wouldn't a single transfer from her to my wife by all fine and good? I don't care if it's registered in my name or not.

And he's in Cali, so...

Ed_Hazard
07-28-2010, 11:35 AM
The PPT from your in-law to you would be the quickest neatest way. The other way you run a risk for saving a few bucks.

bwiese
07-28-2010, 11:38 AM
Isn't the gun joint owned by my wife's mom and her husband? And wouldn't a single transfer from her to my wife by all fine and good?

You may have found an exception.

BlindRacer
07-28-2010, 11:46 AM
So just have my wife's mom transfer it to my wife on the paperwork, send the check and be done with it? I guess if for some reason it's not accepted, they would notify me/my wife.

CABilly
07-28-2010, 11:54 AM
If it's going to go to your wife first, make sure she has her HSC.

And I don't know about the joint property thing. In theory, it should be. But, who is it registered to (if it is registered, that is)?

BlindRacer
07-28-2010, 12:19 PM
Yes she does have her HSC. And it is registered...don't know if it's specific to my father in law (or both he and his wife) though.


That's another question. What is the legality of non registered handguns and transferring them within family.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-28-2010, 7:30 PM
...That's another question. What is the legality of non registered handguns and transferring them within family.

A firearm's current registration status has zero effect on the rules pertaining to transfer in California. Transfer of an unregistered firearm has to follow the same procedure as transfer of a registered firearm.

GrizzlyGuy
07-29-2010, 11:49 AM
Yes she does have her HSC. And it is registered...don't know if it's specific to my father in law (or both he and his wife) though.


Who it is currently registered to is an important detail. If it is registered to the mother of your wife, it can be an intrafamiliar transfer from her to your wife. If it is registered to your wife's step-father, that would be a PPT transfer whether it was transferred to your wife or to you.

That's another question. What is the legality of non registered handguns and transferring them within family.

In this new scenario that you describe, the fact that the handgun is not registered is a non-issue. However, it does need to be registered by the person receiving it, whether intrafamilial or not.

See the wiki here for more info on both of your questions:

Transferring Firearms Among Some Family Members (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members)

andalusi
07-29-2010, 12:14 PM
Isn't the gun joint owned by my wife's mom and her husband?

In what sense?

In the event of a divorce, the gun *might* be considered community property (depends on when and how your FIL acquired it).

In the event of his death (God forbid), assuming there is no will directing the disposition of the handgun, then your MIL would have a one-third share in its value, but not necessarily any specific claim to the handgun itself.

But as it stands now, no, your FIL is the registered and legal owner of the handgun. He can lend the handgun to your MIL and he can legally transfer it to her very easily, but in no way is it joint property.

paul0660
07-29-2010, 1:25 PM
there's a "gotcha" statue that in essence says you're not supposed to "structure" a transaction thru alternate pathways if the person cannot directly buy it.

I don't remember a statute like that, and since an 18 year old can be gifted a handgun, and cannot buy one, I wonder if one exists.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-29-2010, 8:50 PM
I don't remember a statute like that, and since an 18 year old can be gifted a handgun, and cannot buy one, I wonder if one exists.

I think Bill might have been referring to the California law that says you can't use a series of FFL-exempt transfers to transfer a firearm between two people who are not eligible for an FFL-exempt transfer.

For instance, it is perfectly legal for you to give a rifle to your father without going through a PPT at a dealer. It is also perfectly legal for your father to give a rifle to your brother without going through a PPT at a dealer. But it is illegal for you to give a rifle to your father with the intent that he will then turn around and give it to your brother so that you and your brother can avoid doing a PPT at a dealer. (The above example supposes that all parties involved are California residents).

dantodd
07-29-2010, 8:55 PM
If the handgun is his, he would need to OpLaw it to his wife before she can give it to her daughter.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#21

Mssr. Eleganté
07-29-2010, 9:05 PM
If the handgun is his, he would need to OpLaw it to his wife before she can give it to her daughter.

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#21

Right. Which means two $19 fees, for a total cost of $38 instead of $35 for a PPT at a dealer.

dantodd
07-29-2010, 9:07 PM
Right. Which means two $19 fees, for a total cost of $38 instead of $35 for a PPT at a dealer.

If her parents live half way (or all the way) across the state it might be an option.

dantodd
07-29-2010, 9:08 PM
I think Bill might have been referring to the California law that says you can't use a series of FFL-exempt transfers to transfer a firearm between two people who are not eligible for an FFL-exempt transfer.

Can you give me the PC on that so I can read it? Thanks.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-29-2010, 9:12 PM
Can you give me the PC on that so I can read it? Thanks.

It's Penal Code Section 12072(a) (4) and (5)...

CPC §12072(a)

(4) No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to any person whom he or she knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to any person who is not the person actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(A) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently loaned, sold, or transferred to avoid the provisions of subdivision (c) or (d).
(B) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently loaned, sold, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of subdivision (c) or (d).
(5) No person, corporation, or dealer shall acquire a firearm for the purpose of selling, transferring, or loaning the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(A) In the case of a dealer, intent to violate subdivision (b) or (c).
(B) In any other case, intent to avoid either of the following:
(i) The provisions of subdivision (d).
(ii) The requirements of any exemption to the provisions of subdivision (d).

When it refers to "the provisions of subdivision (d)" it is talking about the requirement that PPTs go through a California licensed dealer.

dantodd
07-29-2010, 9:17 PM
It's Penal Code Section 12072(a) (4) and (5)...



When it refers to "the provisions of subdivision (d)" it is talking about the requirement that PPTs go through a California licensed dealer.

Thanks.