PDA

View Full Version : INTRA-FAMILIAL HANDGUN TRANSACTION


Jakenmidas
08-16-2010, 10:11 AM
I appreciate and enjoy all of the information on CalGuns. Unfortunately, since I'm new at it, I'm having some difficulty navigating the system. My question is in regards to the transfer of a gun to a family member. Here's the details:

A new gun was purchased from a dealer in Colorado by my father.
The gun is NOT on the California roster (HK .45).
On my last visit to Colorado, my Father presented the gun to me as a GIFT.
I brought the gun to California, declaring the transportation in my checked bags on the airplane.
What do I need to do to LEGALLY own the gun as a resident of Los Angeles California?
Do I simply fill out the "Firearm Ownership Record" form posted on the DOJ website?
I've received conflicting advice and I while I want to legally register the gun in my name, I don't want to risk it being confiscated because it's not on the CA DOJ roster.
Please advise.
Thank you!

tommyid1
08-16-2010, 10:40 AM
I thought you had to have it transferee through an ffl

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

ke6guj
08-16-2010, 10:56 AM
ouch, looks like both you and your father violated federal law. it is a violation for him, a non-licensee, to transfer a firearm to a non-licensee of a different state. It is also a crime for you, a non-licensee, to acquire a firearm in another state and bring it back to your home state (with limited exemptions, which "Intra-family" is not one of them).

jtmkinsd
08-16-2010, 12:33 PM
You're fine, fill out the interfamily transfer form and enclose $19 dollars and mail it off. You did nothing wrong, that's exactly how interfamily transfers work.

ke6guj
08-16-2010, 1:11 PM
You're fine, fill out the interfamily transfer form and enclose $19 dollars and mail it off. You did nothing wrong, that's exactly how interfamily transfers work.that might satisfy CA, but it does not cover the federal violation. There is no federal intrafamily exemption to these regulations.

§ 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 §478.96(c) and

(c) Shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with the provisions of §§478.30 and 478.97.

[T.D. ATF–270, 53 FR 10493, Mar. 31, 1988]



§ 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.

[T.D. ATF–313, 56 FR 32508, July 17, 1991; 57 FR 1205, Jan. 10, 1992]
to satisfy federal law, it needs to go through an FFL in the recipient's state.

jtmkinsd
08-16-2010, 4:16 PM
That's not the information we have. In this transaction he was perfectly within the law. Do I as an FFL need to 4473 him and keep it in storage for 20 years when he has registered the firearm with the state? I don't have to DROS him

ke6guj
08-16-2010, 4:24 PM
Is the FFL in dad's state supposed to 4473 the son? An out-of-state resident?no, federal law required it to be 4473'd by an FFL in the recipient's state, in CA. In order to comply with federal law, the father would have needed to ship the handgun to a CA FFL to facilitate the transfer. Or, the father could hand deliver the handgun to the CA FFL.

A CO FFL couldn't 4473 it to a CA resident for a couple reasons. First is that it is a handgun, and you can't 4473 a handgun at an FFL other than one in your home state. If it was a long gun, federal law would allow the CO FFL to 4473 it to an out-of-state resident, provided that both states allowed for it. CA law does not allow for it, so even that option is not avialable. So, in order to comply with federal law, it has to go through a CA FFL.


That's not the information we have. In this transaction he was perfectly within the law. Do I as an FFL need to 4473 him and keep it in storage for 20 years when he has registered the firearm with the state? I don't have to DROS him

yes, you, as a CA FFL, would need to 4473 him (and store the paperwork for 20 years) in order for him to comply with federal law. At that point, I think you would be required to DROS him. At that point it would be registered to him, and there would be no need for him to send in the intrafamily form and the $19. that form is only need for intra-state intra-family transfers. Once it goes inter-state, there is no need for the form since the DROS covers the registration.


did you read the federal regulations I posted above? If you did, you'd see that both the father and the son violated federal law. Do you see an exemption for intrafamily transfers?

Yes, sending in the intrafamily form would satisfy CA law, but it does not fix the federal violation.

Malthusian
08-16-2010, 4:49 PM
You're fine, fill out the interfamily transfer form and enclose $19 dollars and mail it off. You did nothing wrong, that's exactly how interfamily transfers work.


All of the firearms dealers that I have questioned about intra family transfers
( 5 in total ) have given me the same exact answer

Their is so much FUD that I am sure most people "do" simply bring over the
firearm per their advice

ke6guj
08-16-2010, 4:52 PM
and even CADOJ has given the same wrong answer, scary isn't it?

Malthusian
08-16-2010, 5:56 PM
Here is how an out of State Intra Family transfer is supposed to work if you are a CA resident originally posted by Bill Wiese




You have to obey both Federal AND California laws. You cannot take possession of the gun in another state unless you are a resident of that state.

You generally cannot cross state lines to take possession of guns without use of an FFL to facilitate transfer. (Exceptions are for probate/inheritance.)

This gun HAS to go thru a CA FFL to keep the Feds/BATF happy, even though CA itself does not require it.

As such, you will need to find a coopeartive CA FFL that realizes intrafamily interstate transfers of non-Rostered handguns are legal.

1. Your folks ship the gun to your CA FFL. They should include a gift
letter saying, "I want my son Johnny to have this HK 45 pistol, serial#
12345. <signed> Mommy Gunnie"

2. You'll need to have a valid HSC card (Handgun Safety Certficate) -
$25 and a simple test on gun safety if you don't have one.

3. You DROS the HK45 at your CA FFL when it arives. Your FFL's DROS
computer screen will have a Roster area and in it he will fill it out
something like "12078PC intrafamily transfer - exempt from Roster".

4. He should keep a copy of the gift letter in his files along with your
4473/DROS paper just in case an auditor has a question - makes life
easy.

jtmkinsd
08-16-2010, 6:39 PM
Interestingly enough I was relying on DOJ for the opinion. The information I received was from them. He'll have to find a friendly FFL in the area who will hold the gun until a letter can be obtained from his father. Then transfer it as if it were shipped in.

Quiet
08-16-2010, 10:33 PM
Interestingly enough I was relying on DOJ for the opinion. The information I received was from them. He'll have to find a friendly FFL in the area who will hold the gun until a letter can be obtained from his father. Then transfer it as if it were shipped in.

CA DOJ only cares about CA state law.

They do not care about Federal laws.

If you ask them a question of law, they will answer it in regards to satisfying CA state law only.

kemasa
08-17-2010, 5:59 AM
I called the BATF and asked what needed to be done in this case and was a bit surprised about the response. I am still waiting for a call from another person at the BATF who I have talked to before and trust their answers.

First off, it is not legal to do the transfer without going through a FFL, but you can not undo what was done and any attempts to do so actually violates the law again.

I was told by a BATF supervisor that what needs to be done is for the person to complete the transfer as CA requires, which would be filling out the form. There was no issue with the transfer as long as the transfer does what CA requires, for reasons I do not understand unless the person I spoke with was not aware of the specific law in this case.

If the person were to bring the firearm to the FFL, the FFL could not list that it came from the father since it did not.

paul0660
08-17-2010, 6:36 AM
And Kemasa, it sounds like the BATF cares not that it was his father?

So go elsewhere, get a gun, file the form when you get back, keep head low until statute of limitations runs out, and breathe easy?

Thanks for communicating with BATF about this.

kemasa
08-17-2010, 7:28 AM
There is no Federal law regarding transfers between family members, so the fact that it came from his father does not matter. The main point was to deal with the proper procedures to ensure that the firearm is listed as being owner by him.

I do not understand why the person thought that there was no issue with the transfer itself, just that it had to ensure that the CA requirements were met. I can not explain that.

I took the BATF Citizen's Academy class, so I have some contacts there and also know a bit of how the BATF works. Part of the class is a desire to help build relationships with the BATF. I was a bit surprised at one person who spoke who was a big time gun person. For some reason prior to that I thought that most of the BATF was anti-gun.

jtmkinsd
08-17-2010, 9:34 AM
Something about this information sounds so very familiar...I think that's why I gave the advise I originally did. It may be the letter of the law, but ultimately BATF won't give any grief over family members transfering firearms. Also, in so many instances CA gun law trumps Federal laws nobody believes there's a Federal law out there that's more stringent

kemasa
08-17-2010, 9:47 AM
It is not the case of CA law "trumping" Federal law, as that does not happen. You have to follow the stricter law.

I think one of the reasons for the response is that there is nothing that the BATF can do about the transfer. If the firearm is transferred within a state, would Federal law really apply just because the person is a resident of another state? If the firearm was shipped, then it would cross state lines.

jtmkinsd
08-17-2010, 10:07 AM
I get the fact that the letter of the Federal law wasn't followed here and my statement of CA law trumping Fed law was meant in the context of CA laws being more restrictive than Federal law. We've gotten so used to CA laws going above and beyond Federal law that in this rare instance an assumption was made (with some bad guidance from DOJ) that an exemption for family existed when it didn't. Even, it seems, BATF wasn't all that interested in the actual breaking of Federal law, ultimately they are interested in keeping track of who owns the gun at present, which the intra-familial form will do for both state and federal.

kemasa
08-17-2010, 11:49 AM
The BATF does not want the law violated, but the problem in this case is what do about it. If you transfer the firearm back, then you are violating the law again (two wrongs don't make a right). It is not worth it to go after the person. They made is clear that the person should not do it again.

This is one case where CA has an exemption for family, whereas the Feds do not.