PDA

View Full Version : Family transfer from another state question


JazzFan
04-30-2011, 6:45 AM
If my Dad drives from another state to visit me, can he bring an off roster handgun to CA to give to me as a gift? Or if I drive to his house, can I bring a gifted handgun back with me to register here? Thanks.

morrcarr67
04-30-2011, 6:53 AM
Hey can bring it to you.

You can not go and get it.

Once he is here you both must go to a LGS and do a transfer there. Make sure the LGS knows that this is a gift from your father so they can do the paperwork right.

Oceanbob
04-30-2011, 6:57 AM
Yes, your Dad can drive here with your gift; then has to be with you at your local FFL for the family gift exemption transfer. 10 day wait all the usual stuff.

He will have to write a note with a copy of his out of State Drivers License for the FFL's records.

The note should say something like this:

I want my Son David Smith to have my HK P30; serial number 294366

Signed Dad..date etc...

Other options include your Dad just Fed ex or UPS (Never the post office)
the weapon directly to your FFL...enclosed with the P30 will be the Note gifting the weapon to you. The FFL can then do the Interfamialial (sp..waiting for coffee now)..transfer and the usual 10 day wait..etc. You have to use an FFL that will accept direct shipments. Some will, some won't.

You cannot bring the weapon home from out of State. So that would be a
No.

FFLs can charge more for this ($75 etc). Be aware...best to call around and find an FFL that is:

1. Familiar with this exemption and transfer procedure
2. will accept guns sent directly from private partys.

Good luck
Bob

JazzFan
04-30-2011, 7:05 AM
Yes, your Dad can drive here with your gift; then has to be with you at your local FFL for the family gift exemption transfer. 10 day wait all the usual stuff.

He will have to write a note with a copy of his out of State Drivers License for the FFL's records.

The note should say something like this:

I want my Son David Smith to have my HK P30; serial number 294366

Signed Dad..date etc...

Other options include your Dad just Fed ex or UPS (Never the post office)
the weapon directly to your FFL...enclosed with the P30 will be the Note gifting the weapon to you. The FFL can then do the Interfamialial (sp..waiting for coffee now)..transfer and the usual 10 day wait..etc. You have to use an FFL that will accept direct shipments. Some will, some won't.

You cannot bring the weapon home from out of State. So that would be a
No.

FFLs can charge more for this ($75 etc). Be aware...best to call around and find an FFL that is:

1. Familiar with this exemption and transfer procedure
2. will accept guns sent directly from private partys.

Good luck
Bob

Great info! Thanks! Maybe I should convince him to do two off roster transfers to make it more worth our time

morrcarr67
04-30-2011, 7:08 AM
Great info! Thanks! Maybe I should convince him to do two off roster transfers to make it more worth our time

Maybe 3 or 4 would be better. Remember not all off roster guns are new. There are some great used guns out there you could get.

When my sister moves home from MO next year she will be bringing me about 7 or 8 off roster guns and frames.

JazzFan
05-21-2011, 12:07 PM
Yes, your Dad can drive here with your gift; then has to be with you at your local FFL for the family gift exemption transfer. 10 day wait all the usual stuff.

He will have to write a note with a copy of his out of State Drivers License for the FFL's records.

The note should say something like this:

I want my Son David Smith to have my HK P30; serial number 294366

Signed Dad..date etc...

Other options include your Dad just Fed ex or UPS (Never the post office)
the weapon directly to your FFL...enclosed with the P30 will be the Note gifting the weapon to you. The FFL can then do the Interfamialial (sp..waiting for coffee now)..transfer and the usual 10 day wait..etc. You have to use an FFL that will accept direct shipments. Some will, some won't.

You cannot bring the weapon home from out of State. So that would be a
No.

FFLs can charge more for this ($75 etc). Be aware...best to call around and find an FFL that is:

1. Familiar with this exemption and transfer procedure
2. will accept guns sent directly from private partys.

Good luck
Bob

I went to my FFL to talk about having my dad send them the off roster handgun he is gifting to me. My FFL said he'd never done one and wasn't usre how to do the paperwork. What form does he use? Anyone know? Below is the most information I could find at calgunsfoundation. Help needed...

INTERSTATE transfers are generally NOT FFL-free, because Federal law says so. So, out of state family members MAY transfer guns to family living in California, but almost always must use the services of a CA-licensed, in-California FFL -- the 'OPLAW' form does not work for INTERSTATE transfer.

morrcarr67
05-21-2011, 12:27 PM
I went to my FFL to talk about having my dad send them the off roster handgun he is gifting to me. My FFL said he'd never done one and wasn't usre how to do the paperwork. What form does he use? Anyone know? Below is the most information I could find at calgunsfoundation. Help needed...

INTERSTATE transfers are generally NOT FFL-free, because Federal law says so. So, out of state family members MAY transfer guns to family living in California, but almost always must use the services of a CA-licensed, in-California FFL -- the 'OPLAW' form does not work for INTERSTATE transfer.

Someone else might come along and correct me but I believe this is how it's done:

When the FFL is filling out the DROS form he will choose the type of weapon as being exempt. He will also list it as being a gift from your parent.

All other entry's are the same.

Librarian
05-21-2011, 12:35 PM
It's the regular computer-based DROS - no special paperwork.

Not having access to the software, I can't be more specific.

If you'll tell us where you are, perhaps someone can point to an FFL in your area who is already familiar with this kind of transaction.

JazzFan
05-21-2011, 1:29 PM
It's the regular computer-based DROS - no special paperwork.

Not having access to the software, I can't be more specific.

If you'll tell us where you are, perhaps someone can point to an FFL in your area who is already familiar with this kind of transaction.

I am in Bakersfield. Anyone know of a FFL that knows how to do the transfer?

RoadKing
05-21-2011, 2:04 PM
I just finished doing a search and lots of reading on Calguns for this topic. Read thru this thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=245735

If that link doesn't work ( first time trying to post a link using my phone) the name of the thread is

"need CA FFLs that'll handle interstate intrafamily transfers of nonRostered handguns"

Should answer all your questions and it lists a bunch of LGS's that will do the transfer


morrcarr67
05-21-2011, 2:39 PM
I just finished doing a search and lots of reading on Calguns for this topic. Read thru this thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=245735

If that link doesn't work ( first time trying to post a link using my phone) the name of the thread is

"need CA FFLs that'll handle interstate intrafamily transfers of nonRostered handguns"

Should answer all your questions and it lists a bunch of LGS's that will do the transfer



That is a great link This is post number six from that thread. Read this and print it out for your FFL to read.

The first one I did a couple of years ago went like this:

Father in TX wanted to give his son in CA a couple of handguns his father had given him.

Called DOJ and talked with an agent at the Firearms Division (now BOF). The agent walked me through it.

Get a letter from the father explaining the circumstances.

Use the Curio/Relic/Olympic Pistol/Exempt section.

Type "SB15 Exempt" in the comments box.

Save all documentation.

Simple as that.

These handguns did come through a TX FFL because the father didn't want to deal with the shipping.

I was close. But, I'm glad you came along with better info.

Someone else might come along and correct me but I believe this is how it's done:

When the FFL is filling out the DROS form he will choose the type of weapon as being exempt. He will also list it as being a gift from your parent.

All other entry's are the same.

beb1954
05-29-2011, 4:27 PM
What is the deal for someone that receives a gift gun, off list, gets it DROS"d etc. but then decides he wants to sell it? Is it considered an off list PPT after that and is legal for resale to another here?????

Mssr. Eleganté
05-29-2011, 4:35 PM
What is the deal for someone that receives a gift gun, off list, gets it DROS"d etc. but then decides he wants to sell it? Is it considered an off list PPT after that and is legal for resale to another here?????

"Off list" generally means you are talking about the Roberti-Roos or SB23 assault weapons lists.

Are you talking about an off roster handgun? Off roster handguns are perfectly legal to PPT between Californians. PPT transfers are exempt from the roster. It doesn't matter if the handgun was originally received in a roster exempt gift transfer.

beb1954
05-29-2011, 5:23 PM
That is what I was questioning exactly. If a gun came into the state as a gift, but then the person that received the 'gift' decided that they wanted to move it along for something else or for whatever reason, if that gun would be legal to sell in a ppt here to another party OTHER THAN A LEO.

Cyc Wid It
05-29-2011, 5:25 PM
All off roster guns are legal to sell as PPT as long as they are not AW, I don't follow...

beb1954
05-29-2011, 6:04 PM
Guys,...... all I was asking is if the was some type of exemption on the exemptions from this sxxk ***** state.... that's all.
I would not put it past the politicians to pass a law that would make a gun that has come into the state as a gift exempt from being reregistered again in THIS state. That's all... My q was answered, thank you...

4D5auto
05-31-2011, 2:42 PM
So, this Intra-Familial Transfer is only between Patent/Child and Vise Versa? No sibiling to sibiling?

Librarian
05-31-2011, 3:22 PM
So, this Intra-Familial Transfer is only between Patent/Child and Vise Versa? No sibiling to sibiling?

Correct - directly up or down, no sideways.

See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

4D5auto
05-31-2011, 4:04 PM
Got it. Thanks

Markus
05-31-2011, 4:39 PM
However if your parent is still alive your sibling can transfer the gun to them and then to you. I was thinking I could get a couple cheap guns from my brother in tx but realized the cheapfactor goes out the window when you add $150 to $200 in shipping and transfer fees.

morrcarr67
05-31-2011, 5:47 PM
However if your parent is still alive your sibling can transfer the gun to them and then to you. I was thinking I could get a couple cheap guns from my brother in tx but realized the cheapfactor goes out the window when you add $150 to $200 in shipping and transfer fees.

Remember that those fees would only be from Bro to Dad not Dad to you. Talk to your FFL about a bulk transfer rate.

jeep7081
05-31-2011, 7:36 PM
However if your parent is still alive your sibling can transfer the gun to them and then to you. I was thinking I could get a couple cheap guns from my brother in tx but realized the cheapfactor goes out the window when you add $150 to $200 in shipping and transfer fees.

I might have saw your post on another forum...

dachan
05-31-2011, 7:43 PM
Maybe 3 or 4 would be better. Remember not all off roster guns are new. There are some great used guns out there you could get.

When my sister moves home from MO next year she will be bringing me about 7 or 8 off roster guns and frames.

From your other posts, you seem to know what to do, so I assume these 7 or 8 guns are going to a parent then to you. Remember, interfamilia is straight up and down the bloodline only.

morrcarr67
05-31-2011, 7:51 PM
From your other posts, you seem to know what to do, so I assume these 7 or 8 guns are going to a parent then to you. Remember, interfamilia is straight up and down the bloodline only.

Yup. Sister is giving them to our Mom and then she will give them to me. Two $19 dollar oplaw forms and we are good.

But even if Mom isn't here then its still all good. As a personal gun importer she would still be able to "sell" them to me. I would just have to pay a fee for each one.

Markus
05-31-2011, 8:03 PM
I might have saw your post on another forum...

It would here on calguns. I don't post on other gun forums.

4D5auto
05-31-2011, 8:18 PM
The form states $19.00 for one or more transfers and to attach additional paper work if more than the form provides. Are you implying $19.00 for every form or attachment sent in?

Librarian
05-31-2011, 8:36 PM
The form states $19.00 for one or more transfers and to attach additional paper work if more than the form provides. Are you implying $19.00 for every form or attachment sent in?

OPLAW form is 1 check for $19 - total, $19 - for as many handguns as you care to list at one time.

If at some different date you transfer another one or group, again it would be $19 total.

Markus
05-31-2011, 9:08 PM
I didn't mean it like that. But, it was another forum and maybe not you then. Same question though.

I di ask the same question here on calguns a little while ago my thinking was $19 to transfer to my dad and $19 to transfer to me so $3 extra to get an off roster gun not bad but of course it doesn't work like that.

4D5auto
05-31-2011, 11:36 PM
OPLAW form is 1 check for $19 - total, $19 - for as many handguns as you care to list at one time.

If at some different date you transfer another one or group, again it would be $19 total.

That's what I thought, thanks

OK, don't laugh, but you probably will, what is OPLAW, I tried to look for it, but my puter skills aren't that great. It's hard to teach an old dog..

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 8:20 AM
That's what I thought, thanks

OK, don't laugh, but you probably will, what is OPLAW, I tried to look for it, but my puter skills aren't that great. It's hard to teach an old dog..

It means Operation of Law. They first used this form to take care of guns being transferred from an Estate.

Librarian
06-01-2011, 11:11 AM
That's what I thought, thanks

OK, don't laugh, but you probably will, what is OPLAW, I tried to look for it, but my puter skills aren't that great. It's hard to teach an old dog..

It means Operation of Law. They first used this form to take care of guns being transferred from an Estate.

The form is a PDF at this link: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf ; 1 page of form, 1 of instructions.

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 12:40 PM
The form is a PDF at this link: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf ; 1 page of form, 1 of instructions.

Was I wrong with my answer to his question as to what OPLAW means?

glock_this
06-01-2011, 12:49 PM
Many, many years ago, I brought back (on a plane - checked of course) a pistol that was gifted to me from my father, I called the DOj (having not been a member here) to get info and was provided a form which I filled out - "Notice of Firearm Reg For Firearms Acquired by Operation of Law"- sent it in to DOJ with like $14, and I received a letter from the DOJ that the pistol was now registered to me. No FFL, no wait, no DROS, no fees - but the $14 :eek:

Librarian
06-01-2011, 1:30 PM
Was I wrong with my answer to his question as to what OPLAW means?

No, not at all - I just pointed him to the place to get it.

Librarian
06-01-2011, 1:32 PM
Many, many years ago, I brought back (on a plane - checked of course) a pistol that was gifted to me from my father, I called the DOj (having not been a member here) to get info and was provided a form which I filled out - "Notice of Firearm Reg For Firearms Acquired by Operation of Law"- sent it in to DOJ with like $14, and I received a letter from the DOJ that the pistol was now registered to me. No FFL, no wait, no DROS, no fees - but the $14 :eek:

As often seems to be the case when calling CA-DOJ, they are not up to speed on Federal law on interstate transfers; evidently, that has been the case for at least since 'many, many years ago'. That would have been a violation from 1969 forward.

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 1:33 PM
Many, many years ago, I brought back (on a plane - checked of course) a pistol that was gifted to me from my father, I called the DOj (having not been a member here) to get info and was provided a form which I filled out - "Notice of Firearm Reg For Firearms Acquired by Operation of Law"- sent it in to DOJ with like $14, and I received a letter from the DOJ that the pistol was now registered to me. No FFL, no wait, no DROS, no fees - but the $14 :eek:

Many, many years ago you broke a federal law. And, now you have publicly told everyone.

4D5auto
06-01-2011, 1:38 PM
Thanks guys!

Just learned something new today from a local gun shop owner. He does quite a bit of transfers of different types. I've been informed that you can transfer among siblings out of state, so long as it isn't prohibited in the state it's being transferred from and you personally pick it up and bring it into CA. No FFL go between in CA.

Now, How much flak will I hear about this??

glock_this
06-01-2011, 1:47 PM
Many, many years ago you broke a federal law. And, now you have publicly told everyone.

oh please :rolleyes: .... was waiting for a guy like you to pipe in something like that, knew it was just a matter of time.

I called, I got the form they said, I filled out the form and paid the fee AND have the DOJ letter, attached with the form I sent in that they send back. I would say I am plenty GTG and will not spend 1 moment worrying about it :cool:

Funny thing is, read above about what the OP just learned from his FFL.. sound familiar?

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 2:04 PM
oh please :rolleyes: .... was waiting for a guy like you to pipe in something like that, knew it was just a matter of time.

I called, I got the form they said, I filled out the form and paid the fee AND have the DOJ letter, attached with the form I sent in that they send back. I would say I am plenty GTG and will not spend 1 moment worrying about it :cool:

Funny thing is, read above about what the OP just learned from his FFL.. sound familiar?

Thanks guys!

Just learned something new today from a local gun shop owner. He does quite a bit of transfers of different types. I've been informed that you can transfer among siblings out of state, so long as it isn't prohibited in the state it's being transferred from and you personally pick it up and bring it into CA. No FFL go between in CA.

Now, How much flak will I hear about this??

I sure would like to see which Federal Code of Regulations this dealer is referencing.

Federal Law requires the transfer of firearms from people who live in different states be done through a Federally licensed dealer in the state of the person receiving the firearm.

glock_this
06-01-2011, 2:12 PM
I sure would like to see which Federal Code of Regulations this dealer is referencing.

Federal Law requires the transfer of firearms from people who live in different states be done through a Federally licensed dealer in the state of the person receiving the firearm.

yeah well the form - the form they directed me to use - specially asks from who and where and how you obtained it, they signed off on it, and accepted it. Good enough for me and don't mind admitting it publicly.

Librarian
06-01-2011, 2:23 PM
Thanks guys!

Just learned something new today from a local gun shop owner. He does quite a bit of transfers of different types. I've been informed that you can transfer among siblings out of state, so long as it isn't prohibited in the state it's being transferred from and you personally pick it up and bring it into CA. No FFL go between in CA.

Now, How much flak will I hear about this??

Considering that would be a Federal felony, I hope you hear quite a bit of flack. (Several, actually - one when the out of state sibling gives it to the CA sibling, another when the CA sibling brings it to CA.)

See the wiki article on interstate transfer: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate
and the article on California intrafamilial transfer - the Feds do not have the concept - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

Librarian
06-01-2011, 2:28 PM
oh please :rolleyes: .... was waiting for a guy like you to pipe in something like that, knew it was just a matter of time.

I called, I got the form they said, I filled out the form and paid the fee AND have the DOJ letter, attached with the form I sent in that they send back. I would say I am plenty GTG and will not spend 1 moment worrying about it :cool:

Funny thing is, read above about what the OP just learned from his FFL.. sound familiar?

I don't know what the statute of limitations is for Federal law, but if this occurred 'many, many years ago' I suspect you may now be past it.

But please do not accept CA-DOJ's instructions regarding anything interstate. They're almost always wrong by ignoring the Federal law.

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 2:36 PM
Thank you Librarian for the link above.

This is the Federal Code of Regulations that needs to read:



TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS

CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PART 478_COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions

Sec. 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]

[[Page 33]]

4D5auto
06-01-2011, 3:37 PM
Don't know if all that applies to a Intra-Famalia Transfer. Was told when bringing it into the state, it should be in a locked container.

Librarian
06-01-2011, 3:50 PM
Don't know if all that applies to a Intra-Famalia Transfer. Was told when bringing it into the state, it should be in a locked container.

You CANNOT legally bring a gun in from out of state unless
1) you owned it before you came to CA (so it isn't a transfer)
2) you inherit it - meaning the giver is already deceased
3) it's C&R and you have a C&R license
4) you have an FFL dealer's license.

Feds don't care about family relationships, they care about interstate transfers. And THEY are the ones who demand that interstate transfers go through an FFL in the state of residence of the person receiving the gun.

Please read the links posted; your FFL informant is quite wrong.

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 3:58 PM
Don't know if all that applies to a Intra-Famalia Transfer. Was told when bringing it into the state, it should be in a locked container.

Please explain it to me like I'm a third grader.

I must be missing something when I'm reading this Federal Code of Regulations.

I see the exemption for receiving a gun from a dead person's estate.

Where is the exemption for receiving a gun from a living relative in a different state?

4D5auto
06-01-2011, 4:53 PM
Just going by what I was told by this FFL dealer who has been in business here for over 30 years. Very established and is a straight arrow. Great people who care and inform. He must know something we don't. I will talk to him again. It's funny, you can ask the same questions to different people and get differing answers. You would think they would know, being in the business and the volume they do.

morrcarr67
06-01-2011, 4:58 PM
Just going by what I was told by this FFL dealer who has been in business here for over 30 years. Very established and is a straight arrow. Great people who care and inform. He must know something we don't. I will talk to him again. It's funny, you can ask the same questions to different people and get differing answers. You would think they would know, being in the business and the volume they do.

So someone telling you something holds more with you then someone who shows you the code in black and white?

Like I said before.

I sure would like to know the Federal Code of Regulations that he is referencing.

Librarian
06-01-2011, 5:13 PM
Just going by what I was told by this FFL dealer who has been in business here for over 30 years. Very established and is a straight arrow. Great people who care and inform. He must know something we don't. I will talk to him again. It's funny, you can ask the same questions to different people and get differing answers. You would think they would know, being in the business and the volume they do.

If you are accurately reporting his conversation to you, it seems he DOES NOT know something we - and now you - know.

That, by the way, is the difference between FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt - and simply being wrong. I have no doubt whatever that the FFL in question has absolutely the best of intentions, hoping for good customer service, easy solutions, and repeat business from satisfied customers.

It's just that the advice reported here would cause the commission of several Federal felonies, exposing those who would follow the advice to up to 5 years in the Federal penitentiary and/or a $10,000 fine for each count.

I don't think they allow access to Calguns from Victorville ...

4D5auto
06-01-2011, 6:46 PM
I find it amusing some are getting their panties in a bunch over this. This is just a discussion on a board and finding information. I haven't done this or anyone I know has done this. This was a conversation I had in a gun shop and just asking questions. Unless all of you here are FFL holders and or Lawyers, who can really decipher the laws as their written? Much of it is about buying and selling. I've heard of numerous Off Roster Handguns being in the state, legally. Guess they must be Intra Familia Transfers.
If what he is telling me holds true, as they likely have done these transfers without issue, maybe DOJ turns the other cheek and collects monies form people voluntarily registering their weapon in the state. It doesn't matter what's written here by posters, unless your the Lawyer that understands the ins and outs of law.. Please chill, this is just a conversation on this topic. What's written in a law and executed in reality are two different things. I guarantee, I will speak with him again as this topic has sparked my interests..

Librarian
06-01-2011, 7:12 PM
I find it amusing some are getting their panties in a bunch over this. This is just a discussion on a board and finding information. I haven't done this or anyone I know has done this. This was a conversation I had in a gun shop and just asking questions. Unless all of you here are FFL holders and or Lawyers, who can really decipher the laws as their written?
I can. You can. Have you yet read the information on the wiki? This bit of US Code and Code of Federal Regulations is not in the least difficult. The BATFE has an on-line FAQ on the subject: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer

Much of it is about buying and selling. I've heard of numerous Off Roster Handguns being in the state, legally. Guess they must be Intra Familia Transfers.
If what he is telling me holds true, as they likely have done these transfers without issue, maybe DOJ turns the other cheek and collects monies form people voluntarily registering their weapon in the state.Of course there are numerous off-Roster handguns in the state; everything possessed before the Roster existed is legal, and legal to transfer via PPT.

That DOJ does not understand Federal law is no excuse for the Feds when they come knocking.
It doesn't matter what's written here by posters, unless your the Lawyer that understands the ins and outs of law..Yes, it does matter. One of the purposes of Calguns is to get accurate information to our members and anyone else who reads here.
Please chill, this is just a conversation on this topic. What's written in a law and executed in reality are two different things. I guarantee, I will speak with him again as this topic has sparked my interests..
That would be a very good idea. You should also bring him a printed copy of 27 CFR 478.30 - you can get your own, as can he, through the BATFE web site: http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/regulations/ or directly through the Government Printing Office here (http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&idno=27#27:3.0.1.2.3.3.1.12).

4D5auto
06-01-2011, 11:52 PM
I agree with some of what you're saying, but you seem to take what I'm saying a little to personal, which I have no intention of ruffling yours or anyone else's feathers.

You state, (Of course there are numerous off-Roster handguns in the state; everything possessed before the Roster existed is legal, and legal to transfer via PPT.)

Correct and a no brainer. That is not what I'm talking about.

What I meant was, there are Off Roster guns in this state that come from out of state AFTER the Roster and brought in legaly, once here, can then be sold in the state if you no longer wish to own it.


I've read your first link, this isn't a buy, sell or loan situation I speak of for the example I gave.

Are you a Lawyer??

ke6guj
06-02-2011, 12:18 AM
I agree with some of what you're saying, but you seem to take what I'm saying a little to personal, which I have no intention of ruffling yours or anyone else's feathers.we aren't taking it personal, but when incorrect info that could get someone a felony conviction is posted, it is our duty to correct it. We might not be able to change your mind, but hopefully the next guy who reads this thread will know that he can't do an interstate intrafamily transfer without using an FFL to facilitate the transfer.

You state, (Of course there are numerous off-Roster handguns in the state; everything possessed before the Roster existed is legal, and legal to transfer via PPT.)

Correct and a no brainer. That is not what I'm talking about.

What I meant was, there are Off Roster guns in this state that come from out of state AFTER the Roster and brought in legaly, once here, can then be sold in the state if you no longer wish to own it.yes, there are post-roster off-roster handguns that have come into the state, but they came in through legal means. New Resident Importations, PPTs from LEOs to get them into the public market, Single-Shot Exemptions, intrafamily transfer through a CA FFL, etc are some of the legal methods of acquisition. A dealerless interstate intrafamily transfer is not one of them.

I've read your first link, this isn't a buy, sell or loan situation I speak of for the example I gave.

Are you a Lawyer??

that first link is just a FAQ. They don't always explain all the nuances in the law.

It is better to read the actual regulations:

§ 478.29 Out-of-State acquisition of firearms by nonlicensees.
top
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]
that says that it is illegal for you to take possession of a firearm while not in your home state and then bring it back to your home state, with limited exemptions. Interstate intrafamily transfers are not one of them. It says "or otherwise obtained" which means that it isn't limited to "buy, sell or loan".


and then there is this regulation as well.


§ 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.
top
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]
that says that it is illegal to "transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver" a firearm to a person who you know (or should know) does not live in the same state you do, with limited exemptions. Interstate intrafamily transfers are not one of them.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 2:02 AM
Considering that would be a Federal felony, I hope you hear quite a bit of flack. (Several, actually - one when the out of state sibling gives it to the CA sibling, another when the CA sibling brings it to CA.)

See the wiki article on interstate transfer: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate
and the article on California intrafamilial transfer - the Feds do not have the concept - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

I've read your first link, this isn't a buy, sell or loan situation I speak of for the example I gave.

Are you a Lawyer??

I meant, have you read the first and second links in the post I quote, above.

Those articles explain this whole mess in detail, and provide links to the laws and regulations. If you find them unclear, tell me how they could be better and Ill try to fix them. ( can't do anything about the laws/regs - they are what they are - but 18 USC 922 is not especially difficult.)

No, I'm not a lawyer. One does not need a law degree or license to read these bits of law and understand them.

It is not at all personal. I think those of us responding to you are somewhat bemused that you do not give possible punishment for a felony more influence in your responses.

morrcarr67
06-02-2011, 6:42 AM
It is not at all personal. I think those of us responding to you are somewhat bemused that you do not give possible punishment for a felony more influence in your responses.

Well said.

For me personally I find it hard to understand how much someone can put on a comment made by someone else when there is so much in writing from the law makers that prove otherwise.

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 9:32 AM
I hear and understand what everyone is saying, I'm not disputing that. Again, I was just relaying a conversation I had in a gun shop. For whatever reason the answers I got, may have been because if the hypothetical transaction like this were to happen, is because it happens outside the state, therefore CA law didn't apply. Meaning, You follow the laws of the state you're in. Hey, I'm not here to argue with you guys and I mentioned the same thing about the Intra-Familial Transfer and using an FFL in the state. For whatever reasons, he said That didn't have to be done. Again, I'm going to talk to him again.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 10:06 AM
For whatever reason the answers I got, may have been because if the hypothetical transaction like this were to happen, is because it happens outside the state, therefore CA law didn't apply. Meaning, You follow the laws of the state you're in.

In a transfer that involves residents of just one state, in that state, that's right.

But the Feds say that a transfer between residents of different states have to follow Federal law on gun transfers. It isn't a matter of California law any more. So, your hypothetical of two brothers, one who lives in CA, and another who lives in, oh, say AZ, brings in Federal law. It's illegal for the AZ brother to give a handgun to his CA brother without benefit of FFL in CA-brother's home state.

Similarly, if CA-brother goes to AZ, and somehow obtains a handgun from anybody at all, it is illegal for him to bring that gun back to CA.

That seems to be a difficult thing for a lot of folks to accept; it doesn't actually make much sense (few, if any, gun laws do), and it is not possible to reason to that requirement.

Now, does that happen? I'm sure it happens a lot - the volume of questions here on the point indicates that a law that has existed since 1968 has not yet 'sunk in' to the minds of the gun owners of the US. Nor, apparently, has it registered with the folks at CA-DOJ, who (according to anecdotes posted here) frequently suggest exactly the procedure your acquaintance FFL suggested.

I think that's pretty strong evidence that the Federal law doesn't make any sense at all - but since it IS on the books, with real penalties, we cannot reasonably answer questions by suggesting folks commit Federal felonies.

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 11:26 AM
Intersting how a state like CA has the powers to trample on a Constitutional Right, simply by banning and restricting what is allowed in a state. Doesn't that Infringe on the Second Amendment??? Yes. We as Americans are passive enough to let this and other laws exist. We deserve it as a people collectively don't do anything abut it.

morrcarr67
06-02-2011, 12:00 PM
Intersting how a state like CA has the powers to trample on a Constitutional Right, simply by banning and restricting what is allowed in a state. Doesn't that Infringe on the Second Amendment??? Yes. We as Americans are passive enough to let this and other laws exist. We deserve it as a people collectively don't do anything abut it.

Agreed. We, gun owners, are the silent majority and it is because of this we have let our rights be infringed.


:iagree:

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 1:12 PM
Agreed. We, gun owners, are the silent majority and it is because of this we have let our rights be infringed.:iagree:

No we don't, but we do.. Maybe a time for protest.

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 2:55 PM
Side note:

This is being done in CA and according to DOJ, that I just got off the phone with, you can't really do Intra Familia transfer either, even though they provide a form.... They will NOT give you any definitive answer, likely because they don't know nor want firearms in the state, nor divulge any pertinent information. DOJ states, you can't bring it in if it's not on the list, but yet, Off Roster guns come in from out of state in a family transfer..
Neither party can bring into the state, so he says per Fed law. You will notice, no Lawyer on this board will ever chime in on this topic...

It's also apparent that the laws are interpreted in a way the layman will not fully understand no matter how it's written. There different Judges will interpret a law different. Laws are a guideline. It depends how much you want to spend on a good lawyer to interpret a law.

DOJ contact: Mike
916 263-4887

morrcarr67
06-02-2011, 3:20 PM
Side note:

This is being done in CA and according to DOJ, that I just got off the phone with, you can't really do Intra Familia transfer either, even though they provide a form.... They will NOT give you any definitive answer, likely because they don't know nor want firearms in the state, nor divulge any pertinent information. DOJ states, you can't bring it in if it's not on the list, but yet, Off Roster guns come in from out of state in a family transfer..
Neither party can bring into the state, so he says per Fed law. You will notice, no Lawyer on this board will ever chime in on this topic...

It's also apparent that the laws are interpreted in a way the layman will not fully understand no matter how it's written. There different Judges will interpret a law different. Laws are a guideline. It depends how much you want to spend on a good lawyer to interpret a law.

DOJ contact: Mike
916 263-4887

Again, remember what the Librarian said:


But please do not accept CA-DOJ's instructions regarding anything interstate. They're almost always wrong by ignoring the Federal law.

Well this holds true with CA law too.

This is from the Transferring Firearms Among Some Family Members (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members) article.



These transfers are exempt from the Roster

An additional part of the Penal Code, 12132

12132. This chapter shall not apply to any of the following:

(b) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm that is exempt from
the provisions of subdivision (d) of Section 12072 pursuant to any
applicable exemption contained in Section 12078, if the sale, loan,
or transfer complies with the requirements of that applicable
exemption to subdivision (d) of Section 12072.

says that intrafamilial handgun transfers are NOT subject to the Roster of Handguns.



Now if you read this whole article you will find the PC codes and what they say in them.

The hard part for a non-lawyer type is all the cross referencing. ie; If A go to B; now if C in this section go to part 5 subsection D.

So, you really need to read PC 12072 and all subsections to understand how they came up with PC 12132 on how these are exempt.

But if you read through the whole article I think you will find out that Mike at the DOJ misinformed you.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 3:37 PM
Neither party can bring into the state, so he says per Fed law.

Wow.

Let me count the ways that is wrong.

I'll start with the one way it's right: if CA person somehow gets a gun out of state (and it is not through inheritance, or a C&R purchase by a C&R FFL) THEN, by Federal law, it is illegal to bring that gun to CA.

Under both CA and Federal law (presuming no 'assault weapons' or machine guns or short-barreled shotguns or rifles ...)
A person visiting CA may bring his guns.

A person moving to CA may bring his guns.

A person stationed here on active duty may bring his guns.

A person passing through CA on the way to somewhere else may bring his guns.
And in none of these cases is the CA handgun Roster an issue.

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 5:31 PM
Once again, gotta laugh. I'm just the messenger relaying what Mike at DOJ told me. You all need to put your wit up against his, call him for yourself. Is he correct? Who knows or cares, you wont get a straight answer, I'm just saying. He stated it's a Federal issue bringing the weapon into the state and as for a Roster weapon, he states it has to be on the Roster to be brought into and transferred. Is this happening in reality???? No. So, not only is this skewed and gray area, it apparently isn't being enforced. I'm sorry you all don't like what your hearing, but this is the response I've received per DOJ. Please call Mike for yourself, I posted the number.
I realize this is all contradictory to what is written as law.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 5:53 PM
Actually, no, there's nothing gray here. And it isn't a matter of 'not liking'. DOJ is simply wrong.

Now, if one doesn't care to believe me, one can certainly hire one's own lawyer and get an opinion one pays for. But my argument is documented, so anyone can reconstruct it, and matches the plain language of Federal law, Federal regulations, and the BATFE's FAQ page on their web site. Such a lawyer will come to the same conclusion I argue.

Remember, very like the IRS, the DOJ is not your lawyer, there is no penalty to their staff for being wrong, and without a written, official statement from DOJ one is not in the slightest bit protected if one follows their errors.

They seem usually to do OK with California law. They just don't 'get' Federal law. Anything interstate is Federal.

glock_this
06-02-2011, 7:18 PM
I don't know what the statute of limitations is for Federal law, but if this occurred 'many, many years ago' I suspect you may now be past it.

But please do not accept CA-DOJ's instructions regarding anything interstate. They're almost always wrong by ignoring the Federal law.

well, that is a bit unrealistic. I do trust what the CA DOJ says. I have to and it is reasonable to do so for the average guy. You and your knowledge base allows you to do otherwise, why would I ever not? Because some guys here on the forum told me not to? :rolleyes: Imagine if I tried to use that versus trying to use the logic that I did what they said.

As well, on one hand I read "But please do not accept CA-DOJ's instructions regarding anything interstate." and on the other hand people quote what the DOJ says on topics on this forum reminding you you better follow what they prescribe - for example when people say "call the DOJ if there is a hold or issue with your DROS and get the real story why" or "look on the DOJ roster list". So talk about a mixed message and cherry picking when it is okay to follow their rules and advice and when you should blow it off. For me, I am cool with calling them, taking their advice, filling out the form they say, sending it in and getting back a signed letter from them. I did it all in good faith, with no ill intent and by the book and with the advice from a higher authority and it is impossible for me to second guess when to go with what they say in 1 instance and when to "not accept" what they say for another.

and without a written, official statement from DOJ one is not in the slightest bit protected if one follows their errors.

and in my case, I feel I clearly have that written "official" proof.. their typed, hand signed letter and acknowledgment and acceptance of my registering my pistol.

Feds don't care about family relationships, they care about...

what they don't care about is the small guy who played by the rules and did what a governing body advised him to do and accepted. Another reason I would not sweat it... as if my above explanation is not enough. either way, what it done is done.

Librarian
06-02-2011, 8:55 PM
well, that is a bit unrealistic. I do trust what the CA DOJ says. I have to and it is reasonable to do so for the average guy. You and your knowledge base allows you to do otherwise, why would I ever not? Because some guys here on the forum told me not to? :rolleyes: Imagine if I tried to use that versus trying to use the logic that I did what they said.

As well, on one hand I read "But please do not accept CA-DOJ's instructions regarding anything interstate." and on the other hand people quote what the DOJ says on topics on this forum reminding you you better follow what they prescribe - for example when people say "call the DOJ if there is a hold or issue with your DROS and get the real story why" or "look on the DOJ roster list". So talk about a mixed message and cherry picking when it is okay to follow their rules and advice and when you should blow it off.
No mixed message:

When it comes to strictly California laws and procedures, generally CA-DOJ staff knows what they are doing.
When it concerns interstate activities, and the intersection between CA and Federal law, they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent.

Consider, by way of analogy, an automobile mechanic. One might be highly trained in the current set of analytical tools for, say, Chevrolets. One's skills might remain intact when presented with a Jaguar, but it's unlikely that the details would be ready at hand, because as a Chevy mechanic you don't see Jaguars much.

A skilled and responsible Chevy mechanic would refer you to a Jaguar mechanic. A Jag mechanic will have the analytical tools, the mechanics tools, and the familiarity with the product to do the job right.

In this analogy, the DOJ/Chevy mechanic is not referring inquiries to BATF/Jaguar. (And when you call either, to strain the analogy quite a bit, you get a service writer on the phone, not a mechanic. Both useful in their domains, but different skill sets.)

4D5auto
06-02-2011, 11:12 PM
How bout this:

(Intrafamilial transfers of firearms are exempt from using an FFL if the transfer is inside California. Federal law still requires interstate transfers to use an FFL.)

Son brings weapon into state where father lives. Son gives father weapon. No FFL needed? Or because son brought weapon over state line to give to father, then needs FFL put in fathers name?

Funny how they don't mention daughters as the law is supposed to be specific.. Is that in itself a loophole? probably not.

ke6guj
06-02-2011, 11:26 PM
How bout this:

(Intrafamilial transfers of firearms are exempt from using an FFL if the transfer is inside California. Federal law still requires interstate transfers to use an FFL.)
correct.



Son brings weapon into state where father lives. Son gives father weapon. No FFL needed? Or because son brought weapon over state line to give to father, then needs FFL put in fathers name?
FFL needed in the father's state so that the son doesn't commit a federal felony.

§ 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]







Funny how they don't mention daughters as the law is supposed to be specific.. Is that in itself a loophole? probably not.most the time I just see it listed as parent or child, never as son or father. Where are you seeing gender in the law?

Librarian
06-02-2011, 11:38 PM
Interstate transfer refers to the residency of each of the parties, not the geographic location of the gun. So, out-of-state party takes gun to FFL in the state of residence of the receiver, and the FFL follows his state rules to complete the transfer.

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 8:45 AM
[§ 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]


What about section A

You read so much of this crap, your head swims.. Could this section be why I got the answer I did?

[most the time I just see it listed as parent or child, never as son or father. Where are you seeing gender in the law?]

I don't, maybe that's some of the problem. I can be over analytical at times along with the fact you always hear the term "the letter of the law"

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 9:09 AM
[§ 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]


What about section A

You read so much of this crap, your head swims.. Could this section be why I got the answer I did?

[most the time I just see it listed as parent or child, never as son or father. Where are you seeing gender in the law?]

I don't, maybe that's some of the problem. I can be over analytical at times along with the fact you always hear the term "the letter of the law"

It might be.

But, if you look at it the sentence is not complete. After the word "transfer" there is a "comma"; which means there is more to this exception. When you continue to read this you will see that there are other circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. In this case the person must have made the acquisition by intestate succession.

Which means that if someone dies and left a will saying they want you to have their guns after their death you may travel anywhere in the country to pick them up and bring them back to your place of residency and no FFL if required.

glock_this
06-03-2011, 9:09 AM
No mixed message:

When it comes to strictly California laws and procedures, generally CA-DOJ staff knows what they are doing.
When it concerns interstate activities, and the intersection between CA and Federal law, they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent.



I won't even touch the analogy part at this time as I understood the original point.

This is still ugly logic... now you adding in things like "generally CA-DOJ staff knows" - again implying, on yet another level than before, somehow the average guy is suppose to know when they know and when they don't know what they are talking about and somehow be ready to second guess them?

As well, again, making statements like "When it concerns interstate activities, and the intersection between CA and Federal law, they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent." and expecting people that read your statements to take it as fact - and know how to use it - is no different than listening to what the DOJ has to say and advises and taking it is fact. You want me to believe you just because you vaguely say "they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent" and discount the body I have been advised other times to turn to and a body we know sets rules we follow. Why is your data more believable than theirs? Your a guy on the web, they are a governing body.

You said it yourself earlier "there is no penalty to their staff for being wrong" and really, the same goes for you, there is no penalty for you if your wrong. Given the choice - and I don't mean any of this line of bantering to be an indictment of you, your knowledge base and such - but I will take them over you. And I think any average guy would.

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 9:35 AM
I won't even touch the analogy part at this time as I understood the original point.

This is still ugly logic... now you adding in things like "generally CA-DOJ staff knows" - again implying, on yet another level than before, somehow the average guy is suppose to know when they know and when they don't know what they are talking about and somehow be ready to second guess them?

As well, again, making statements like "When it concerns interstate activities, and the intersection between CA and Federal law, they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent." and expecting people that read your statements to take it as fact - and know how to use it - is no different than listening to what the DOJ has to say and advises and taking it is fact. You want me to believe you just because you vaguely say "they regularly show themselves entirely incompetent" and discount the body I have been advised other times to turn to and a body we know sets rules we follow. Why is your data more believable than theirs? Your a guy on the web, they are a governing body.

You said it yourself earlier "there is no penalty to their staff for being wrong" and really, the same goes for you, there is no penalty for you if your wrong. Given the choice - and I don't mean any of this line of bantering to be an indictment of you, your knowledge base and such - but I will take them over you. And I think any average guy would.

Please let me add my .05 cents.

Not disagreeing with you or anything. Just want to share an insight.

When I was a young kid I had a teacher that told me there are 3 ways to learn.

1) Read
2) Ask questions
3) Shut up and listen

He went on to tell me that the best way to learn is to read. You will get the correct answer more times then not.

He said the next best way is to ask questions. But, he also said that the answers you get are only as good as the knowledge of the person you are asking. Which is why he recommends reading.

His next way to learn was to shut up and listen. This goes to his second method as well as just standing back in a crowd of people and listen to all that is being said. This too has it's draw backs. You don't know how well the knowledge is of the people you are listing to. Which is why he recommends reading.

Now, let me say that I don't know it all. But, I do know how to read and have a pretty good comprehension level. And, I love to read because I love to learn.

So, what I'm saying is when you get different answers to your questions I recommend you ask for "proof in writing". What I mean by this is if you ask me or someone else about what you can or can't do with guns on this forum; at the DOJ or at BATF ask them to show you what PC or Code of Federal Regulations they are referencing. If I or anyone else you ask can't or won't tell you what codes they are referencing I would take what I or that person said with a gain of salt.

Because, if you have the code number they are referencing you could then go and find that code and READ it yourself so that you know you have the correct knowledge on your question.

Now, if you go back through this thread and read post made by myself and a few other members here you will see that we have posted PC's and Codes of Federal Regulations that you could read that would directly dispute what the people at the DOJ told you.

And, yes I have even heard of times that the DOJ has given out the incorrect information on State laws. Again, I told the people to call them back and get the PC that they are referencing. You too should try that.

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 9:36 AM
What about section A

You read so much of this crap, your head swims.. Could this section be why I got the answer I did?

[most the time I just see it listed as parent or child, never as son or father. Where are you seeing gender in the law?]

I don't, maybe that's some of the problem. I can be over analytical at times along with the fact you always hear the term "the letter of the law" Quote]




[QUOTE=morrcarr67;6523241]It might be.

But, if you look at it the sentence is not complete. After the word "transfer" there is a "comma"; which means there is more to this exception. When you continue to read this you will see that there are other circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. In this case the person must have made the acquisition by intestate succession.

Which means that if someone dies and left a will saying they want you to have their guns after their death you may travel anywhere in the country to pick them up and bring them back to your place of residency and no FFL if required.

I believe the sentence is complete. When you list more than one word in succession to describe or make reference to, a comma is used as a pause in sentence structure and the last word is proceeded by the word and. Now then, we need a English Major to chime in the the English language...


You last paragraph may or may not be accurate, I don't know. What I do know is, most Attornys I've dealt with will tell their clients to leave weapons out of the Estate and deal with them seperate, as they can create to many leagle hurdles to deal with....

glock_this
06-03-2011, 9:44 AM
I think member paul0660 said it best in a recent thread concerning debating points like this and it flows with the greater point I was making relative to advice and info you get here from "people" versus maybe getting it from the horses mouth - the CA DOJ in this threads case.... "As opposed to getting opinions from strangers of indeterminate age and knowledge on the internet, for sure." The point being, and mine from the start, call them - do what they say - count on that as good advise as any as it came from the horses mouth as then you have a case versus, if you get in trouble, saying "yeah, but xxxx on calguns.net told me..." as we know that won't get you shizz.. but maybe a smirk and a laugh in the face.

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 9:47 AM
I believe the sentence is complete. When you list more than one word in succession to describe or make reference to, a comma is used as a pause in sentence structure and the last word is proceeded by the word and. Now then, we need a English Major to chime in the the English language...


You last paragraph may or may not be accurate, I don't know. What I do know is, most Attornys I've dealt with will tell their clients to leave weapons out of the Estate and deal with them seperate, as they can create to many leagle hurdles to deal with....



sen·tence
   [sen-tns] Show IPA noun, verb, -tenced, -tenc·ing.
–noun
1.
Grammar . a grammatical unit of one or more words, bearing minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it, often preceded and followed in speech by pauses, having one of a small number of characteristic intonation patterns, and typically expressing an independent statement, question, request, command, etc., as Summer is here. or Who is it? or Stop!

com·ma
   [kom-uh] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, especially when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in europe, as a decimal point.



The comma does not complete a sentence but helps to give form to the sentence.

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 9:59 AM
The comma does not complete a sentence but helps to give form to the sentence.

But doesn't make it incomplete either..

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 10:01 AM
I think member paul0660 said it best in a recent thread concerning debating points like this and it flows with the greater point I was making relative to advice and info you get here from "people" versus maybe getting it from the horses mouth - the CA DOJ in this threads case.... "As opposed to getting opinions from strangers of indeterminate age and knowledge on the internet, for sure." The point being, and mine from the start, call them - do what they say - count on that as good advise as any as it came from the horses mouth as then you have a case versus, if you get in trouble, saying "yeah, but xxxx on calguns.net told me..." as we know that won't get you shizz.. but maybe a smirk and a laugh in the face.

What is the difference if I told you incorrectly or the DOJ told you incorrectly. You still have the incorrect information.

Which is why you need to be able to READ the laws yourself.

I would be willing to give you odds that if you used that defense in a court of law the Judge will tell you ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Now, I don't have a problem with you or anyone else getting your information from me, the DOJ or anyone else for that matter.

I'm just saying get them to show you the proof. Have them tell you what PC or Code of Federal Regulations they are referencing so you can read it yourself.

Do not take my word or anyone else if they can't show you the proof.

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 10:01 AM
glockthis

Can you make me one of those slide covers that say F*#@ Obamma?? I will buy one.

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 10:04 AM
But doesn't make it incomplete either..

OK, let me re phrase. The section he was reading is only part of the sentence. There is more to it.

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 10:06 AM
OK, let me re phrase. The section he was reading is only part of the sentence. There is more to it.

Why then are these not complete when posted? I notice most of this stuff is put out by CalGuns on their Wiki link.

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 10:29 AM
Why then are these not complete when posted? I notice most of this stuff is put out by CalGuns on their Wiki link.

You had the whole Code of Federal Regulations in your post:

[§ 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]


What about section A

You read so much of this crap, your head swims.. Could this section be why I got the answer I did?

[most the time I just see it listed as parent or child, never as son or father. Where are you seeing gender in the law?]

I don't, maybe that's some of the problem. I can be over analytical at times along with the fact you always hear the term "the letter of the law"

You only referenced the bold section; which is only part of the sentence and asked if that is why you might had been given the info you had.

I said yes; but, I should have said that if the person who had gave you that info read that small part of a sentence and stopped there. Then I could see how he would come up with that.

But, he should have kept reading. There are more parts to this sentence that need to be taken into consideration for this exemption.

As to why on Calguns Wiki you see only bits and pieces it's because some of these laws are very long so they condense them and will give you a laymen's answer to make it easier for the average Joe to understand.

However you will notice that they will always either give you a link to the code or at least tell you the full code number so that you can look it up and read the whole code.

glock_this
06-03-2011, 10:33 AM
glockthis

Can you make me one of those slide covers that say F*#@ Obamma?? I will buy one.

bwaa ha ha.. sorry man, just that 1 westside fingers glock slide plate is all I do and all I want to do :)

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 10:37 AM
bwaa ha ha.. sorry man, just that 1 westside fingers glock slide plate is all I do and all I want to do :)

I'm serious, I'll buy one. Time to expand on a line that will sell! Among other logos.

ke6guj
06-03-2011, 11:32 AM
[Quote
Originally Posted by 4D5auto
[§ 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]

(a) only applies if the person who owned the firearm is dead and it is being transfered to the recipient per the terms of his will or estate. If the owner is not dead, then it isn't a bequest.

Librarian
06-03-2011, 11:55 AM
I think member paul0660 said it best in a recent thread concerning debating points like this and it flows with the greater point I was making relative to advice and info you get here from "people" versus maybe getting it from the horses mouth - the CA DOJ in this threads case.... "As opposed to getting opinions from strangers of indeterminate age and knowledge on the internet, for sure." The point being, and mine from the start, call them - do what they say - count on that as good advise as any as it came from the horses mouth as then you have a case versus, if you get in trouble, saying "yeah, but xxxx on calguns.net told me..." as we know that won't get you shizz.. but maybe a smirk and a laugh in the face.

I take your point - why should anyone believe some yahoo (present company included) on the web over a state agency?

Unfortunately, a state agency is not "the horse's mouth" when it comes to Federal law. What do you do if you follow their advice and get in trouble?

My point is, don't call CA-DOJ about interstate law - call BATFE. The problem here is that few people understand the character of 'interstate', and do not recognize the need.

glock_this
06-03-2011, 12:03 PM
understood :) but for me, I dont have a time traveling machine :)

Librarian
06-03-2011, 12:43 PM
understood :) but for me, I dont have a time traveling machine :)

Yeah, but next time, you'll know better, right? :rolleyes:

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 2:07 PM
LOL, A state Agency doesn't even know the laws of the state when asked of them, nor does any yahoo here, (including everyone here) Remember, not everything appears as it seems. I respect and enjoy the info put forth, but no one here is an attorney and or will, put forth any concrete information or answer. Understandable.

I've been involved with a DOJ question years past, they really couldn't answer it then and nothing has changed today, paperwork went through just fine and all is good.

Icypu
06-03-2011, 2:29 PM
There is one way a father in another state can give a firearm to his own son in California.

This works if the father is a property owner in two states, with bills and mortage associated to his own property, one of them being CA.

- Father has his gun in his state
- Father ships his gun to his own home in another state, or drives with it to CA
- Once he lands in CA, the father by definition is a resident of CA in control of his own property (his gun)
- His gun is moving into CA so it can't have above 10 rounders or be an assault pistol
- Using his mortgage, property bills and other things, the father obtains a CA ID from DMV if he does not possess it already
- With CA ID in hand, the father can use the OPLAW form to transfer to his own son or daughter
- The Father can go back to his own state when he chooses

Of course if the father is not a property owner, or he cannot qualify for what CA determines as residency, this wont work. If you are a property owner in two states your residency begins the minute you are in the other state of property. IANL, but thats how it worked for me.

For me, I used an FFL and it was a hassle but less paperwork involved

glock_this
06-03-2011, 2:35 PM
Yeah, but next time, you'll know better, right? :rolleyes:

nope.. I don't need to "know better" I need to do what they tell me to do when I call and ask :eek:

Librarian
06-03-2011, 3:02 PM
LOL, A state Agency doesn't even know the laws of the state when asked of them, nor does any yahoo here, (including everyone here) Remember, not everything appears as it seems. I respect and enjoy the info put forth, but no one here is an attorney and or will, put forth any concrete information or answer. Understandable.


Well, no. I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you how I get from [here] to [there].


[here] BATFE has a web site: http://www.atf.gov/

They are charged with enforcing Federal gun laws. (I trust I don't have to document that, but I -can- if necessary.)

They have a page of firearms references: http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

The interesting link is Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf).

-I- think they put these on line because they expect curious people to read the documents. The docs are in English.

In our present case, we're wondering about the laws governing interstate transfer of firearms.

That linked 243-page document is addressed to Federal Firearms Licensees. The introduction says The 2005 edition of the Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide provides information designed to help you comply with all of the laws and regulations governing the manufacture, importation, and distribution of firearms and ammunition. Accordingly, it contains the relevant Federal firearms laws and regulations, some of which have changed since the 2000 edition. It also contains rulings, general information, and questions and answers to give you further guidance on the Federal firearms laws. The laws and regulations are in a different order from previous versions so that this publication will be easier to use. This new edition also contains additional points of contact to help you get in touch with ATF more easily.

It goes on to quote Federal law on page 8 § 922 Unlawful acts. (a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, li- censed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; orIt also further quotes (a)(3) (3) for any person other than a li- censed importer, licensed manufac- turer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other busi- ness entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm pur- chased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succes- sion 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 firearm obtained in confor- mity with subsection (b)(3) of this sec- tion, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;Those parts of Federal law mean exactly what they say - there is nothing hyper-legal about them.

Based on 18 USC 922, the BATFE has developed regulations; those are published in the Federal Register, and are administrative law. The parts that affect BATFE are in Title 27, part 478, and the document begins to quote the regulations at page 33.

We're interested in 478.30, which has been quoted here several times, but for completeness: § 478.30 Out-of-State disposition of firearms by nonlicensees.
No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any fire- arm to any other nonlicensee, who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the per- son is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of busi- ness 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 succes- sion of a firearm by, a person who is per- mitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his resi- dence; and
(b) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
Again, the law means exactly what the words say.

So. 18 USC 922 (a)(1) tells us that only licensed people may "ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce". Commerce is NOT limited to sales and such: 18 USC 921 (a)(2) - (2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce be- tween any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).
That means, if you are not an FFL, you cannot go to a different state and receive a gun.

18 USC 922 (a)(3) says it is illegal to receive a firearm outside one's state of residence, and then bring that firearm back to one's state of residence.

That's what the words there say and mean. There's nothing tricky or obscure. That's as concrete as it gets.

27 CFR 478.30 restates 18 USC 922 - "No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee," who does not reside in the same state. Right there. Black and white. Other than "nonlicensee", only "deliver" has more than 2 syllables.

Further, the BATF has tried to make this information even more accessible (I can't judge how successfully.) They have an FAQ page - http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html
Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
They justify their answer using exactly the same law and regulation references as I have done.

We are now [there].

Whenever the CA-DOJ gives advice that conflicts with " A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State", they're wrong unless they mention inheritance or C&R guns for C&R licensees.

ETA - check that the conclusion is correct.

I submit 328 F.3d 77: United States, Appellee, v. Marvin T. Mitchell, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/328/77/500189/) In relevant part, Justice Parker writes
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), it is illegal for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ... any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State....
...
Section 922(a)(3) applies to firearms "purchased or otherwise obtained" outside of an individual's state. By using the term "or otherwise obtained," Congress communicated its intent to have the statute's proscription reach beyond straightforward, one-on-one purchases to cover those illegal firearms transactions effected through the use of agents or straw men. Here, the proof established that Mitchell conspired with Lotto, a New York resident, to obtain guns for Lotto outside of Lotto's state of residence. Lotto gave Mitchell $2,300 to buy guns in Texas; Mitchell bought the guns and transported them to Lotto in New York. In this manner, Lotto, while not the direct purchaser of the weapons, "otherwise obtained" them, and Mitchell conspired with Lotto to violate § 922(a)(3) by serving as his agent. In reaching this conclusion, we join the First Circuit in characterizing the employment of out-of-state agents to purchase firearms as "otherwise obtain[ing]" such firearms pursuant to § 922(a)(3). See, e.g., United States v. Phillips, 952 F.2d 591, 593-94 (1st Cir.1991) (defendant guilty under section 922(a)(3) where he wired money to Georgia resident to buy guns in Georgia). Accordingly, the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to violate this statute was proper.

Further support: 9th Circuit Criminal Jury Instructions, 2003 (http://federalcriminaljuryinstructions.com/uploads/9th_Circuit_Criminal_Jury_Instructions_2003_PDF.pd f) - at 191 8.48 FIREARMS—TRANSPORTING OR RECEIVING IN STATE OF RESIDENCE (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3))
The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with [transporting] [receiving] a firearm [into] [in] the state of his residence in violation of Section 922(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the defendant was not licensed as a firearms [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector]; and
Second, the defendant willfully [transported into] [received in] the state in which the defendant resided a [firearm] that the defendant purchased or otherwise obtained outside that state.and at 194 8.51 FIREARMS—UNLAWFUL DISPOSITION BY UNLICENSED DEALER (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5))
The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with the unlawful disposition of a firearm in violation of Section 922(a)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the defendant willfully [sold] [traded] [gave] [transported] [delivered] a [firearm] to [unlicensed dealer];
Second, neither the defendant nor [unlicensed dealer] was licensed as a firearm [dealer] [importer] [manufacturer] [collector]; and
Third, the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to believe that [unlicensed dealer] was not a resident of the same state in which the defendant resided.
Comment
See Comment at Instructions 8.43 (Firearms) and 8.46 (Shipment or Transportation to a Person Not Licensed as a Dealer, Importer, Manufacturer or Collector).

morrcarr67
06-03-2011, 4:21 PM
I'm tired now, going to bed. As soon as I do some more reading. Knowledge is power. :)

4D5auto
06-03-2011, 9:51 PM
Well, no. I'm not an attorney, but I'll tell you how I get from [here] to [there].


[here] BATFE has a web site: http://www.atf.gov/

They are charged with enforcing Federal gun laws. (I trust I don't have to document that, but I -can- if necessary.)

They have a page of firearms references: http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

The interesting link is Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf).

-I- think they put these on line because they expect curious people to read the documents. The docs are in English.

In our present case, we're wondering about the laws governing interstate transfer of firearms.

That linked 243-page document is addressed to Federal Firearms Licensees. The introduction says

It goes on to quote Federal law on page 8 It also further quotes (a)(3) Those parts of Federal law mean exactly what they say - there is nothing hyper-legal about them.

Based on 18 USC 922, the BATFE has developed regulations; those are published in the Federal Register, and are administrative law. The parts that affect BATFE are in Title 27, part 478, and the document begins to quote the regulations at page 33.

We're interested in 478.30, which has been quoted here several times, but for completeness:
Again, the law means exactly what the words say.

So. 18 USC 922 (a)(1) tells us that only licensed people may "ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce". Commerce is NOT limited to sales and such: 18 USC 921 (a)(2) -
That means, if you are not an FFL, you cannot go to a different state and receive a gun.

18 USC 922 (a)(3) says it is illegal to receive a firearm outside one's state of residence, and then bring that firearm back to one's state of residence.

That's what the words there say and mean. There's nothing tricky or obscure. That's as concrete as it gets.

27 CFR 478.30 restates 18 USC 922 - "No nonlicensee shall transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any other nonlicensee," who does not reside in the same state. Right there. Black and white. Other than "nonlicensee", only "deliver" has more than 2 syllables.

Further, the BATF has tried to make this information even more accessible (I can't judge how successfully.) They have an FAQ page - http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html
They justify their answer using exactly the same law and regulation references as I have done.

We are now [there].

Whenever the CA-DOJ gives advice that conflicts with " A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State", they're wrong unless they mention inheritance or C&R guns for C&R licensees.

ETA - check that the conclusion is correct.

I submit 328 F.3d 77: United States, Appellee, v. Marvin T. Mitchell, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/328/77/500189/) In relevant part, Justice Parker writes

Further support: 9th Circuit Criminal Jury Instructions, 2003 (http://federalcriminaljuryinstructions.com/uploads/9th_Circuit_Criminal_Jury_Instructions_2003_PDF.pd f) - at 191 and at 194

Well, good work! While my source answered the question I posed correctly, the Feds are another issue. While no CA law would be broke by bringing a weapon into the state, it is in violation of federal Law. But good luck trying to register that weapon in the state.