PDA

View Full Version : family transfer OK with in-law?


dave_cg
02-21-2012, 11:21 PM
Please pardon if this is a FAQ -- I searched but didn't turn up anything on this situation.

I understand that grand-parent/parent/child transfers are OK up and down the line, and across state lines. What about father-in-law/son-in-law handgun and long gun transfers with a state-line crossing involved? Can that be done?

Thanks,
Dave

taperxz
02-21-2012, 11:47 PM
Nope, and BTW across state lines is a no go for family transfers also.

foxtrotuniformlima
02-22-2012, 12:02 AM
Just have him send it to his daughter ( your wife) or is that a no go ?

Quiet
02-22-2012, 12:12 AM
Please pardon if this is a FAQ -- I searched but didn't turn up anything on this situation.

I understand that grand-parent/parent/child transfers are OK up and down the line, and across state lines. What about father-in-law/son-in-law handgun and long gun transfers with a state-line crossing involved? Can that be done?

Thanks,
Dave

In-laws are a no-go.

Both parties must be grandparent - parent - child - grandchild, in order to qualify as an "intra-familial" transfer.

BTW across state lines is a no go for family transfers also.
Incorrect.
Across state lines is a go, but the transfer must go through a CA FFL dealer. This is to comply with FEDERAL laws.

Librarian
02-22-2012, 12:23 AM
Nope, and BTW across state lines is a no go for family transfers also.

Well, for just using the OPLAW form, yes, but certainly it's legal for properly-related family members to do interstate transfers through CA FFLs.

See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members
(almost completely updated for new PC numbers!)

dave_cg
02-22-2012, 9:00 AM
In-laws are a no-go.

Both parties must be grandparent - parent - child - grandchild, in order to qualify as an "intra-familial" transfer.


Hrrumph.


Incorrect.
Across state lines is a go, but the transfer must go through a CA FFL dealer. This is to comply with FEDERAL laws.

Yeah, I knew an FFL had to be involved for the paperwork.


Just have him send it to his daughter ( your wife) or is that a no go ?


Sure, doable. Just thought I'd avoid the extra step if possible.

In the long run, it may be less hassle to do SSE for the item I have in mind anyway.

Thanks!
-dave

smogcity
02-22-2012, 11:18 AM
Can out of state Father directly send fire arm to Califonia FFL for son in california, or does it need to to be out of state ffl to California FFL?

ke6guj
02-22-2012, 11:38 AM
Can out of state Father directly send fire arm to Califonia FFL for son in california, or does it need to to be out of state ffl to California FFL?

both federal and state law allow an out-of-state nonlicensee to ship directly to a CA FFL, with no out-of-state FFL needed. However, not all FFLs are willing to accept shipments from non-licensees (just a business policy, not a law).

Decoligny
02-22-2012, 11:44 AM
Hrrumph.



Yeah, I knew an FFL had to be involved for the paperwork.



Sure, doable. Just thought I'd avoid the extra step if possible.

In the long run, it may be less hassle to do SSE for the item I have in mind anyway.

Thanks!
-dave

If your actual intent is to get the gun from the father-in-law to the son-in-law by passing it from father to daughter, and then from wife to husband, this is technically illegal.

This is because you are essentially using two seperate legal steps to perform one illegal transfer.

paul0660
02-22-2012, 11:51 AM
If your actual intent is to get the gun from the father-in-law to the son-in-law by passing it from father to daughter, and then from wife to husband, this is technically illegal.

This is because you are essentially using two seperate legal steps to perform one illegal transfer.

No, two legal steps to perform one which is not legal.

Big difference.

Just do it.

smogcity
02-22-2012, 11:56 AM
both federal and state law allow an out-of-state nonlicensee to ship directly to a CA FFL, with no out-of-state FFL needed. However, not all FFLs are willing to accept shipments from non-licensees (just a business policy, not a law).

Thank you, great info!

Can out of state dad buy pistol as a gift for california son at a out of state ffl who then ships to california ffl, or is that a prohibited purchase?

POLICESTATE
02-22-2012, 11:58 AM
No, two legal steps to perform one which is not legal.

Big difference.

Just do it.

Sounds confusing.

Essentially I see it as family transfer from one blood relation to another in immediate family is good. Then transfer from spouse to spouse is good. Then transfer from one blood relation to another in the immediate family is good.

Right? Wrong?

I don't know anymore. Seems you're better off just going through FFL's. Kind of like filling taxes, you're better off seeing a tax guy, and even then you're never 100% sure...

paul0660
02-22-2012, 12:03 PM
Sounds confusing.

It IS confusing. Decoligny says that by doing two legal acts to accomplish something that is not an exception to the prohibitions, it is illegal. That is not true.

Librarian
02-22-2012, 12:24 PM
Thank you, great info!

Can out of state dad buy pistol as a gift for california son at a out of state ffl who then ships to california ffl, or is that a prohibited purchase?

Gifts are legal; be sure the CA FFL knows what is going on, because interstate intrafamilial is not frequent, and that transfer would be Roster-exempt.

bwiese
02-22-2012, 12:29 PM
Please pardon if this is a FAQ -- I searched but didn't turn up anything
on this situation.

I understand that grand-parent/parent/child transfers are OK up and
down the line, and across state lines. WRONG

What about father-in-law/son-in-law handgun and long gun transfers
with a state-line crossing involved? Can that be done?



Modern guns crossing btwn residents of different states means an FFL *must* be used by receiving party.
THIS IS FEDERAL LAW, and CA law is irrelevant to this.

There is no FEDERAL "intrafamily" exemption to using an FFL under Federal law for interstate transfers.
Period.

The only real exemption for skipping FFL use under Federal law is inheritance/bequest operation of law matters.
And that does not mean that 'gramps is getting old and giving you his guns', it means gramps is cold & dead
and inheritance laws/laws of succession etc. are applied appropriately.

[California DOJ BoF staff continue to incorrectly state an FFL is not required but they are only speaking of state
law and are forgetting Fed law and they'll get someone in trouble sometime.]
.
For purposes of CA law, the only authorized 'intrafamily' parties are lineal ones, out to the grandparent/grandchild
level. There are no in-laws, uncles, cousins or other "diagonal" members of the family tree that fall into the CA
'intrafamily' category.
. .

Paul0660 is wrong.... wish he'd think before posting.

Within CA, you simply cannot "structure a transfer" that normally require use of a CA FFL to instead be formed from
a series of individual steps each of which is otherwise a legal, direct, FFL-free transfer.

This is somewhere (old Penal Code) in the 12070s-12080, don't have exact number at hand right now.

Sure an individual here or there may 'tire' of a gun and transfer it to another lineal family member. But the accumulation
of 'sequency steps' is pretty transparent: you just can't bounce a gun up & down the family tree to avoid FFL use.

I remind you that, while not a direct parallel, this is the kind of thought process that lead to the ongoing Sacramento
LEO gun sales investigation just to save a few bucks over running single-shot exemptions.

Glock22Fan
02-22-2012, 12:32 PM
It IS confusing. Decoligny says that by doing two legal acts to accomplish something that is not an exception to the prohibitions, it is illegal. That is not true.

Yes, and no. It depends upon the intent. As long as the wife owns it for a period of time, then decides to give it to her husband, that should be legal. But is she accepts it on behalf of her husband with no intent to keep it, it's not fine.

It's the same as "Can a LEO buy an off-roster handgun and hand it over to me?"

If the LEO is buying it for you, it's illegal. If he/she buys it for themselves, owns it for a couple of weeks and then offers to sell it to you because he/she has decided he/she does not like it after all, then it is legal.

OTOH, this is a community property state, I never have worked out how this affects firearms ownership, whether husband and wife share firearms or whether they "belong" to the person who registered/bought/took possession of them

paul0660
02-22-2012, 12:40 PM
I appreciate your response Bill.

I would more appreciate the code that defines structuring an illegal transfer, and legal definition of "sequency step". They might exist, and IANAL. The Sac fiasco is very apparently a method to get "illegal" guns (not on the roster) into the hands of the unfortunate masses. Doing two transfers to accomplish the transfer of a legal gun to a legal owner is, as you pointed out, not a parallel.

I do think about stuff before posting. Not always well, I admit. However, the law is the law, and following it is not against the law.

Btw, there is no such thing as an imperfect parallel. Lines converge, or they don't.

paul0660
02-22-2012, 12:42 PM
But is she accepts it on behalf of her husband with no intent to keep it, it's not fine.

If you are referencing straw purchases, if the husband is not a prohibited person, it is not a straw purchase.

paul0660
02-22-2012, 12:59 PM
Also, a quick google shows that the Sac thing was a federal deal, with ATF agents making the arrest, with SSD merely being kept up to date.

I am going to guess these LEO's have been charged with dealing without a license, which is even less parallel.

Decoligny
02-22-2012, 1:29 PM
Also, a quick google shows that the Sac thing was a federal deal, with ATF agents making the arrest, with SSD merely being kept up to date.

I am going to guess these LEO's have been charged with dealing without a license, which is even less parallel.

It is a Federal requirement that the State Gun laws be complied with when dealing with transfers of firearms through a FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE dealer (FFL). Using the OPLAW state form in a "two-step" manner intended solely to by-pass the State Gun Law requiring non-linear familial transfers to go through an FFL is probably violating the Federal Law.

Librarian
02-22-2012, 1:38 PM
I appreciate your response Bill.

I would more appreciate the code that defines structuring an illegal transfer, and legal definition of "sequency step". They might exist, and IANAL. The Sac fiasco is very apparently a method to get "illegal" guns (not on the roster) into the hands of the unfortunate masses. Doing two transfers to accomplish the transfer of a legal gun to a legal owner is, as you pointed out, not a parallel.

I do think about stuff before posting. Not always well, I admit. However, the law is the law, and following it is not against the law.

Btw, there is no such thing as an imperfect parallel. Lines converge, or they don't.

We're looking at PC 27515(b) (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/27515.html) - No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or
transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer
knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or
transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually
being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has
either of the following:
(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned,
or transferred to avoid the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.
(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned,
or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the
provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.
27545 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/27545.html) is the requirement that non-licensees use an FFL for transfers; intrafamilial transfer is an exemption from 27545.

So, the chain looks like this:

IF 'Dad' wants to give a handgun to 'Daughter', and does so with the realistic expectation that she will keep the gun, then that's OK.

IF, however, 'Daughter' doesn't want it and will immediately hand it over to her husband, and everybody knows that's the way it's going to be, then it would be violation of 27515.

Similarly, 'brother' trying to give to 'other brother' by routing the gun through 'Dad' has the same problem; that transfer works only if there is a clear understanding that 'Dad' might like the gun and keep it.

Demonstrating intent in the sequence is the sticky part for anyone who might like to Officially Object.

bwiese
02-22-2012, 1:38 PM
Paul0660,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(oldPC)
12072(a)
...
(4) No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to
any person whom he or she knows or has cause to believe is not the actual
purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to any person who is not the person
actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has
either of the following:

(A) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently loaned, sold, or transferred
to avoid the provisions of subdivision (c) or (d). [trying to avoid various xfer restrictions
like 10 day, proper age/identity, HSC, etc. - or avoiding use of an FFL PPT]

(B) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently loaned, sold, or transferred
to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of subdivision
(c) or (d).

(5) No person, corporation, or dealer shall acquire a firearm for the purpose of
selling, transferring, or loaning the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:(A) In the case of a dealer, intent to violate subdivision (b) or (c).
(B) In any other case, intent to avoid either of the following:(i) The provisions of subdivision (d).
(ii) The requirements of any exemption to the provisions of subdivision (d).
.
(c) summarization: FFL can't deliver if ... ... under 10 day wait period;
... handgun not unloaded nor wrapped securely or in locked container
... unless clear evidence of idenity/age;
... DOJ notifies purchaser is prohibited person;
... unless BFSC (old) or HSC (new) is presented;
... over 1-in-30 days (points to exemptions elsewhere, i.e., C&R+COE etc);
(d) Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer's license issued
pursuant to Section 12071, the parties to the transaction shall complete the
sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant
to Section 12082.
.
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

paul0660
02-22-2012, 1:48 PM
You guys are good. Thank you for indulging me and finding the code.

Still, it is about Knowledge, a completely subjective concept originating from the supposed lawbreaker.

I still say do it.

It the given situation, of course, it would be cheaper to do a PPT.

dave_cg
02-22-2012, 2:09 PM
I sure didn't mean to poke the hornet's nest with a stick. I think the info that came out is good, though, as I suspect I'm not the only person with the question so hopefully the clarification will help someone else.

My take way is that when it comes time to keep heirloom guns in the family, then there are ways to thread the needle, carefully. My brother-in-law (in New York! Not much easier than Cal) and I can sort that issue out when it is appropriate. In the mean time, if dad sees a good deal on something spiffy -- well, it probably isn't worth the hassle unless it is extra special. And then it had best be a gift to my wife.

Thanks,
Dave

taperxz
02-22-2012, 2:36 PM
Well, for just using the OPLAW form, yes, but certainly it's legal for properly-related family members to do interstate transfers through CA FFLs.

See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members
(almost completely updated for new PC numbers!)

Sorry, got home on a late flight. My understanding was op mentioned the family transfer being ok across state lines and no FFL, well, i assumed thats what he meant. Obviously a transfer from to anyone through an FFL is good to go.

I stand corrected if thats the way it was taken in my post:)