PDA

View Full Version : Out of state shipment of longguns - FFLs at both ends?


STFU
01-25-2008, 10:50 AM
First of all, I'd like to apologize in advance. I understand this may be a dupe, but I did use search and could not come up with the full information I'm looking for. Certainly, Senior Members here have chimed in, but as a complete stranger to this site, I don't know their background.

My understanding of regulations regarding the need for FFLs for interstate shipments is apparently quite different than other individuals around the nation, FFLs included. I'm going to state my understanding of the current situation, with my reasoning. I'd be quite grateful if some of you would chime in with your understanding of the following scenarios, and if possible, cite the actual statute.

1) Interstate or Intrastate shipment from an individual to an FFL, for repair and then return of the firearm. Not a "transfer", thus no FFL needed at the individuals end - PC 12078 (e)

2) Interstate transfer to an FFL (you're selling your rifle to an FFL in NV, for instance). Not an individual to individual transfer, thus no need for an FFL on the individual end.

3) Interstate transfer to an individual. To me, this seems like either the CA individual to individual transfer laws may apply, or may be superseded by Federal law that only requires an FFL at the receiving end.

Again, if posters can cite the appropriate section, and or case law, I'd be immensely grateful. This information would also be shown to a large national audience via another outdoors forum. I can link to the exact post if that is allowed by this forum.

Thank you in advance,
Scott

hawk1
01-25-2008, 11:12 AM
Bottom line atf says from you to an out of state FFL is ok. Although some out of state FFL's will not accept from a private person. Best check with the FFL if you are shipping out of state to see if he will accept from you and not your FFL.
The above applies to long guns and handguns.

As always, you to an individual or not to a FFL is illegal...


B. UNLICENSED PERSONS


(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

bwiese
01-25-2008, 11:15 AM
Generally a max. of one FFL is required at the destination with the exception of two situations described below.

Hawk1's quote about general Federal use of an FFL is good. I unfortunately do not have further PC cites at hand, but what I am writing IS correct.


1) Interstate or Intrastate shipment from an individual to an FFL, for repair and then return of the firearm. Not a "transfer", thus no FFL needed at the individuals end - PC 12078 (e)

Correct. You can indeed send a gun out to an FFL smith and then receive it back without intervention of an additional FFL.

(Never send out a gun for some kinda special work to someone who does not have an FFL. There must be an FFL at the receiving end, and that FFL would have to 'stand over the shoulder' of the non-FFL doing the work since he could not give custody of the gun to the non-FFL.)


2) Interstate transfer to an FFL (you're selling your rifle to an FFL in NV, for instance). Not an individual to individual transfer, thus no need for an FFL on the individual end.

As long as gun is not a registered AW in CA, you can ship a rifle you are selling to any FFL inside or outside CA.

Just about all interstate gun transactions require the services of an FFL at the receiving end.


3) Interstate transfer to an individual. To me, this seems like either the CA individual to individual transfer laws may apply, or may be superseded by Federal law that only requires an FFL at the receiving end.

Since Fed law generally requires an FFL to participate in interstate transfers, that would be at the receiving end where new possession of gun is taken.

So if you're mailing a gun that you're giving to your brother, or have sold to someone on GunBroker, etc. you have to ship to an FFL first.

If a gun is truly inherited (formal estate probate etc) this is one case where an FFL is generally not needed unless state law intervenes with additional restrictions. If Gramps is on his deathbed and says, "I want Johnny to have my guns", they can't just be shipped to Johnny without using an FFL: Gramps actually has to kick the bucket and the guns are handled by executor.

If a Californian were to inherit long guns, the long guns can be inherited without FFL or paperwork regardless of the state of origination. If a Californian were to inherit handguns, he generally must hold a valid HSC card (Handgun Safety Certificate; simple test + $25 fee, 5 yr validity) and file a form with Calif DOJ Bureau of Firearms called "Firearms Acquisition by Operation of Law", with a $19/handgun fee. (Inherited long guns could also be voluntarily registered, but what's the point?)

Inherited firearms (as well as firearms transferred via specified immediate family members) do not need to be on the Roster of Approved Handguns (drop tested, etc.)

State law inside CA requires all CA sales/transfers to go thru a CA FFL, so if you had a gun to sell/give to another Californian, remote from you, you'd ship to his FFL.

Problems ensue within CA if the received firearm were a handgun not on the Roster of Approved Handguns. In that case, both parties being CA residents, an alternate two-CA-FFL system would be used: a split-site "PPT" (private party transfer) is executed and run as a "Gun Show Transcation". The originating CA FFL would ship the gun with a copy of the seller's ID, partially filled-out form, etc. to the receiving CA FFL.

Registered assault weapons ("AWs") cannot be sold to or inherited by individuals inside CA and can't be handled by ordinary CA FFLs - a special CA AW permit is needed.

Reg'd AWs could, however, be sold to an AW permittee for subsequent resale to LE or out of state. If a person were to sell a reg'd AW to a person outside CA, the services of a CA FFL w/AW permit would be required to *ship* the gun outside CA, and an FFL at the receiving end would be required to transfer the gun to the out of state purchaser.

[However, a registered AW can be driven out of CA and sold to or thru an out of state FFL without the services of a CA AW permittee.]

STFU
01-25-2008, 12:36 PM
Bill,

It is actually some of your previous posts that served to reinforce my understanding of the laws regarding FFLs and shipping. I'm actually in agreement with you 100%. However, I'm really hoping to get some CA PC cites in this thread, because there are some CA FFLs out there that are refusing shipments of 100% legal non-AW (not even OLL type) firearms that originate from an out of state individual. Think Winchester Model 70, Remington 870 or a non-regulated or approved handgun. Nothing remotely near an OLL semi-automatic.

Likewise, there are out of state FFLs that are refusing to accept a "plain Jane" firearm from an individual that is shipping from CA. They are insisting that it be shipped from a CA FFL.

Is it worth my while to contact the Firearms division directly on this matter?

Is it also correct that AB 2521, requiring a DOJ approval number for FFL to FFL shipments, was defeated? I'm seeing conflicting information on this issue as well.

Again, many thanks.
Scott

bwiese
01-25-2008, 12:53 PM
Bill,

It is actually some of your previous posts that served to reinforce my understanding of the laws regarding FFLs and shipping. I'm actually in agreement with you 100%. However, I'm really hoping to get some CA PC cites in this thread, because there are some CA FFLs out there that are refusing shipments of 100% legal non-AW (not even OLL type) firearms that originate from an out of state individual. Think Winchester Model 70, Remington 870 or a non-regulated or approved handgun. Nothing remotely near an OLL semi-automatic.

Likewise, there are out of state FFLs that are refusing to accept a "plain Jane" firearm from an individual that is shipping from CA. They are insisting that it be shipped from a CA FFL.

Some FFLs that do this do it for 'perceived protection' in case the gun might be stolen, etc. They may feel that it's better for them, business-wise, to have an FFL originating on the other end as some kind of 'filter'.

Some CA FFLs have had problems, however, caused by people ordering in handguns that turned out to not be Rostered. Then the dealer ends up burning staff time/return postage/bookkeeping disposing of the gun that can't be sold - and the customer who did not get his gun ends up not paying the transfer fee, so the dealer's really in the hole for such a transaction.

But if they say it's the law, they're wrong. I can't point you to code allowing this because it's the *lack* of code disallowing this that makes the "single FFL in state of receipt" legal (i.e, proving a negative).

Is it worth my while to contact the Firearms division directly on this matter?

No, because the BOF has no control over uncontrolled lawful business practice choices. That's entirely a decision of the business.

In CA, an FFL dealer *must* accept in-state PPT (private-party transfers), with specified fee structure. The FFL does NOT have to participate in "ordering for 10% over Shotgun News" deals: those are not PPTs as those guns are regular inventory.

[If the FFL sells handguns, he must PPT handguns; if the FFL's business is restricted to long guns, he does not have to participate in PPTing handguns.]

Your option is to find other FFLs, or develop a relationship with FFLs so they trust you and know what's what.

Is it also correct that AB2521, requiring a DOJ approval number for FFL to FFL shipments, was defeated?

It was not defeated, because it was apparently not formally opposed by CAFR. (I have a sneaking suspicion less opposition to it was presented as a tradeoff in getting AB2728 AW relaxations thru.)

2521 does not become officially active til mid-2008. Published regulations need to be formally adopted and in place for this to become active/in force.

There is no 'approval' of the guns being sold, this is just kinda an additional ID#: the legislative goal was to stop FFLs from shipping to phony FFLs with forged documents. This really doesn't do that, but they feel it does that.

Looks like a selling FFL outside CA just will have to get another number from CA DOJ and ship to CA FFLs with the CA ID (i.e., on a valid list).

STFU
01-25-2008, 2:10 PM
Is it worth my while to contact the Firearms division directly on this matter?
No, because the BOF has no control over uncontrolled lawful business practice choices. That's entirely a decision of the business.

I'm completely on board with businesses having their own practices. Capitalism at work :) What I hear happening though, is that CA FFLs are stating that it is CA law that the firearm must come from an out of state FFL, that it legally cannot come directly from an individual. The reverse situation applies with out of state FFLs declining to receive a firearm from a CA individual, based on perceptions of CA law.

Then there are Postmasters at the USPS...

Thanks again for your input. I'm glad that my searches on this subject brought this forum to my attention.

Regards,
Scott