PDA

View Full Version : Selling a rifle in CA - anyone ever use this DOJ - transfer?


Farmer_Rob
01-26-2008, 7:21 PM
I was told this was legal with long rifles- actually i've used it with 2 shotguns (1 buy 1 sold) $19 bux and they sent me a letter saying AOK...
they ask for FFL info anywhere...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

So if i wanted to sell a rifle here on Calguns, can i use this??

Matt C
01-26-2008, 7:26 PM
No, you are a bit confused. This simply REGISTERS a firearm. To TRANSFER a firearm an FFL needs to be involved, and in fact you do not even need to register non-AW rifles, ever.

krby
01-26-2008, 7:31 PM
That's not legal.

From California Penal Code 12072 (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12070.php):
(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.

The non-legalese version is here:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

The "firearm ownership record" form is what you linked to. It is a used to create a paper trail saying you own a particular firearm. You may have bought one before the DROS requirements and want a record of it in case it's lost or stolen. See: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#25

Farmer_Rob
01-26-2008, 7:40 PM
it seemed to easy - thks for setting me straight-

so ffl is a must.... roger that

G17GUY
01-26-2008, 8:01 PM
So what if someone sends this in without a FFL transfer and the firearm went through DROS with a previous owner.

Matt C
01-26-2008, 9:06 PM
So what if someone sends this in without a FFL transfer and the firearm went through DROS with a previous owner.

Since rifles are not registered normally, all you would be doing is informing the DOJ you had a rifle. It would not likely raise any red flags, but you would basically be informing them that you did an illegal transfer (unless it's C&R/50 years old). Bad idea.

11Z50
01-26-2008, 10:17 PM
If you're an old guy (like some of us) there was a time when we could buy, sell and trade guns, including handguns (Gasp!:eek::eek:) freely amongst ourselves. I think this ended in 1999 (?) and many of us own guns which were never DROS'd to us. DOJ maintains there is no registration requirement to this day except for AW's and handgun importation. A handgun not reg'd to you in your possession is not, AFAIK, a violation. If the piece was manufactured after the cut-off date (again I think it was 1999 or 2000) there might be an issue, but I've never heard of anybody getting in trouble for that. IT IS A FELONY VIOLATION TO CARRY/TRANSPORT A LOADED HANDGUN THAT IS NOT REGISTERED TO YOU.

Any thoughts?

Ech0Sierra
01-26-2008, 10:18 PM
Why is this in Handguns?

11Z50
01-26-2008, 10:28 PM
I dunno. But when I read the DOJ FAQ, and the statute, I could not see any requirement for a handgun to be reg'd to you if you have it in your possession.

rue
01-26-2008, 10:35 PM
I never heard of that, you're telling me using your wife's pistol is a felony? Come on guy...

BaronW
01-26-2008, 10:43 PM
I never heard of that, you're telling me using your wife's pistol is a felony? Come on guy...

Transporting it or carrying it loaded is a felony. It's legal to loan a pistol to someone who is not prohibited from owning one, they just better not try to carry it without a permit.

11Z50
01-26-2008, 10:46 PM
The intent of the statute was to clamp down on gangbangers. If you have a CCW and the pistol is on your CCW you're good. BUT, with no CCW, if you are in a car, with a loaded concealed pistol not reg'd to you, it's a felony. I can get the section for you, but I have a headache:rolleyes: Look it up, it's around 12020PC.

hoffmang
01-27-2008, 11:27 AM
A bit of clarification. It's not a CCW as having a CCW exempts you from being charge with carrying loaded and concealed.

There is a special de-escalation of loaded concealed carry charges if you are carrying a handgun that is registered to you in the CA-AFS system.

-Gene

p7m8jg
01-27-2008, 11:30 AM
+1 for the post that it was intended to increase the penalties on gang bangers.

I've never seen it used against normal people with no record who happen to get caught violating the misdemeanor section...

Timberland
01-27-2008, 12:13 PM
The intent of the statute was to clamp down on gangbangers. If you have a CCW and the pistol is on your CCW you're good. BUT, with no CCW, if you are in a car, with a loaded concealed pistol not reg'd to you, it's a felony. I can get the section for you, but I have a headache:rolleyes: Look it up, it's around 12020PC.

Wait, so if you illigaly carry your own gun = misdimenor, Somone elses = felony, thats a WTF moulment

11Z50
01-27-2008, 12:52 PM
The idea here is that if LEO stops a gangbanger, and finds a loaded concealed handgun not reg'd to the occupant, the 'banger goes directly to jail, for a felony. Rarely, if ever, do gangbangers carry reg'd handguns, and in fact they are usually stolen. So, rather than only have a misdemeanor charge, the cops can take a gun out of the hands of someone likely to illegally use it, put a gang member in prison, (and if it's a first timer, he now has a felony record, which does all kinds of neat things) and impound the gangster's ride.

If Joe citizen is packing without a CCW, for other than nefarious reasons, and the pistol is reg'd to him, it is only a misdemeanor. This gives LEO's the options of issuing a warning, issuing a citation, or arresting and booking the citizen, but with minimal bail. Although this might effect his gun rights, at least the citizen won't go to the big house. I have seen LEO's simply instruct the citizen to make the weapon safe and legal, ie unload and secure it properly, and issue a stern warning. Then again, if said citizen was minding his own business, not breaking any laws or doing anything suspicious, there would be no reason for him to be stopped, and the cops would never know (or care) he was packing.

Most average citizen concealed weapon busts come from DUI stops or other issues.

Many times, even if a citizen with no record is popped for packing, and no other factors are involved, a deal is cut, and the gun is confiscated, and the citizen walks with no jail time.

krby
01-27-2008, 12:56 PM
There is a special de-escalation of loaded concealed carry charges if you are carrying a handgun that is registered to you in the CA-AFS system.

-Gene

IIRC, it's a misdemeanor vs a felony, right?

11Z50
01-27-2008, 1:03 PM
I have heard of people sending in the reg paperwork on handguns and getting back a letter stating all is well, no questions on the fact it was acquired without DROS. AFAIK this would make one legally reg'd. I think the kicker here is that no firearm, other than AW's, and handguns brought into the state by new residents must be reg'd. Nothing I've read requires any pistol, no matter when it was acquired or manufactured, to be reg'd to the person in possession. There are stautes regulating the selling, transfer, purchase, loan, storage and transport of handguns, but nothing requiring that handguns must be reg'd to the owner. You guys please let me know if I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

Here's a scenario: You are out in a lawful shooting area and you are contacted by an LEO on a simple activity check, nothing is amiss. The LEO asks to do a loaded weapons check during the contact, which is OK. He then asks to run the SN's of your guns to see if they are stolen. Questionable, but let's say he does and none of the weapons are "hot". One is not reg'd to you. Can the LEO do anything about it? I say no. What say you?

SemiAutoSam
01-27-2008, 1:09 PM
In the area of 1990 - 1991.

If you're an old guy (like some of us) there was a time when we could buy, sell and trade guns, including handguns (Gasp!:eek::eek:) freely amongst ourselves. I think this ended in 1999 (?) and many of us own guns which were never DROS'd to us. DOJ maintains there is no registration requirement to this day except for AW's and handgun importation. A handgun not reg'd to you in your possession is not, AFAIK, a violation. If the piece was manufactured after the cut-off date (again I think it was 1999 or 2000) there might be an issue, but I've never heard of anybody getting in trouble for that. IT IS A FELONY VIOLATION TO CARRY/TRANSPORT A LOADED HANDGUN THAT IS NOT REGISTERED TO YOU.

Any thoughts?

Quiet
01-27-2008, 4:18 PM
I've never seen it used against normal people with no record who happen to get caught violating the misdemeanor section...

It happened to a friend of mine. He had no criminal record and worked for the county.

When he was in the process of moving from his old apartment to his new one, RSO pulled him over for "reckless driving", noticed all the boxes, searched his car and found his dad's 1911 in one of the boxes.
He got hooked & booked and charged with a felony [PC 12031(F)] and a misdemeanor [PC 12025(A)(1)].

After much $$$$$, the felony was dropped, he got convicted of the misdemeanor and his dad got the 1911 back.

Matt C
01-27-2008, 8:28 PM
Can the LEO do anything about it? I say no. What say you?

You are correct.

artherd
01-27-2008, 10:30 PM
Here's a scenario: You are out in a lawful shooting area and you are contacted by an LEO on a simple activity check, nothing is amiss. The LEO asks to do a loaded weapons check during the contact, which is OK. He then asks to run the SN's of your guns to see if they are stolen. Questionable, but let's say he does and none of the weapons are "hot". One is not reg'd to you. Can the LEO do anything about it? I say no. What say you?

I know of no theory of law under which you could be prosecuted.