AB 809 (2011) Feuer - EFFECTIVE JAN 1 2014, register long guns

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by BobB35

Really? I didn't know all of DARPA was located in CA or that CERN had moved to CA. I would go out on a limb and say that claim to be just a little arrogant and follow up with....so that was 15 years ago....why are all the companies leaving CA?

Relax just a little.

Gene knows a lot about the business climate in California and he certainly knows about DARPA's early involvement in the invention of the Internet (my apologies to Al Gore). But at the same time Silicon Valley is utterly huge in Internet development - I really don't think there is any other geographic area which can compete in that area of current endeavor.

But the other part is extremely important. On many aspects of legal and social issues (and for either good or for evil) California does tend to lead the nation. One could argue that California is in a state of decline, and if one does they must mourn for our country because the odds are entirely too high that California will then lead our entire nation into decline.

This leadership on firearms issues is a difficult one. California has led in gutting our RKBA along with several other states. This is a terrible thing but it may now be reversing.

Thanks to the CGF board, CGN, and so many others who volunteer, contribute, and cooperate - California appears to be leading the effort to restore our RKBA in a durable and legally defensible fashion. So far as I can tell, there just isn't anything else in the nation which can quite equal what is happening here in California.

CGF appears to be in close cooperation with SAF, probably closely cooperating with CRPA, at least loosely coordinates with the NRA, and seems to be increasingly able to work with our UOC organizations as well. There are tendrils of influence that reach into other states to foster certain actions as well.

I'm not sure one could say that CGF is the key to our nationwide effort to secure our RKBA, but it is at least one of the keys - and I'm not sure it would actually work without CGF.

That sounds like a fairly grandiose assessment of the CGF importance, but if you examine what they are actually doing and the strategic effect of the litigation they have sponsored or assisted on, I'm not sure that it is an overblown assessment. They are going to roll back a lot of stuff in this state, and partly because they are in the 9th Circuit they are going to have a huge effect both from wins and from losses which create circuit splits and the crucial SCOTUS opinions.

It's sort of at the point that when CGF wins, they win. When CGF loses, they win bigger (although maybe indirectly). If I were an anti-RKBA type I might just throw up my arms and quit when I saw CGF litigation because not defending against the CGF case is a loss for them - but a smaller loss than if they win.

[sharxbyte]

We'll have to register 80%'s as well, am I correct?

[gatesbox]

Originally Posted by sharxbyte

We'll have to register 80%'s as well, am I correct?

Nope, the law has been written to change the DROS process basically to include Long guns as well. So if you are not transfering it through an FFL the reg will be voluntary, just like it is now....

[sharxbyte]

*huge sigh of relief* I may just make ALL of my guns then...

[hoffmang]

Originally Posted by BobB35

Really? I didn't know all of DARPA was located in CA or that CERN had moved to CA. I would go out on a limb and say that claim to be just a little arrogant and follow up with....so that was 15 years ago....why are all the companies leaving CA?

You mean like how Google and Facebook and Twitter and Zynga and Cisco and LinkedIn and Apple and Pandora are leaving California? Even Amazon gave up on sales tax to come to California. Heck, I just got back from Microsoft's campus here.

So, once you take all that technology away, please tell me how your internet works for you.

-Gene

[Scarecrow Repair]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

So, once you take all that technology away, please tell me how your internet works for you.

-Gene

2000 miles of string?

[sharxbyte]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair

2000 miles of string?

if I remember correctly, Ethernet cable doesnt carry signal well past 1000 feet... Even Fiber wouldn't like it... You'd need a Laser emitter and a big pocket book

[CrysisMonkey]

Originally Posted by sharxbyte

if I remember correctly, Ethernet cable doesnt carry signal well past 1000 feet... Even Fiber wouldn't like it... You'd need a Laser emitter and a big pocket book

LASER transceivers - $250
20,000 ft of fiber - $50,000
No bandwidth restrictions - Priceless.

[Eat Dirt]

What's the latest on this ...........................AB809

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Eat Dirt

What's the latest on this ...........................AB809

It's law, with an effective date in 2014.

[Silverone858]

How will this affect 80% lower reciever builds? Will we have to register the lower after it is completed?
You gotta love California simply paradise and people hate that so they have to ruin it for everybody!

oops I saw it! That's what I get for not reading the 4th page.

[bohoki]

i have a couple long arms made before 68 that dont have serials how will they be ppt through a ffl

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by bohoki

i have a couple long arms made before 68 that dont have serials how will they be ppt through a ffl

Same as now. No serial required on firearms made before 1968 or most imports/milsurps.

[HK Dave]

How does this affect bullet buttoned rifles? Does this spell an end to the OLL movement?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by HK Dave

How does this affect bullet buttoned rifles? Does this spell an end to the OLL movement?

Why would it have an effect on rifles with mag lock devices? They're just rifles.

[HK Dave]

Thats what i wanted to see.

[SFgiants105]

Seriously, how do we have money for this?

[DarthSean]

Are there any legal challenges mounting against AB809?

[Flogger23m]

I have a question about selling long guns after the law takes affect. If we have a long gun and sell it, will the seller be registered as a gun owner or registered as having owned long guns in the past?

Or will the process be the same as it is now for the seller?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Flogger23m

I have a question about selling long guns after the law takes affect. If we have a long gun and sell it, will the seller be registered as a gun owner or registered as having owned long guns in the past?

Or will the process be the same as it is now for the seller?

Same as now - the buyer/gun info will be sent with DROS and it will be kept as handgun info is.

[Flogger23m]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Same as now - the buyer/gun info will be sent with DROS and it will be kept as handgun info is.

Thank you for clearing that up.

[calgunnner]

I hate this

[calgunnner]

Is there any lawsuit against this?

[bandook]

So no more multiple long guns for a single DROS fee after 1/1/2014 ?

[swift]

Unless I am misreading the text of the law, it seems that after Jan 1, 2014, I can't make a gift of a longarm to my child who is under 18 (just as I currently cannot do with a handgun).

Am I misunderstanding the text?

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by swift

Unless I am misreading the text of the law, it seems that after Jan 1, 2014, I can't make a gift of a longarm to my child who is under 18 (just as I currently cannot do with a handgun).

Am I misunderstanding the text?

No, you do not misunderstand; the 18 age now applies to all intrafamilial firearm transfers.

SEC. 40. Section 27875 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
27875. Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a handgun,
and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm, by gift, bequest,
intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another,
if all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person
to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver
in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes
information concerning the individual taking possession of the
firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of
the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete
pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the Department
of Justice.
(d) The person taking title to the firearm shall first obtain a
handgun safety certificate, if the firearm is a handgun.
(e) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.

[Ub3rD0rk]

Well I got confirmation just this morning that my work will transfer me to Houston TX. as of January 14, 2013. I've been begging for a transfer for 4 years and finally got it, just in time.

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by Librarian

No, you do not misunderstand; the 18 age now applies to all intrafamilial firearm transfers.

is that the proper way to read it?

SEC. 40. Section 27875 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
27875. Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a handgun,
and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm, by gift, bequest,
intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another,
if all of the following requirements are met:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person
to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver
in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes
information concerning the individual taking possession of the
firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of
the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete
pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the Department
of Justice.
(d) The person taking title to the firearm shall first obtain a
handgun safety certificate, if the firearm is a handgun.
(e) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.

I would see that 27870 would be controlling for long guns until 1-1-2014 and there is no age requirement there.

27870. Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a firearm,
other than a handgun, by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or
other means from one individual to another, if both of the following
requirements are satisfied:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends
that date.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by ke6guj

is that the proper way to read it?

I would see that 27870 would be controlling for long guns until 1-1-2014 and there is no age requirement there.

Yes, it is, I'm pretty sure. The question was about 2014.

it seems that after Jan 1, 2014

As you note, 27870 controls long guns until then, but after Jan 1 2014 is no longer in effect.

(c) This section [27870] shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends
that date.

The lack of age limit in 27870 is extinguished with the section.

In 2014, 27875 is amended to affect 'any firearm' rather than 'handgun' as it covers now, and (e) has the age limit that never applied before to long guns.

[ke6guj]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Yes, it is, I'm pretty sure. The question was about 2014.

As you note, 27870 controls long guns until then, but after Jan 1 2014 is no longer in effect. The lack of age limit in 27870 is extinguished with the section.

In 2014, 27875 is amended to affect 'any firearm' rather than 'handgun' as it covers now, and (e) has the age limit that never applied before to long guns.

gotcha. I missed the original question and the nuance of your answer.

Originally Posted by Librarian

No, you do not misunderstand; the 18 age now applies to all intrafamilial firearm transfers.

I thought you were talking about "now" as in now, not "now" as in 2014

[rbetts]

Here is my take on the effect of this law on the DROS process:

1. No more early long gun DROS. Now you have to wait until the gun arrives at the dealer to start paperwork (internet purchases)

2. One gun per DROS?? With associated DROS fee. (makes sense as this is how handguns are DROS'd) More $$ for the state and very expensive to purchase multiple firearms at one time.

3. DROS software is currently not able to operate under the new law. It will have to be re-designed. (bet the DOJ has a crack team working on this one right now).

Overall, a big downer to the industry as paperwork increases and fees generated to the state increase substantially.

Not looking forward to the implementation AT ALL!!

[RMP91]

Hopefully I will have made my exodus by 2014...

I'm just paranoid that this will apply to California residents who now live in free states, kind of like a possessive entity... Again, it's just me.

[Glock22Fan]

Originally Posted by jnojr

Easily! They just "propose" it again. And again. And again. Until it passes.

Our area, some time back, decided it needed a high school, although in many people's brains, this was financially unwise. The kids have been schooled in temporary buildings since that high school was started, with a condemned bym they could not use.

Time after time after time after time (literally) they tried to pass a bond for a new school and eventually succeeded, by a tiny margin, having worn down the opposition. Now, having spent millions on architects' fees, engineers' fees etc. they discover that the state will not after all be supplying matching funds and the new school is a non-starter. Not to mention that the high speed rail line may well be going straight through the school grounds.

What I don't understand is the proposed cost of the new school. For what they intended to spend on each student, they could have bought that student a complete new three bedroom house. Why is that much money needed for 3% of the floor space of a classroom (assuming 33 students per class) and common amenities?

So yes, no matter how mad an idea, you just keep asking and asking and asking until the opposition is worn down.

[Shinobi'sZ]

Originally Posted by hoffmang

Yes. After 1/1/2014 Long Gun serial numbers will also be sent with the DROS and then retained by CA DOJ in your AFS records - just like handguns.

-Gene

I have a question regarding your statement for accuracy. I sent a norterized form into CalDOJ requesting them to send me a copy of the records they had regarding the firearms I owned. I received back a letter stating that they don't maintain records of serial numbers except for those firearms that were voluntarily registered. The only firearms (serial #) reported were ones that I had to volunteer to register as a requirement for me to get my CCW permit. Other handguns and rifles that I owned did not appear.

It is my understanding that it is the FFL who is required to maintain records for up to 20 years, not DOJ.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Shinobi'sZ

I have a question regarding your statement for accuracy. I sent a norterized form into CalDOJ requesting them to send me a copy of the records they had regarding the firearms I owned. I received back a letter stating that they don't maintain records of serial numbers except for those firearms that were voluntarily registered. The only firearms (serial #) reported were ones that I had to volunteer to register as a requirement for me to get my CCW permit. Other handguns and rifles that I owned did not appear.

It is my understanding that it is the FFL who is required to maintain records for up to 20 years, not DOJ.

Frankly, I think DOJ is mistaken in their reply.

The serial numbers of handguns sold through FFLs are electronically (since 1998) reported to DOJ via the DROS process. (PC 28160 (a)(12) )

I would be quite surprised if those complete records were not entered directly into their database of firearms.

The 20-year thing is for Federal 4473s. (27 CFR 478.129 - Record retention)

[Shinobi'sZ]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Frankly, I think DOJ is mistaken in their reply.

The serial numbers of handguns sold through FFLs are electronically (since 1998) reported to DOJ via the DROS process. (PC 28160 (a)(12) )

I would be quite surprised if those complete records were not entered directly into their database of firearms.

The 20-year thing is for Federal 4473s. (27 CFR 478.129 - Record retention)

Sorry I didn't write in my post all of the contents in the DOJ letter. The letter response from DOJ indicates that they discard the information with the serial numbers from the DROS after 5 days of the DROS period of time. It was an interesting enough response from DOJ that I have made copies and kept it with my firearms records. Obviously they felt it was legit enough to respond in writing to me.

[MindBeyondAverage]

Man, I feel for you guys. I keep a close watch on California because I believe you guys are the petri dish for what is going to be tried on the rest of us. I'm from Texas btw. I know of a lot of horror stories about a lot of innocent people out there being criminalized because of your regime and it pisses me off. This strict gun crap that seems to be pushing pretty hard towards a ban will get extremely violent before it gets settled. REMEMBER, GIVE EM YOUR AMMO FIRST!

[mls343]

As of January, 2014, will we still be able to purchase rifles from the CMP directly?

Sorry if this question has already been answered alredy as I did not do a search...

[sharkman]

Originally Posted by Maltese Falcon

Every time I see one of these piece of crap proposed new laws, it makes we want to go buy another high powered something or another to calm me down.

Donation to CGF and CRPA on the way...

.

I understand, COMPLETELY. It is EXACTLY why I moved to the FREE state of Oklahoma. And, I am retired LEO, from a California agency, so I can, and do, own things many Californians can't. 35 year life member of CRPA, and I NEVER, 35 years ago, envisioned that things could get as tyrannical, as they have.
I moved, and never looked back. I barely ever come back, except to visit my grandkids, when they are still in school. Summers, they get to see what free people live like, here in Oklahoma.
My heart goes out to those who feel trapped in the PRK, but if y'all don't work diligently on informing the uninformed masses, about the tyranny, that California has become, you will never recover any level of freedom. You will become like a western European, socialist democracy.
I feel your pain.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Shinobi'sZ

Sorry I didn't write in my post all of the contents in the DOJ letter. The letter response from DOJ indicates that they discard the information with the serial numbers from the DROS after 5 days of the DROS period of time. It was an interesting enough response from DOJ that I have made copies and kept it with my firearms records. Obviously they felt it was legit enough to respond in writing to me.

Had to go look this up.

I think you may be misreading what they sent you.

PC 11106(a) requires the AG to keep the complete DROS for handguns, and (b)(1) says the office discards the information about long guns after 5 days - but no serial number info is currently collected for long guns.

(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), the Attorney General shall not retain or compile any information from reports filed pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (c) of Section 16585 for firearms that are not handguns, from forms submitted pursuant to Section 12084, as that section read prior to being repealed, for firearms that are not handguns, or from dealers’ records of sales for firearms that are not handguns. All copies of the forms submitted, or any information received in electronic form, pursuant to Section 12084, as that section read prior to being repealed, for firearms that are not handguns, or of the dealers’ records of sales for firearms that are not handguns shall be destroyed within five days of the clearance by the Attorney General, unless the purchaser or transferor is ineligible to take possession of the firearm. All copies of the reports filed, or any information received in electronic form, pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (c) of Section 16585 for firearms that are not handguns shall be destroyed within five days of the receipt by the Attorney General, unless retention is necessary for use in a criminal prosecution.

[[ The oncle version of PC 11106, my usual source for PC text, shows only the version that takes effect in 2014; the still-effective version of 11106 is available from the state site, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml; the state site is canonical. ]]