Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:50 PM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Inheriting a gun

My son lives in California. Alameda, Ca. to be precise.

He's inherited a Ruger Single-Six that, as executor, I'm holding onto. The deceased was a Pa. resident, as am I.

My son is currently visiting me.

Under Federal and Pennsylvania laws, I can just give him the gun and he can walk away with it.

What are the rules regarding bringing an inherited gun into Ca.? I've found stuff online about moving into the state with guns but not about our situation.

Any insights?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-11-2018, 12:56 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 10,567
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Libraran will be here shortly to rule on this or one of our other ac's.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-11-2018, 1:29 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Inheritance is the one instance of interstate transfer that an FFL is not required, by either federal or state law. So yes you can just give it to him. When he returns to Ca he needs to fill out this form https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...orms/oplaw.pdf and send it in along with $19. There is also an on-line version, but I can never remember the link to it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-11-2018, 2:07 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 22,868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
My son lives in California. Alameda, Ca. to be precise.

He's inherited a Ruger Single-Six that, as executor, I'm holding onto. The deceased was a Pa. resident, as am I.

My son is currently visiting me.

Under Federal and Pennsylvania laws, I can just give him the gun and he can walk away with it.

What are the rules regarding bringing an inherited gun into Ca.? I've found stuff online about moving into the state with guns but not about our situation.

Any insights?

Thanks.
It (him being in PA and the executor of the estate handing the firearm to him, then him bringing the firearm back to CA) is also legal under California laws. [PC 27585(b)(7) & 27920(c)]

After he takes possession of the firearm and returns to CA, he has 30 days to report the acquisition to CA DOJ. [PC 27920(c)(3)]




Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(7) A person who complies with subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 27920.

Penal Code 27920
(c) Subdivision (a) of Section 27585 does not apply to a person who imports a firearm into this state, brings a firearm into this state, or transports a firearm into this state if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The person acquires ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession as a surviving spouse or as the surviving registered domestic partner of the decedent who owned that firearm.
(2) If acquisition of the firearm had occurred within this state, the receipt of the firearm by the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner would be exempt from the provisions of Section 27545 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) by virtue of subdivision (h) of Section 16990.
(3) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm and importing, bringing, or transporting it into this state, the person shall submit a report to the Department of Justice, in a manner prescribed by the department, 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.
(4) The person has obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-11-2018, 2:33 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,287
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
It (him being in PA and the executor of the estate handing the firearm to him, then him bringing the firearm back to CA) is also legal under California laws. [PC 27585(b)(7) & 27920(c)]

After he takes possession of the firearm and returns to CA, he has 30 days to report the acquisition to CA DOJ. [PC 27920(c)(3)]

Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to or affect any of the following:
(7) A person who complies with subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 27920.

Penal Code 27920
(c) Subdivision (a) of Section 27585 does not apply to a person who imports a firearm into this state, brings a firearm into this state, or transports a firearm into this state if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The person acquires ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession as a surviving spouse or as the surviving registered domestic partner of the decedent who owned that firearm.
(2) If acquisition of the firearm had occurred within this state, the receipt of the firearm by the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner would be exempt from the provisions of Section 27545 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) by virtue of subdivision (h) of Section 16990.
(3) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm and importing, bringing, or transporting it into this state, the person shall submit a report to the Department of Justice, in a manner prescribed by the department, 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.
(4) The person has obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.
I would think this is a 27875(b) issue
Quote:
(b) Subdivision (a) of Section 27585 does not apply to a person who imports a firearm into this state, brings a firearm into this state, or transports a firearm into this state if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The person acquires ownership of the firearm from an immediate family member by bequest or intestate succession.

(2) The person has obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.

(3) The receipt of any firearm by the individual by bequest or intestate succession is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.

(4) The person acquiring ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession is 18 years of age or older.

(5) Within 30 days of that person taking possession of the firearm and importing, bringing, or transporting it into this state, the person shall submit a report to the Department of Justice, in a manner prescribed by the department, 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 reports that individuals complete pursuant to this subdivision shall be made available to them in a format prescribed by the department.
The crux here is 'immediate family member'; executor is - father. Deceased? Not mentioned.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-11-2018, 8:28 PM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I would think this is a 27875(b) issue
The crux here is 'immediate family member'; executor is - father. Deceased? Not mentioned.
Hmm, that is interesting. The deceased is his grandfather and that is not usually considered immediate family.

That prompts a 'nother kettle of fish.

There's a .22 rifle that I gave him as a kid. It's his. He moved to California after he became an adult but didn't take the rifle because I wouldn't fit. So it sat in my gun cabinet. Can he just take that back and fill out the California paperwork.

Many years ago, I asked my ATF inspector (I was an FFL for 20+ years) about leaving a gun at my father-in-law's house in Florida. His opinion was that unless the intent was to leave the gun for my FIL to use, it wouldn't constitute an illegal transfer. So based on that, my son leaving his gun with me to store wouldn't be an illegal transfer. Of course, a different inspector may have a different opinion as might the AUSA.

So, looking at the form, would the date acquired be the date that I gave it to him so many years ago, or would it be today?

Last edited by Yaworski; 02-11-2018 at 8:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2018, 4:48 AM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It also looks like he needs to get a firearms safety certificate.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2018, 5:43 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 22,868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
Hmm, that is interesting. The deceased is his grandfather and that is not usually considered immediate family.
Under CA laws...
A grandparent is considered an "immediate family member". [PC 16720(b)]



Penal Code 16720
As used in this part, “immediate family member” means either of the following relationships:
(a) Parent and child.
(b) Grandparent and grandchild.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2018, 5:48 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 22,868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
That prompts a 'nother kettle of fish.

There's a .22 rifle that I gave him as a kid. It's his. He moved to California after he became an adult but didn't take the rifle because I wouldn't fit. So it sat in my gun cabinet. Can he just take that back and fill out the California paperwork.

Many years ago, I asked my ATF inspector (I was an FFL for 20+ years) about leaving a gun at my father-in-law's house in Florida. His opinion was that unless the intent was to leave the gun for my FIL to use, it wouldn't constitute an illegal transfer. So based on that, my son leaving his gun with me to store wouldn't be an illegal transfer. Of course, a different inspector may have a different opinion as might the AUSA.

So, looking at the form, would the date acquired be the date that I gave it to him so many years ago, or would it be today?
Also per BATFE...
If you have access to the firearm, then it's not considered "strorage".

In order to be considered "storage", the firearm needs to be stored in such a manner that the owner is the only person that can access it.

If the firearm is in a locked container with owner being the only person with the key/combo to the locked container, then it could be considered "storage".
If the firearm is in a safe that someone other than the owner can access, then it's not considered "storage".

Therefore...
Since, it sounds like you had access to the firearm while it was left with you, the firearm was not being "stored" and you retained possession/ownership of it.
Which means, in order to legally be able to transfer it to your son (who is now a CA resident), it will need to be transferred to him through a CA FFL dealer.

Basically...
1. You (PA resident) ship firearm to CA FFL dealer.
2. CA FFL dealer transfers (4473/DROS/10 day wait) the firearm to your son (CA resident).
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

Last edited by Quiet; 02-12-2018 at 5:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2018, 6:10 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
....Can he just take that back and fill out the California paperwork....
Not as I read the applicable laws.

Leaving your gun with someone in another State is highly problematic under federal law.

The federal laws relating to the transfer of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another (i. e., the Gun Control Act of 1968 or GCA68) are about physical possession, not ownership. GCA68 was Congress' responding to enormous public pressure after the assassinations by gunfire of three wildly popular public figures -- JFK, RFK and MLK. The law was intended to regulate and control the interstate transfer of firearms. It was structured so that to the extent reasonably possible any transfer of possession of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another would have to go through an FFL.

And in the context of the concerns intended to be addressed by Congress through GCA68, it's possession and not ownership that matters. Someone who has a gun in his possession can use it, whether or not he has legal title to it.

Leaving your gun with someone is a transfer. It certainly is under federal law, and would also most likely be also considered a transfer under state laws (and it could also be an illegal transfer under state and/or federal law). That's just what "transfer" means.
  1. In general, any transfer of a firearm from a resident of one State to a resident of another must go through an FFL who will follow all usual formalities (e. g., completion of the 4473). There are a few limited, narrow, specific exceptions: if you have an appropriate federal firearms license; inheritance by will or intestate succession; or a loan (subject to a number of limitations which will be discussed in more detail below).

  2. The applicable federal statutes are: 18 USC 922(a)(3); 18 USC 922(a)(5); and 18 USC 922 (b)(3). The full texts of those statutes may be found here.

  3. The federal laws I've cited are about possession, not necessarily ownership.

    1. Possession means:
      Quote:
      1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
    2. Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

      Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):


    3. Let's look at the statutes:

      1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        Quote:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
      2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        Quote:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;

    4. Note carefully the words of those statutes. Words, like "transport", "receive", "obtained", "transfer", "give", "transport", and "deliver" do not necessarily imply ownership and include possession. They will be read and applied by a court according to their ordinary meanings. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
      Quote:
      ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...

  4. With regard to loans under GCA68, let's look at the applicable statutes again:

    1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      Quote:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
    2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      Quote:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
      (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest ..., and

      (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
      ..
    3. So under federal law a resident of one State may loan a gun to a resident of another State, but only temporarily and only for a lawful sporting purpose.

      1. Temporary means:
        Quote:

        : continuing for a limited amount of time : not permanent

        : intended to be used for a limited amount of time
      2. Sporting means (in this context):
        Quote:
        ...of, relating to, used, or suitable for sport...
      3. Purpose means (in this context):
        Quote:
        : the reason why something is done or used : the aim or intention of something

    4. So a court is likely to look at the "temporary loan for a lawful sporting purpose" exception to the prohibition on interstate transfers to apply when a gun is loaned so that the person it's been loaned to can engage in a specific sporting activity (i. e., a hunt, a competition, etc.) of limited duration. "Temporary" would refer to the duration of that activity. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the common meanings of the words used in the statutes and the underlying purpose (controlling interstate transfers of firearms) of GCA68.

    5. So you may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)), a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But since there is no applicable "loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a loan of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence.

  5. Is there no way to store your gun in another State?

    1. Leaving a gun with someone in another State clearly raises interstate transfer problems when that person has access to the gun.

    2. One possible way to avoid the problem would be to secure the gun or guns in a locked case or similar container to which only you have the key or combination.

    3. That might avoid the transfer problem inherent in having someone store your guns, ATF has advised here that one may ship a firearm to himself in care of another person in another State.

      Specifically ATF has said (emphasis added):
      Quote:
      6. May I lawfully ship a firearm to myself in a different State?
      Any person may ship a firearm to himself or herself in the care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner “in the care of” the out-of-State resident. Upon reaching its destination, persons other than the owner must not open the package or take possession of the firearm.

  6. Note that violations of federal law regarding interstate transfers are punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine; and since the crime is a felony one will lose his gun rights for the rest of his life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
...Many years ago, I asked my ATF inspector (I was an FFL for 20+ years) about leaving a gun at my father-in-law's house in Florida. His opinion was that unless the intent was to leave the gun for my FIL to use, it wouldn't constitute an illegal transfer. So based on that, my son leaving his gun with me to store wouldn't be an illegal transfer. Of course, a different inspector may have a different opinion as might the AUSA....
Based on the law I"ve reviewed, I think the ATF inspector was wrong. Note that ATF inspectors aren't agency lawyers. Their opinions on legal interpretation can't bind the agency.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-12-2018, 8:05 AM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for than incredibly detailed analysis. You must be an attorney.

God, they have to make things so complicated. Of course, if he had moved to Ohio or Kentucky, he could just toss it into his suitcase and no one would be the wiser because they don't have rules and regulations about safety classes and registration and other stuff like that.

It may be simpler to have him move to Pennsylvania, establish residency, take possession of his guns and then move back to California, doing the paperwork there.

I suppose the rules about state lines made sense in the 60s when people weren't bouncing from state to state with abandon.

Oh, well. We'll figure this out and work at avoiding prison.

Thanks for all the information.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2018, 9:18 AM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 367
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

In America you give the grandson the gun and that's it. No mention of transfers, forms and timelines in the Second Amendment.

Acquiescing is why the enemy is winning.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-12-2018, 9:28 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
In America you give the grandson the gun and that's it. No mention of transfers, forms and timelines in the Second Amendment....
In America, honest people abide by the laws. Those who don't are called criminals.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2018, 3:33 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 367
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
In America, honest people abide by the laws. Those who don't are called criminals.
When Laws are not Law because they are unconstitutional citizens should exercise their Constitutional and Inalienable rights. If the politicians, attorneys and judges who violate the Constitution were removed from office and prosecuted we law abiding citizens wouldn't fell a need to acquiesce to tyrants.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-12-2018, 4:09 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
When Laws are not Law because they are unconstitutional citizens should exercise their Constitutional and Inalienable rights.....
Looks like you flunked Civics class in high school and badly need a lesson in reality.

Quite simply, you don't get to decide what the Constitution means or how it applies. The Founding Fathers assigned in the Constitution that authority to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Quote:
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,....
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.

What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813. And as the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177):
Quote:
...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.....
The courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
Quote:
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....
And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
Quote:
...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction. You might think the law is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but no one cares. Your belief in the unconstitutionality or invalidity of a law keeps no one out of jail, nor does it have any effect on the lives and property of real people in the real world.

So the opinions of courts regarding matters of law, including the meaning and application of the Constitution, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
....If the politicians, attorneys and judges who violate the Constitution were removed from office and prosecuted we law abiding citizens wouldn't fell a need to acquiesce to tyrants.
How is it that you're not smart enough to recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true meaning of the Constitution, that you know what the Constitution really means, and that others don't? Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that those politicians, attorneys, and judges are not violating the Constitution? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?

It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-12-2018, 4:37 PM
echo1's Avatar
echo1 echo1 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Joaquin County
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Well put and articulate fiddletown. The "laws" do make some honest folk criminal by default, BUT, the law is the law.

Back to the OP. It wasn't stated that it was his gramps that past. It just said his pops was the executor, the item was bequeathed to the son from the deceased. I thought his son left it there stored in a locked box that only the son had a key for? PAX
__________________
You need a crew

"A free people should be armed and disciplined" (George Washington),

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.~John Adams 1798

It a NOT a felony to steal a gun, but it IS a felony not to register a gun you already legally own
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-12-2018, 7:00 PM
P5Ret P5Ret is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Ebay
Posts: 4,183
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
Thanks for than incredibly detailed analysis. You must be an attorney.

God, they have to make things so complicated. Of course, if he had moved to Ohio or Kentucky, he could just toss it into his suitcase and no one would be the wiser because they don't have rules and regulations about safety classes and registration and other stuff like that.

It may be simpler to have him move to Pennsylvania, establish residency, take possession of his guns and then move back to California, doing the paperwork there.

I suppose the rules about state lines made sense in the 60s when people weren't bouncing from state to state with abandon.

Oh, well. We'll figure this out and work at avoiding prison.

Thanks for all the information.
There isn't anything terribly complicated here for the gun from the estate. Bring it back go to local gun store take the test for FSC, go back home fill out the form with the number on the card send it in, done.

The other gun is just slightly more complicated, but it's relatively simple. He just needs to find a dealer near his home that will handle it for him as inexpensively as possible. It may take a couple phone calls but it's not too hard to do.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-12-2018, 8:15 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,681
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
....It may be simpler to have him move to Pennsylvania, establish residency, take possession of his guns and then move back to California, doing the paperwork there.....
I can't believe that would be easier and cheaper than finding a California FFL who will accept the gun shipped and do the transfer. To establish residency for the purpose of federal law, one needs to have evidence that he intends to make his home in the State. So just getting a room for a while won't do it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-13-2018, 4:24 AM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
In America, honest people abide by the laws. Those who don't are called criminals.
Law abiding people obey the laws. Honesty and law abiding are not synonymous.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-13-2018, 4:25 AM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I can't believe that would be easier and cheaper than finding a California FFL who will accept the gun shipped and do the transfer.
I was being facetious.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-13-2018, 4:33 AM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 10,567
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Also since federal law must go thru ffl in any state since he lives here unless intrafamial or bequest. Going to free state means nothing since he does not reside in that state.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-13-2018, 4:36 AM
Yaworski Yaworski is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
When Laws are not Law because they are unconstitutional citizens should exercise their Constitutional and Inalienable rights. If the politicians, attorneys and judges who violate the Constitution were removed from office and prosecuted we law abiding citizens wouldn't fell a need to acquiesce to tyrants.
I concur. We have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws but we also have to be willing to accept the consequences of our actions.

Suppose the Congress passed a law stating that all left handed people should be sent to concentration camps. Would you report your south paw neighbor? If you are a lefty, would you report to the train depot for transportation?

For the most part, we obey our myriad and senseless laws not because we recognize that these laws are good for our society but because we fear the punishment.

We don't murder each other (for the most part) because we recognize that murder is inherently wrong. On the other hand, what good is served by making me pay $100 to get a "building permit" to put up a shed for my lawn mower? If I don't get the permit and get caught, I'll have to pay a fine and destroy the shed, so I get the permit.

Gun laws are the same. They do little, if any, good. Supposedly gun laws keep guns out of the hands of bad guys but we all know that they don't. We, the generally law abiding, follow the insanely complex and senseless laws not because those laws are keeping us safe but because violating those laws could ruin our lives.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-13-2018, 8:59 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,422
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaworski View Post
My son lives in California. Alameda, Ca. to be precise.

He's inherited a Ruger Single-Six that, as executor, I'm holding onto. The deceased was a Pa. resident, as am I.

My son is currently visiting me.

Under Federal and Pennsylvania laws, I can just give him the gun and he can walk away with it.

What are the rules regarding bringing an inherited gun into Ca.? I've found stuff online about moving into the state with guns but not about our situation.

Any insights?

Thanks.
ATF allows for this transfer across state lines without the use of an FFL. PERIOD
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:29 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,287
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
ATF allows for this transfer across state lines without the use of an FFL. PERIOD
True.

But since the beneficiary lives in CA, CA law also applies - and CA requires the FFL unless the bequest is from immediate family.

The deceased is the bene's grandfather. CA calls that immediate family.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.