#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ca registration and police
I’m trying to get a better understanding of how California registration system works. I don’t fully understand it. If It is illegal to have a computer system database of firearm ownership, then when the police let’s say pull you over on the way back from the range and decide to run a serial number check of your gun how are they to know if the gun is even registered in ca at all? Or if it’s registered to you or let’s say your father, if you borrowed it? And let’s say they’re running a serial number check for a crime, do they go through some sort of California computer system first checking for registration, before calling manufacturer or whatever they do? I don’t understand how they come to the determination if a hand gun is registered let alone a rifle.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Who says a serial number database is illegal at the state level?
Your DROS info is in the CA DOJ database. Rifles purchased prior to 1/1/2014 are not in the system. Handguns purchased prior to, I think, 1989 are not in the system.
__________________
#NotMyPresident #ArrestFauci |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DROS was passed in 1923, went into effect in 1924.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Otherwise it would be a search of form 4473's, which can take awhile. Last edited by ARDude; 11-26-2019 at 5:49 AM.. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
CA statute doesn’t require the registration of every owned firearm. However, CA law does require the registration of the sale or transfer of firearms. CA law also allows owners to “self register” their firearms if they wish. A computerized system of a number of firearms-related activities is authorized by CA law. Please see OAG FAQ #26 and CA PEN 11106
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.” "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool." "The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This is true, but I believe Dvrjon was referring to the many firearms that are not in DROS.
Such as long guns purchased prior to 2014, and all firearms purchased by private party prior to when it was required to go thru a dealer. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's kinda like saying that "If the moon is made of green cheese, then all cars must be painted yellow" to query why there are blue painted cars on the road. There simply is no law that prevents California from maintaining a database of firearms registrations. Since there is no prohibition, the state is free to maintain such a system. A lot of ill-informed folks suggest that limited restriction on using (what is essentially the information drawn from Form 4473's) contained in 18 USC 926(a)(3) prohibits ALL computerized databases. It does not. It only restricts those compiled using records required by Chapter 44 of Part I of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. California's firearms database is compiled using other sources of records.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
and assault weapons...and firearms brought into the state by new residents...and....
But, CA doesn’t require the registration of every owned firearm, and there is no overall registration requirement for firearms in CA. (Anticipating the next poster stating, “Not yet”, in....3–2–1....)
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.” "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool." "The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
So when sheriff Villanueva says that firearms retrieved at the home of the Saugus shooter were "unregistered" this doesn't necessarily mean "illegal" if they were rifles purchased before 2014? Makes these sound more nefarious than they really are?
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Supposedly the weapons used and seized were home built firearms. Currently those are required to have serial numbers. No matter when they were built.
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
'Home built' is what is getting reported; even sounds plausible.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Ok I can understand that my initial statement of the database was incorrect on a state level. But the purpose of my post is to understand literally how Law Enforcement actually checks and deciphers serial numbers on a “routine” traffic stop. Am I to understand the police have access to see who a gun is registered to from there car computer? If that’s the case then If it’s a rifle That was purchased prior to 2014 and it’s unregistered, why won’t they just confiscate it calling it an unregistered firearm? or if you have a pistol from 1970 that’s not registered. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
^ Firearms do not have to be registered if acquired prior to 2014. If handguns acquired here then they are in database. Lots of handguns acquired outside of dros or 4473 and are not required to be registered. Stop with the unregistered nonsense. We moved here in 1959 with a passle of guns never registered any of them.
Last edited by edgerly779; 11-26-2019 at 3:05 PM.. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Registration is an artifact of transfer paperwork or voluntary submission of other paperwork.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When a LEO runs your name, serial # of a firearm, he/she is looking for verification of ID, holds/warrants, and info if firearm(s) in possession are stolen. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
California Native Lifelong Gun Owner NRA Member CRPA Member ....."He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, 1776 |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
I suspect they become aware firearms are present based on how the driver answers the question “are there any firearms in the car.”
__________________
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain "One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me "Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I have never been asked that on a traffic stop. But then, I don't have any stickers of any kind on any of my vehicles. YMMV.
__________________
California Native Lifelong Gun Owner NRA Member CRPA Member ....."He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Declaration of Independence, 1776 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Some things posted, especially by RickD here, alerted me to the fact that what I posted above about the Federal law prohibiting a database of firearms ownership not applying to the states was wrong and so I looked it up. Here is what the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 [18 U.S.C. 926] says in regard to rules and records for Federal Firearm Licensees
Quote:
In short, the United States Attorney General may not prescribe records to be maintained at a facility of the United States or one of the States. I don't see where this, without looking further, prevents a State from prescribing regulations for its maintenance of such a data base. Last edited by Chewy65; 11-26-2019 at 5:25 PM.. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Niether ownership of firearms in a data base nor stickers on your car are going to tell the LEO that you have a firearm with you at that time. Same for a CCW. Now spidy sense is different. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
If the gun is in AFS, and the officer's agency does that kind of thing, the query can be sent to AFS and the return info can be transmitted to the officer.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But as I said, they would not be interested in it unless it came up stolen. Or if you had any holds/warrants. Then the firearm would be taken. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you for the clarification.
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Note that the database can also become inaccurate due to the following:
A California resident purchases a firearm, and it is entered into the database. The person later moves to another state, where it is legal to transfer without even an FFL. The person sells the item to another resident of the new state. Later, the new purchaser brings the firearm into California on a visit. The information in the CA database still shows the original purchaser as the registered possessor. Perfectly legal, so under what grounds can a CA LEO confiscate the item from its legal owner? The database is a best effort deal. It is not intended for the purpose that you think it is. It is mostly a guide. It can, however, be used to catch things such as a person in possession of an unregistered AW, etc. Last edited by mrdd; 11-26-2019 at 7:08 PM.. |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
WRONG - The database does not indicate who is the "registered possessor" of a firearm. All that the AFS database purports to report is that the California resident purchased the firearm on the date indicated. That information remains accurate even if the weapon is later transferred out of state and then returned to the state in the manner that you describe. It's important to remember that the AFS is an archival database only, you're trying to treat it as a current database which it is not. Quote:
You're right on point here. There is no source of authority to confiscate a firearm from an individual under these circumstances. Quote:
Close. It's not really a "guide." It's a repository of archival records. Think of it like a "snapshot" of what things looked like on the date of the record. Do not try to view it as a "motion picture" of what transpired over time. And you're right on point again. The AFS can be a great investigative tool, but it requires an LEO to properly interpret its content.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|