Question on PPT/registration ..... again...

[ap3572001]

This question came up again in the conversation with a friend this AM, so I will ask to see what You all think about it .

Ca state law says that to change ownership of a handgun buyer and seller need to meet at FFL , pay DROS fee and be done with it.
Buyer waits ten days, picks it up and everyone is a happy camper.:)

Now this handgun is in the buyers name in Ca.

Now the question is a about the handgun and the seller.

Say the seller is helping a family member (cousin, uncle etc) or a wife of His late friend, a widow next etc.

He finds a legitimate buyer , they both meet at FFL and do a PPT transfer. Or the person does not have time and to help the owner of the firearm just sells it to a local store. (FFL).

My question is : Doesn't anyone see that the seller (person doing the firearm transfer ) is NOT the owner of the firearm He is transferring to someone else?

I asked this once before. Never got a normal answer and thread got locked......

[Librarian]

My question is : Doesn't anyone see that the seller (person doing the firearm transfer ) is NOT the owner of the firearm He is transferring to someone else?

I asked this once before. Never got a normal answer and thread got locked......

It doesn't matter.

See the wiki on registration -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_registration

Not all weapons are connected to owners in a way known to CA-DOJ, and it isn't mandated that they be so connected; the connection IS made when a transfer is done and properly reported through DROS or self-reporting.

But if they're not required to be registered, then checking against a registration database and getting a blank is just normal.

[ap3572001]

It doesn't matter.

See the wiki on registration -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Firearms_registration

Not all weapons are connected to owners in a way known to CA-DOJ, and it isn't mandated that they be so connected; the connection IS made when a transfer is done and properly reported through DROS or self-reporting.

But if they're not required to be registered, then checking against a registration database and getting a blank is just normal.

Ok. Here I go again LOL:)

Ca resident buys a Glock 5 years ago at the store, few years later another Ca resident (NOT THE ORIGINAL BUYER) is transfering that Glock to another Ca resident.

Will ANYONE notice that seller of the Glock is NOT the owner?

I tried to be as clear as I can.

Just trying to understand CA registration .


PS. Conditions for this example are: GUN IS NOT STOLEN or WANTED in anyway.
ALL parties involved are able to legally own handguns and ALL have HSC cards.

[dantodd]

There is no statutory requirement (aside from normal theft, etc. laws) that requires the seller to be the registered owner of a firearm. You may loan a gun to anyone for lawful purposes (which, I believe selling is) for up to 30 days without a transfer. The person borrowing the gun would need an HSC to take possession for any lawful use of the gun.

[Flintlock Tom]

Will ANYONE notice that seller of the Glock is NOT the owner?

The answer to your question is no.
And, if they do notice, it is irrelevant.

[Librarian]

That condition would suggest that the gun had passed without being 'blessed' by CA-DOJ, but there are scenarios where that could be legal (complicated, but legal).

But DOJ doesn't run PPTs for ownership, just stolen.

[ap3572001]

I see. Understand. So a person in a possesion of a handgun (that is not stolen) is the owner. Interesting....

Are there any states where handgun registration is like a car registration?

Where a handgun is registered to the owner and having a handgun NOT in Your name is not legal. Like in some places I visited in Europe. Where You have a card with Your photo and on the back of the card are the serial numbers of pistols You own.

[Quiet]

I see. Understand. So a person in a possesion of a handgun (that is not stolen) is the owner. Interesting....

Are there any states where handgun registration is like a car registration?

Where a handgun is registered to the owner and having a handgun NOT in Your name is not legal. Like in some places I visited in Europe. Where You have a card with Your photo and on the back of the card are the serial numbers of pistols You own.
AFAIK...

HI and NY.
May be others.

Back to CA...
During the transfer, the seller is registered as the previous owner. If the firearm is used in a crime, that info may get used to track the history (who owned/how it got to the suspect) of the firearm.

[dantodd]

I see. Understand. So a person in a possesion of a handgun (that is not stolen) is the owner. Interesting....


No, they are not the owner. They are the possessor. It is like borrowing anything else in the world. You don't own your parents car when you borrow it on date night, you do possess it for the duration of the loan. You are not the owner of the boat you rent for a week in the Carribean, you merely have possession of the boat. If you help the owner of a gun out by helping them sell it and that help includes transporting it for the sale there is no problem with that. I am completely unaware of any sort of straw-sale laws. :)

[ap3572001]

Ok. If I let You use my car for a week, can You sell it to someone? Even if I ask You to.

[bussda]

Yes.

Note that selling something without permission to sell it or being the owner is considered fraud.

[Decoligny]

There is absolutely no requirement that the Seller of a gun needs to be the registered owner of the gun.

Example:
1. Bob (a CA resident) buys a 9mm in CA and it is "registered" to Bob during the DROS process.
2. Six month later, Bob moves to Arizona.
3. Two weeks after moving to Arizona, Bob sells his 9mm to Arizona resident Pete, Face to Face, no paperwork necessary, totally legal.
4. Two weeks later Pete moves to California. He immediately gets his CA Dirver's license and becomes a resident. In that two week period he decides he doesn't like the 9mm and decides to sell it to his brother John. He has not yet registered it in CA as he has only just moved to CA. He goes to the local FFL and proceeds to do a PPT with his brother.

In the above scenario, the 9mm is currently registered to Bob, but legally owned by Pete.

There is absolutely no requirement that the Seller of a gun needs to be the registered owner of the gun.

[Librarian]

There is absolutely no requirement that the Seller of a gun needs to be the registered owner of the gun.

Example:
1. Bob (a CA resident) buys a 9mm in CA and it is "registered" to Bob during the DROS process.
2. Six month later, Bob moves to Arizona.
3. Two weeks after moving to Arizona, Bob sells his 9mm to Arizona resident Pete, Face to Face, no paperwork necessary, totally legal.
4. Two weeks after that Pete moves to California. He immediately gets his CA Dirver's license and becomes a resident. In that two week period he decides he doesn't like the 9mm and decides to sell it to his brother John. He has not yet registered it in CA as he has only just moved to CA. He goes to the local FFL and proceeds to do a PPT with his brother.

In the above scenario, the 9mm is currently registered to Bob, but legally owned by Pete.

There is absolutely no requirement that the Seller of a gun needs to be the registered owner of the gun.

That was my 'complicated but legal' thought.

[Librarian]

Ok. If I let You use my car for a week, can You sell it to someone? Even if I ask You to.

No. Cars are different from guns - it is required that a car be registered to someone; a car without paper and matching ID is presumptively stolen. (I think; I don't know how CA handles a scratch-built car before transfer or an attempt to use it on the roads. Machine parts!)

Guns are NOT required to be registered to anyone, excepting CA 'assault weapons' and a couple other special cases. Until 2014, no rifles are registered, unless something special has happened, as a VOLREG.

[kemasa]

No. Cars are different from guns - it is required that a car be registered to someone; a car without paper and matching ID is presumptively stolen. (I think; I don't know how CA handles a scratch-built car before transfer or an attempt to use it on the roads. Machine parts!)


Actually, not quite correct :-). A vehicle in dealer inventory is not registered to the dealer, but still with the previous owner. The dealer plates replace the registration and so it would not be presumed to be stolen.

[Librarian]

Actually, not quite correct :-). A vehicle in dealer inventory is not registered to the dealer, but still with the previous owner. The dealer plates replace the registration and so it would not be presumed to be stolen.

New cars, dealer plates; used cars, usually the prior plates, unless the owner kept a personalized version.

I've never traded in a car to a dealer, but sold my end-of-life cars privately, so how dealers establish 'ownership' of used cars is outside my experience.

[kemasa]

New cars, dealer plates; used cars, usually the prior plates, unless the owner kept a personalized version.

I've never traded in a car to a dealer, but sold my end-of-life cars privately, so how dealers establish 'ownership' of used cars is outside my experience.

Actually, new or used, it is dealer plates, especially since the registration might have expired. Unfortunately, I do have some experience with dealers and used vehicles, due to a long time friend of mine passing away. I know a lot more about selling a vehicle as a dealer than I ever wanted to know. Want to buy a Chevy S10, 4 cyl. manual transmission with 57k miles on it? How about a 91 Toyota Land Cruiser converted with a Toyota turbo diesel engine?

[ap3572001]

Yes.

Note that selling something without permission to sell it or being the owner is considered fraud.

I know that. That was not my question

[Anchors]

That condition would suggest that the gun had passed without being 'blessed' by CA-DOJ, but there are scenarios where that could be legal (complicated, but legal).

But DOJ doesn't run PPTs for ownership, just stolen.

This popped into my head:

Original buyer (A) buys a Glock and moves to Arizona.
A year later sells Glock to (B) in Arizona.
Four years later (B) moves to California.
He is required to report the Glock or sell it within 60 days of moving into California.
He sells it via PPT to (C).

So while the DOJ may notice that according to THEIR system Glock went from (A) to (C) without a PPT to B, it doesn't mean that anyone did anything illegal at all.

[kemasa]

If the firearm is traced to a AZ resident, then suddenly a CA claims to own it and does a PPT to another CA resident, there could be some problems if you can't show that the person moved. I am not sure of what is required for the BATF to prove a case of a transfer between residents of different states, but that is a huge risk and if you break the law, you could end up not being able to own firearms.

Yes, there are many ways that the transfer could appear strange on the surface, but is perfectly legal and you could get questions about it. If what you are doing is not legal, you won't have all the proper answers.

[ap3572001]

If the firearm is traced to a AZ resident, then suddenly a CA claims to own it and does a PPT to another CA resident, there could be some problems if you can't show that the person moved. I am not sure of what is required for the BATF to prove a case of a transfer between residents of different states, but that is a huge risk and if you break the law, you could end up not being able to own firearms.

Yes, there are many ways that the transfer could appear strange on the surface, but is perfectly legal and you could get questions about it. If what you are doing is not legal, you won't have all the proper answers.

I lost You....... who will tracing and WHY? And who is doing something not legal?

[mrdd]

I lost You....... who will tracing and WHY? And who is doing something not legal?

The CA DOJ might look into it if it is a handgun and the seller is not the registered owner (especially if it does have a registration in CA).

[kemasa]

Firearms are traced for many reasons. If it is suspected that an illegal transfer occurred, the firearm could be traced. If a given person suddenly started doing PPTs on off roster firearms, someone might start looking into it and start asking questions. The point being that is if you get noticed, you had best not be doing anything wrong.

[Quiet]

This popped into my head:

Original buyer (A) buys a Glock and moves to Arizona.
A year later sells Glock to (B) in Arizona.
Four years later (B) moves to California.
He is required to report the Glock or sell it within 60 days of moving into California.
He sells it via PPT to (C).

So while the DOJ may notice that according to THEIR system Glock went from (A) to (C) without a PPT to B, it doesn't mean that anyone did anything illegal at all.

CA DOJ will realize that when (A) moved to AZ, (A) forgot to send in a No Longer In Possession (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/BOF4546NLIP0209.pdf) form to notify CA DOJ that (A) is no longer a CA resident and to "deregister" (A)'s handguns.

[dantodd]

The point being that is if you get noticed, you had best not be doing anything wrong.

I would strongly suggest that you always make every attempt to follow CA's firearms laws regardless of how ridiculous they may be.

[HowardW56]

I would strongly suggest that you always make every attempt to follow CA's firearms laws regardless of how ridiculous they may be.


:iagree:

[kemasa]

I would strongly suggest that you always make every attempt to follow CA's firearms laws regardless of how ridiculous they may be.

Yep, unless you want free room and board and all the $ex that you don't want.

[ke6guj]

CA DOJ will realize that when (A) moved to AZ, (A) forgot to send in a No Longer In Possession (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/BOF4546NLIP0209.pdf) form to notify CA DOJ that (A) is no longer a CA resident and to "deregister" (A)'s handguns.but, AFAIK, there is no legal requirement that (A) file an NLIP form. (A) might have been planning on returning to CA at some point with that handgun so why would he unregister it?

It is the same reason that RAW owners dont need to do an NLIP when they move out of state. That RAW registration is still valid and they can visit or move back to CA with their RAWs, and their existing RAW registration still covers them.

[Ding126]

If the person in possession of the firearm is trying to help his " Friend or family member " sell a firearm..goes to FFL with buyer and transfers the weapon...normal transaction.

What if the person in possession want to dros it to himself? Will that work? Is there anything that says you can't?

[kemasa]

If the transfers are legit, then there won't be a problem if the CA DOJ somehow takes notice. On the other hand, if you are playing games and doing illegal transfers and the CA DOJ takes notice, then you could have a serious problem.

The question is what does it take for the DOJ to take notice, which is impossible to know, and whether it is worth the risk, which I would say no. You might be able to get away with it, but it certainly would not be worth it if you did get caught.

There are many transfers which could look strange if you look at it without all the information. For example, a person could happen upon sellers who keep moving into CA from out of state and buying their off roster firearms and the buyer never knew the sellers in advance.

[kemasa]

If the person in possession of the firearm is trying to help his " Friend or family member " sell a firearm..goes to FFL with buyer and transfers the weapon...normal transaction.


You need to be careful that the person in possession is not considered having done an illegal transfer. The FFL would show that the firearm came from the person in possession, but that person is not really the owner.


What if the person in possession want to dros it to himself? Will that work? Is there anything that says you can't?

It could be viewed that the transfer has already actually occurred, which would have been an illegal transfer in CA. It would also be an issue for the FFL to show that they received the firearm from the person and the disposition was also to the person.

[Ding126]

You need to be careful that the person in possession is not considered having done an illegal transfer. The FFL would show that the firearm came from the person in possession, but that person is not really the owner.



It could be viewed that the transfer has already actually occurred, which would have been an illegal transfer in CA. It would also be an issue for the FFL to show that they received the firearm from the person and the disposition was also to the person.


It was a question that came to mind after reading the OP. " A rep of the owner could possibly do a PPT at a FFl showing from person A to B then why not from A to A...The red flag will be the same name as seller & buyer. My logic is the DOJ gets it fee's and the weapon shows being registered to a new owner

[kemasa]

It was a question that came to mind after reading the OP. " A rep of the owner could possibly do a PPT at a FFl showing from person A to B then why not from A to A...The red flag will be the same name as seller & buyer. My logic is the DOJ gets it fee's and the weapon shows being registered to a new owner

The first issue is that the government does not track firearm ownership 100%, so someone else claiming to own the firearm is possible, although it could raise some questions. I suspect it happens quite often, such that unless it rises to a certain level, the DOJ would not look at it. Again, the risk is not worth it since if you are doing something illegal, the outcome, however unlikely, could be quite negative.

The person could just send in the form claiming that they got the firearm from somewhere, but again that could raise questions.

I suspect that most FFLs would have serious issues with a person coming in with a firearm that they want to PPT to themselves. I suspect that the DOJ would have some serous questions and it could stand out.

The key question is whether the DOJ cares more about the fee or an interest in illegal transfers. I suspect up to a point, it would be the fee, but if you get noticed, I suspect that they would also want to do something. Again, it is not worth the risk in my opinion.

[Ding126]

Yeah, I agree ^^

My father gave me a pistol back in the 80's...it's never been registered and at one time I was considering dros'ng it to myself...not that I have too but to show I was the registered owner. It's a 1911 from WWI that my Grand Father used in the service during the war in France.

[ap3572001]

You are right. How about all the firearms/handguns that are not in the system at all? Can a person go and PPT a Walther PPK, a P38 and 1911 that were last issued to people have not been alive for 50 years and have never seen an FFL? There are MANY guns like that.

[kemasa]

Before 1991, firearms could be transferred FTF without going through a FFL, so the last record of who owned what firearm could be inaccurate. Also, people could move into CA and not have to registered their handguns (since changed, but I am not sure of the year).

If the person claiming to sell the firearm was not over 18 or perhaps 21 in 1991, it could be a red flag. If the firearm was shown as being transferred since 1991, it could also be a red flag.

For other cases, I doubt that there would be any issue, unless something else causes a concern. If someone asks, it is best to be doing the right thing. Yeah, you could go and illegal buy older firearms and sell them as a PPT and most likely you would not get caught, unless the firearm was listed as stolen, then you would have some serious questions to answer and I suspect that they would start asking where and how you got all the firearms, which you don't have to answer, but ...

Again, is it really worth the risk? Asking questions because you are curious is one thing, but asking in order to get around a law is another.

[Ding126]

To me, there should be the availability for a lawful person to be able to register a weapon to him /herself...it would seems to be of benefit to the state & owner to be able to track weapons and show legal ownership.
You can turn in a weapon during a buy back program with no questions asked....why can't a individual dros a weapon to him / her self?

[kemasa]

To me, there should be the availability for a lawful person to be able to register a weapon to him /herself...it would seems to be of benefit to the state & owner to be able to track weapons and show legal ownership.
You can turn in a weapon during a buy back program with no questions asked....why can't a individual dros a weapon to him / her self?

There are forms you can fill out:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf

If you have had the firearm for a long time (before 1991), then there is no issue, but if you got the firearm after 1991, then there could be an issue in regards to an illegal transfer having occurred.

There is no reason to DROS a firearm to yourself as the forms work.

As to the no questions asked firearm buyback, it seems to me that those should be illegal since the firearms could have been used in crimes (obstruction of justice if the police help a criminal get rid of a firearm perhaps) or be stolen (perhaps they check, but the police are buying stolen property which is illegal for the rest of us).

[Ding126]

TODAY because of Calguns, I know I can fill out a Intra Family xfer form and register it to myself...20yrs ago I did not know what to do

[Librarian]

TODAY because of Calguns, I know I can fill out a Intra Family xfer form and register it to myself...20yrs ago I did not know what to do

From you to you, that's the wrong form. From your dad to you, or from you to your daughter, that form would be correct.

VOLREG is the one for things you already own.

It is not the case that all firearms must be registered; having an unregistered firearm is legally uninteresting, despite what you might read in the papers.

In California, firearms ARE registered when transferred through an FFL (which is required and has been since 1991) or when family members report intrafamilial handgun transfers, or when new residents follow the law and register their handguns when the guns are moved here, or when someone files a VOLREG. But without one of those triggering events, unregistered firearms are just fine unregistered.

[ap3572001]

I love California! We can own and use any magazines we want. But we may be asked how we got them, or we may not be asked. We can have all the handguns we want that are not in our name but we may bring attention to us if we want to sell and transffer them. Or we may not.Our LEO's can buy any handguns they want but they might be questioned if they sell them. Or they may not.An all blue handgun may on the roster but the two tone is not. Sounds very interesting!

[edukder]

I have spent a lot of time reading the various posts here and I am impressed with the amount of knowledge and experience represented. But I do have a question that I have not seen answered in any forum and would much appreciate help with:

If one brother living in AZ gifts a handgun that is not on the "list" (and by the way-this weapon can be bought all day long in .45 but NOT in 9mm?) can the brother in Ca-if upon deciding that he really doesn’t want the gun-sell it to me in a face to face transfer at a gun store? Assuming that I wait the 2 weeks to pick it up?

And why in the world is it so hard to follow the law?

[CaliforniaLiberal]

Endless cop TV shows have left most US Citizens with the unquestioned belief that an Unregistered Gun is always an Illegal Gun. Maybe that's true in New York City?

There is no requirement for gun registration in California. The information from dealer sales is kept by the CA DOJ. This is not Registration.


http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

FAQ #26

How do I know if my firearms need to be registered?


There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you may submit a Firearm Ownership Record to the DOJ for any firearm you own. Having a Firearm Ownership Record on file with the DOJ may help in the return of your firearm if it is lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer.

[ke6guj]

I have spent a lot of time reading the various posts here and I am impressed with the amount of knowledge and experience represented. But I do have a question that I have not seen answered in any forum and would much appreciate help with:

If one brother living in AZ gifts a handgun that is not on the "list" (and by the way-this weapon can be bought all day long in .45 but NOT in 9mm?) can the brother in Ca-if upon deciding that he really doesn’t want the gun-sell it to me in a face to face transfer at a gun store? Assuming that I wait the 2 weeks to pick it up?

And why in the world is it so hard to follow the law?

well, an AZ-brother cannot legally gift his CA-brother an off-roster handgun, so it never gets to the CA-brother for him to transfer it to you.

But assuming that the CA-brother does have an off-roster handgun, he can legally PPT the handgun to you at a gun store.

[kemasa]

If one brother living in AZ gifts a handgun that is not on the "list" (and by the way-this weapon can be bought all day long in .45 but NOT in 9mm?) can the brother in Ca-if upon deciding that he really doesn’t want the gun-sell it to me in a face to face transfer at a gun store? Assuming that I wait the 2 weeks to pick it up?


There is no exemption for siblings for an intrafamilial transfer. To do a PPT, both people have to have a CA ID.

So, no, it can not be transferred to the CA brother.

[edukder]

well, an AZ-brother cannot legally gift his CA-brother an off-roster handgun, so it never gets to the CA-brother for him to transfer it to you.

But assuming that the CA-brother does have an off-roster handgun, he can legally PPT the handgun to you at a gun store.

Respectfully-Are you sure about the transfer from a brother to brother being illegal? The reason I question this is that I have read on the forums here that such transfers-for example father to son or grandparent- would be legal?

[ke6guj]

Respectfully-Are you sure about the transfer from a brother to brother being illegal? The reason I question this is that I have read on the forums here that such transfers-for example father to son or grandparent- would be legal?

grandparent, parent, child, grandchild can do a gift transfer. Siblings, cousins, uncles, etc, cannot.

12078(c)(3) As used in this subdivision, "immediate family member" means any one of the following relationships:
(A) Parent and child.
(B) Grandparent and grandchild.

[edukder]

"I see" said the blind man! Thank you very much for the information.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

I have spent a lot of time reading the various posts here and I am impressed with the amount of knowledge and experience represented. But I do have a question that I have not seen answered in any forum and would much appreciate help with:

If one brother living in AZ gifts a handgun that is not on the "list" (and by the way-this weapon can be bought all day long in .45 but NOT in 9mm?) can the brother in Ca-if upon deciding that he really doesn’t want the gun-sell it to me in a face to face transfer at a gun store? Assuming that I wait the 2 weeks to pick it up?

And why in the world is it so hard to follow the law?


It is so hard to follow California Gun Law because the laws were passed not for reasoned, logical, organized purposes, but to make a show of "Protecting Our Children" from those evil, nasty guns. They are all about making Legislators feel good and look good for the voters. I'm guessing that you have just started down the Rabbit Hole into the Wonderland that is CA Gun Law. Do you know the story of how the Bullet Button came to be? Because the tip of a bullet is a tool but your finger is not?


Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from the Handgun Roster (the List). If a handgun passes through the inventory of an FFL then the Roster does apply.

So yes a California Resident can sell you an Off-Roster handgun face to face (PPT, Private Party Transfers) at a gun store with the beloved waiting period. The gun store is just ensuring the waiting period and such guns are not entered into the FFL inventory.

The Intrafamilial Transfer is only vertical, not horizontal. Only between Parents, Grandparents and Children. One might gift a handgun to a parent, then said parent might gift the firearm to the other brother. The use of an FFL dealer is not required.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

FAQ #5

Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?

Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category [PDF 10 kb / 1 pg] and the firearm is a legal firearm to possess, the transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. However, if the firearm is a handgun, you must submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction [PDF 481 kb / 2 pg] and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days. Assault weapons may not be transferred in this fashion. See Penal Code section 12285, subdivision (b).

(PC section 12078(c))


Also the Summary of California Firearms Laws makes for fascinating reading.

No Shuriken, Nunchaku or Metal Replica Hand Grenades!!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

[edukder]

So –a father in AZ buys a handgun that is not on the sacred list, but is allowed in every other way-(10 or less magazine) and transfers it to his son who lives in California. The son then shows up at a gun store in California with the interfamily transfer paperwork and someone who wishes to buy the handgun from him. Legal?

[kemasa]

If a handgun passes through the inventory of an FFL then the Roster does apply.


Incorrect, a firearm can be transferred from a father who lives out of state to a son in CA, which has to go through a dealer, and it is still exempt from the roster.

So –a father in AZ buys a handgun that is not on the sacred list, but is allowed in every other way-(10 or less magazine) and transfers it to his son who lives in California. The son then shows up at a gun store in California with the interfamily transfer paperwork and someone who wishes to buy the handgun from him. Legal?

The transfer has to go through a FFL due to Federal law. Once the son who lives in CA, it can be sold to anyone through a PPT and no intrafamilial paperwork is required.

[CaliforniaLiberal]

So –a father in AZ buys a handgun that is not on the sacred list, but is allowed in every other way-(10 or less magazine) and transfers it to his son who lives in California. The son then shows up at a gun store in California with the interfamily transfer paperwork and someone who wishes to buy the handgun from him. Legal?


By George I think he's got it!

[uVmU3iANbgk

Yes!

But the FFL Dealer doesn't care about or want the interfamily transfer paperwork, just send that off to the CA DOJ with $19. Generally no one cares about the seller or if the firearm being sold has any records on file with the CA DOJ in California transfers. You do not have to prove ownership or show "Proof of Registration."

[kemasa]

But the FFL Dealer doesn't care about or want the interfamily transfer paperwork, just send that off to the CA DOJ with $19. Generally no one cares about the seller or if the firearm being sold has any records on file with the CA DOJ in California transfers. You do not have to prove ownership or show "Proof of Registration."

Incorrect, the FFL DOES care about the intrafamilial paperwork when the firearm comes from the father. Federal law prohibits the transfer of a firearm between residents of different states. This means that you can NOT just fill out the CA paperwork and send it in.

Once the the son owns the firearm, then it can be transferred to another person by means of a PPT.

[ke6guj]

By George I think he's got it!

[uVmU3iANbgk

Yes!

But the FFL Dealer doesn't care about or want the interfamily transfer paperwork, just send that off to the CA DOJ with $19. Generally no one cares about the seller or if the firearm being sold has any records on file with the CA DOJ in California transfers. You do not have to prove ownership or show "Proof of Registration."

if you are doing an interstate intrafamily transfer through a dealer, there is no need to send in the intrafamily transfer form ($19) to CADOJ. that form is for intrafamily dealerless transfers to get the handgun registered into the recipient's name. If you do it through a dealer, it is already registered to the recipient. No need to "double register" it to the recipient.

[Librarian]

So –a father in AZ buys a handgun that is not on the sacred list, but is allowed in every other way-(10 or less magazine) and transfers it to his son who lives in California. The son then shows up at a gun store in California with the interfamily transfer paperwork and someone who wishes to buy the handgun from him. Legal?

edukder, please read the wiki articles

Intrafamilial transfer - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

Interstate transfer - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate

They group the information in the last several posts into one place.

[edukder]

Thank you Librarian-
I read and book-marked both articles and they really do spell out where the law is.
However-It does look to me that if someone in California had a friend in Arizona who has a son living in California-that the father could purchase the handgun, transfer the weapon to the son-who would then be free to sell the gun legally to another person living in California-assuming that both parties use a gun store as a go between and that all parties are not otherwise prohibited for some other reason from owning firearms.

All this silliness for a handgun that is readily available for purchase in 45 caliber-but not in 9mm. Go figure.

[Librarian]

Thank you Librarian-
I read and book-marked both articles and they really do spell out where the law is.
However-It does look to me that if someone in California had a friend in Arizona who has a son living in California-that the father could purchase the handgun, transfer the weapon to the son-who would then be free to sell the gun legally to another person living in California-assuming that both parties use a gun store as a go between and that all parties are not otherwise prohibited for some other reason from owning firearms.

All this silliness for a handgun that is readily available for purchase in 45 caliber-but not in 9mm. Go figure.

That's accurate, if you insert that the AZ-father must transfer the gun to the CA-son through a CA FFL. Once the gun is legally in CA, son is free to sell it to any non-prohibited person.

Just don't want to make that look like a business.