Sent New Resident Form, Got Asked for Pics, Sent Process Request, Got Denied Again

[2sBlind]

Hi All,

I sent in my new resident firearm report for a number of guns. Half got processed/approved (handguns) and half got an initial rejection asking for pictures (ar pistols - all in legal configuration).

On the advice of many previous similar threads, I sent letters back to CADOJ stating there is no PC authority or requirement to provide pictures and to complete the processing of the denied items.

Now (over a year after I sent the follow up letter) I’ve received letters for the initially denied items stating the following:

“The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms is in receipt of your submitted application; however, your application cannot be processed for the following reason(s):

• Your transaction is being rejected for failure to provide the department with photos of your firearm(s) upon request. The photos were being requested to assist the Department in determining if the firearm you are seeking to record is California compliant. Per Penal Code section 30800 possession of an assault weapon as defined in PC sections 30510 and 30515, is a violation of law and is deemed a public nuisance. Your fee will not be refunded.”

It’s my understanding that I’ve met the requirements and all I need to do by submitting the new resident firearm report. But now what happens if I get pulled over while transporting any of the firearms that were rejected? The serial numbers won’t be in my name to my understanding seeing as the application for those was rejected.

What is my best course of action at this point?

Any advice is much appreciated!

[Bot]

Attorney or a small claims you got a hold onto the fire. Just like with Covid this is the new way the government it’s basically deny deny deny to make you prove stuff. Good luck

Originally Posted by 2sBlind

Hi All,

I sent in my new resident firearm report for a number of guns. Half got processed/approved (handguns) and half got an initial rejection asking for pictures (ar pistols - all in legal configuration).

On the advice of many previous similar threads, I sent letters back to CADOJ stating there is no PC authority or requirement to provide pictures and to complete the processing of the denied items.

Now (over a year after I sent the follow up letter) I’ve received letters for the initially denied items stating the following:

“The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms is in receipt of your submitted application; however, your application cannot be processed for the following reason(s):

• Your transaction is being rejected for failure to provide the department with photos of your firearm(s) upon request. The photos were being requested to assist the Department in determining if the firearm you are seeking to record is California compliant. Per Penal Code section 30800 possession of an assault weapon as defined in PC sections 30510 and 30515, is a violation of law and is deemed a public nuisance. Your fee will not be refunded.”

It’s my understanding that I’ve met the requirements and all I need to do by submitting the new resident firearm report. But now what happens if I get pulled over while transporting any of the firearms that were rejected? The serial numbers won’t be in my name to my understanding seeing as the application for those was rejected.

What is my best course of action at this point?

Any advice is much appreciated!

[Featureless]

LOL

[2sBlind]

@bot Thanks for the reply. Hopefully it doesn’t have to go that far, but posting this to see exactly what my options/paths forward are.

[2sBlind]

@Featureless Long work week so hopefully I’m just
misunderstanding the joke - if you mean I’m ATF trying to fish, then nope. If you’re saying I should hide my dogs… 😬

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by 2sBlind

Hi All,

I sent in my new resident firearm report for a number of guns. Half got processed/approved (handguns) and half got an initial rejection asking for pictures (ar pistols - all in legal configuration).

On the advice of many previous similar threads, I sent letters back to CADOJ stating there is no PC authority or requirement to provide pictures and to complete the processing of the denied items.

Now (over a year after I sent the follow up letter) I’ve received letters for the initially denied items stating the following:

“The California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms is in receipt of your submitted application; however, your application cannot be processed for the following reason(s):

• Your transaction is being rejected for failure to provide the department with photos of your firearm(s) upon request. The photos were being requested to assist the Department in determining if the firearm you are seeking to record is California compliant. Per Penal Code section 30800 possession of an assault weapon as defined in PC sections 30510 and 30515, is a violation of law and is deemed a public nuisance. Your fee will not be refunded.”

It’s my understanding that I’ve met the requirements and all I need to do by submitting the new resident firearm report. But now what happens if I get pulled over while transporting any of the firearms that were rejected? The serial numbers won’t be in my name to my understanding seeing as the application for those was rejected.

What is my best course of action at this point?

Any advice is much appreciated!

What are you trying to accomplish?

If your goal is to satisfy the "New Resident" reporting requirements of Penal Code section 27560, then you've done so once you have "Forward(ed) by prepaid mail or deliver in person to the Department of Justice, a report prescribed by the department including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question" (quoted from PC 27560). If they decide not to process, that's groovy. You've done what is required and you have proof they received your form. QED

If your goal is to prevent a felony filing if you get popped for carrying concealed, or carrying loaded, one of the listed firearms, then it's a different story. The misdemeanor lid on both charges requires that the involved weapon be registered to you in the AFS. If DOJ don't "process" your registration form, then there ain't gonna be an AFS record. Nothing in PC 27560 requires the DOJ to create an AFS record as a result of your registration.

[2sBlind]

@RickD427 Apologies for the confusion. I am not attempting to do anything illegal. To try and clarify:

Half of my firearms were initially approved by the DOJ during my very first/initial submission (all handguns). In fact, I have a couple of these approved guns on my CCW list (they had to be processed by CADOJ and in their database in order for my issuing authority to approve them and my CCW.

All of my “rejected” items are ar pistols. I’m not attempting or worried about adding these to my CCW or illegally carrying/concealing them. My concern is, if, say for example, I’m retuning from a range trip with one or more AR pistol that was rejected and am pulled over by a cop (for whatever reason). Maybe I’m misunderstanding things, but if they run the serial number of those “rejected” guns, if CADOJ hasn’t processed them, I’m assuming they won’t show up under by name/account. Could the cop then confiscate them (in which case I would just assume the worst case of never getting them back). Could the cop arrest me (due to being in possession of a gun that wasn’t processed by CADOJ and isn’t under my name)?

Those two above scenarios are my concern.

Thanks!

[2sBlind]

To clarify the above, yes my concern is satisfying the new resident reporting requirement, which I agree with you that I have done and have proof of. But if a cop can still confiscate them (or arrest me!) because I “get caught” with gun(s) that aren’t recorded in my name by CADOJ, then it’s kind of like getting hit by a car that had a red light when I’m crossing the street, I still lose even though I’m in the right haha

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by 2sBlind

To clarify the above, yes my concern is satisfying the new resident reporting requirement, which I agree with you that I have done and have proof of. But if a cop can still confiscate them (or arrest me!) because I “get caught” with gun(s) that aren’t recorded in my name by CADOJ, then it’s kind of like getting hit by a car that had a red light when I’m crossing the street, I still lose even though I’m in the right haha

A cop can't arrest you for possessing firearms that are not registered in your name. That's not a crime.

If the nice officer can show that you imported them as a new resident, without making the required report, that nice officer still could not arrest you without a warrant (as the crime did not occur in the officer's presence - refer to PC 836(a)(1)). To get a conventional arrest warrant, the officer would have to first get a criminal filing, and that would require a prosecutor to make a finding that the required DOJ report was not made. To get a "Ramey" warrant, the officer can bypass the prosecutor, but still has to convince the issuing judge that the required DOJ report was not made.

[BrokerB]

Excellent info.

What it shows is how outrageous a God given right has been subverted by the true criminals under the white dome

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by RickD427

If your goal is to prevent a felony filing if you get popped for carrying concealed, or carrying loaded, one of the listed firearms, then it's a different story. The misdemeanor lid on both charges requires that the involved weapon be registered to you in the AFS. If DOJ don't "process" your registration form, then there ain't gonna be an AFS record. Nothing in PC 27560 requires the DOJ to create an AFS record as a result of your registration.

As you say, it isn't in 27560; do you suppose PC 11106 (a)(1)(E) imposes that duty?

11106.

(a) (1) In order to assist in the investigation of crime, the prosecution of civil actions by city attorneys pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the arrest and prosecution of criminals, and the recovery of lost, stolen, or found property, the Attorney General shall keep and properly file a complete record of all of the following:

...

(E) Reports provided pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 27500) of Chapter 4 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6, or pursuant to any provision listed in subdivision (a) of Section 16585.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Librarian

As you say, it isn't in 27560; do you suppose PC 11106 (a)(1)(E) imposes that duty?

Librarian,

That's an excellent find. I was not previously aware of that statute (and this is probably why we call you the "Librarian").

I would have to agree that it does impose such a duty.

But I'll also have to observe that the DOJ ain't gonna process the OP's report until he provides the requested additional information.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Librarian,

That's an excellent find. I was not previously aware of that statute (and this is probably why we call you the "Librarian").

I would have to agree that it does impose such a duty.

But I'll also have to observe that the DOJ ain't gonna process the OP's report until he provides the requested additional information.

Obstinacy in the face of legislative mandate? Heavens forfend!

When we don't like the law, we get back 'write your Congressman'; I think it's about time that CA-DOJ gets the same treatment on this point.

Less of a priority than things like magazines and assault weapons and the Roster, of course. But they don't legally get to Make Stuff Up.

[LAgun]

Originally Posted by RickD427

A cop can't arrest you for possessing firearms that are not registered in your name. That's not a crime.

If the nice officer can show that you imported them as a new resident, without making the required report, that nice officer still could not arrest you without a warrant (as the crime did not occur in the officer's presence - refer to PC 836(a)(1)). To get a conventional arrest warrant, the officer would have to first get a criminal filing, and that would require a prosecutor to make a finding that the required DOJ report was not made. To get a "Ramey" warrant, the officer can bypass the prosecutor, but still has to convince the issuing judge that the required DOJ report was not made.

Even if the officer tried to arrest him for this, wouldn't the crime have been a misdemeanor (with a one year statute of limitations that's already expired)?

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by LAgun

Even if the officer tried to arrest him for this, wouldn't the crime have been a misdemeanor (with a one year statute of limitations that's already expired)?

The offense is a misdemeanor and the SOL would likely prevent prosecution. But I have to qualify that statement with the word "likely" because the SOL contains a number of "Tolling" provisions.

One mistake that folks often make with the SOL is to think that the one year (for misdemeanors) and three years (for most felonies) begins on the date of the offense and runs uninterrupted until the period ends. That's an eminently reasonable and common sense reading of the law, but not a correct one.

"Tolling" allows the time period of the SOL to start and stop for various events. Because of this, it may take 2-3 calendar years for a one year SOL period to run.

[1911-CV]

1) OP sent in the required form.

2) DOJ decided they couldn't tell whether some of the guns were in a legal configuration and declined to create an AFS record for those

3) DOJ sends OP a letter saying they 'rejected' those filings and warning OP that possession of "assault weapons" as defined in CA statute is a violation of law.

OP's done, right? Nothing more to do. Even the DOJ letter (or at least the part included in the post) doesn't say he has to try again, and statute does not seem to suggest such an obligation might exist.

Seems like it's time move along, nothing to see here...

[A-J]

Originally Posted by RickD427

A cop can't arrest you for possessing firearms that are not registered in your name. That's not a crime.

If the nice officer can show that you imported them as a new resident, without making the required report, that nice officer still could not arrest you without a warrant (as the crime did not occur in the officer's presence - refer to PC 836(a)(1)). To get a conventional arrest warrant, the officer would have to first get a criminal filing, and that would require a prosecutor to make a finding that the required DOJ report was not made. To get a "Ramey" warrant, the officer can bypass the prosecutor, but still has to convince the issuing judge that the required DOJ report was not made.

While this is accurate from a technical standpoint, it does not address the officer's discretion to seize said firearms for (insert whatever made up reason the officer gives). It then becomes incumbent on the OP to jump through a bunch of hoops to have any hope of ever getting them back. Seizure can happen without an immediate arrest, pending "investigation". Remember, officers do not need to prove jack, they can arrest or seize based on "suspicion". Is that really so far fetched considering how little the average cop knows about firearms law?

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by A-J

While this is accurate from a technical standpoint, it does not address the officer's discretion to seize said firearms for (insert whatever made up reason the officer gives). It then becomes incumbent on the OP to jump through a bunch of hoops to have any hope of ever getting them back. Seizure can happen without an immediate arrest, pending "investigation". Remember, officers do not need to prove jack, they can arrest or seize based on "suspicion". Is that really so far fetched considering how little the average cop knows about firearms law?

Arrest on suspicion? Detain only for reasonable time to conduct an investigation, perhaps. Arrest, I think only with probable cause, but RickD427 will have that down.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by A-J

While this is accurate from a technical standpoint, it does not address the officer's discretion to seize said firearms for (insert whatever made up reason the officer gives). It then becomes incumbent on the OP to jump through a bunch of hoops to have any hope of ever getting them back. Seizure can happen without an immediate arrest, pending "investigation". Remember, officers do not need to prove jack, they can arrest or seize based on "suspicion". Is that really so far fetched considering how little the average cop knows about firearms law?

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Arrest on suspicion? Detain only for reasonable time to conduct an investigation, perhaps. Arrest, I think only with probable cause, but RickD427 will have that down.

Mr. "A-J" makes a good point here. The seizure of property only requires articulation that the item is evidence of a crime, or is contraband. The arrest of a person requires "Probable Cause" to believe that they have committed a crime, and further requires a judicial review of that "Probable Cause" with 48 hours if they remain in custody. The temporary, non-arrest, investigative detention of a person requires "Reasonable Suspicion", but can only last as long as the uninterrupted field investigation requires.

One viable law enforcement strategy is to seize and hold items of evidence/contraband. It's not often used because the "Optics can be bad." DOJ appeared to be putting the strategy on the table for Single-Shot pistol conversions to semi-auto and for BBRAW's where the Bullet Button was removed, and prior to the current string of federal court cases.

The way it works is that only the weapon is seized. No one gets arrested. The weapons goes into the evidence locker. When you try to get it back, the LE agency responds that the weapon is evidence of illegal manufacture, but we'd be happy to release it if you present a court order for the release. If you don't present the court order within 180 days, the weapon goes off to destruction under Penal Code section 34000.

To get that court order, you pretty much have to file a lawsuit against the agency (and I'll invite our JD members to cite any additional avenues to obtain the order). As the moving party in the lawsuit, you bear the burden of proof that the weapon was not the product of illegal manufacture. The LE agency doesn't have to prove a thing. Plan on the agency making the opposing argument that the weapon was illegally "manufactured" citing their (overly) broad reading of PC 29180(a). As a civil case the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard is gonna apply.

Compare that with the alternative where the nice LE officer arrests you for the illegal manufacture (that also opens another can worms regarding the elements of any such offense, but that's for another thread) and then seizes the weapon as evidence. In that scenario, the state has the burden of proof, and has to meet the much higher "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard.