Cal Regs

[MosinVirus]

As Flyin Brian said...

I believe you can either transport your curio and relic across state lines and then self register, now even for long guns, or you can mail it to yourself from Montana and still self register.

Reason to get a COE now is that you now have to have both to have rifles shipped to your door step, or to cash and carry. Before it was enough to have an 03 FFL to have C&R rifles shipped, but that is no more.

Flyin Brian, do you know if the mailing part is correct?

[vintagerifle]

Originally Posted by Flyin Brian

First Q:
If the rifle you are buying was made in 1898 or earlier, it is an antique and you do not need to go through an FFL. The only exception would be buying it from a California 01FFL dealer who entered it in his books for whatever reason, then you would need to DROS it to purchase it. If you are buying from a regular citizen, then you are good to go on an Antique.

This is outstanding news, as almost everything I am interested in is 1898 or earlier! Am I required to register the antique in California when I return?

Also, interesting comments on mailing it to myself back in California. That might be preferable to carrying it around in my truck for 3 weeks.

C

[vintagerifle]

Hmm... reading the regs on antiques...
So, for example:
Say a 1886 Winchester dated to 1894, chambered for .45-70 Government
Does that count as an antique? Does the fact that .45-70 ammunition is available disqualify it?

C

[Mssr. Eleganté]

A Winchester Model 1886 chambered in 45-70 and manufactured in 1898 is an antique that is exempt from federal and California dealer transfer requirements. It is also exempt from California's registration law.

A Winchester Model 1886 chambered in 45-70 and manufactured in 1899 is not an antique.

[Flyin Brian]

Originally Posted by vintagerifle

Hmm... reading the regs on antiques...
So, for example:
Say a 1886 Winchester dated to 1894, chambered for .45-70 Government
Does that count as an antique? Does the fact that .45-70 ammunition is available disqualify it?

C

It is my understanding that the whole "Modern Ammunition" thing only applies to replicas. I have been subjected to this term while attempting to purchase a legitimate antique rifle a few years ago, and I was not prepared to defend my position, so I had to walk away from a good deal because the Seller (an 01FFL gun store) was misinformed on the law. I came home and researched it and figured I would be ready for the next time I encountered this. Unfortunately, I had to refresh my memory again this morning because I had already forgotten the details

I believe this is the relevant code that applies to this term:

pasted from this page on the ATF website: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/col...que-definition

Q: What qualifies as an antique firearm?
As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) the term “antique firearm” means —
…
any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ‘antique firearm’ shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon, which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

The code I pasted above leads me to believe that the "Modern Ammunition" phrase isn't even in the law, and the "not readily available" thing only applies to whether a replica can be considered an antique, and has nothing to do with a firearm that was made prior to 1899.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

[vintagerifle]

Originally Posted by Flyin Brian

It is my understanding that the whole "Modern Ammunition" thing only applies to replicas. ...

The code I pasted above leads me to believe that the "Modern Ammunition" phrase isn't even in the law, and the "not readily available" thing only applies to whether a replica can be considered an antique, and has nothing to do with a firearm that was made prior to 1899.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Reading it again, I think you have this right, but would love to hear it proclaimed by one of the experts.

Carl

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Originally Posted by Flyin Brian

...Am I interpreting this correctly?

Yes, you've got it.

I should add that this only applies to GCA (Title I) firearms. For NFA (Title II) firearms the "modern ammunition" thing applies even for stuff made before 1899.

[SQLGeek]

I'm trying to get up to speed with the C&R regulations in CA since it has been a few years since I was there last.

With the new requirements this year concerning a COE in addition to an FFL03, is there much point in having just the FFL03 without the COE?

From what I'm seeing, there isn't except for perhaps being able to buy a C&R in another state and taking it back with you. Is that correct or am I missing something?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Originally Posted by SQLGeek

I'm trying to get up to speed with the C&R regulations in CA since it has been a few years since I was there last.

With the new requirements this year concerning a COE in addition to an FFL03, is there much point in having just the FFL03 without the COE?

From what I'm seeing, there isn't except for perhaps being able to buy a C&R in another state and taking it back with you. Is that correct or am I missing something?

Buying while out of state and the discounts some vendors give are the only two reasons for a Californian to get a C&R FFL without a COE. Some guys have a pretty good system set up where they buy stuff and have it shipped to an 01 FFL in Nevada and then drive over to pick it all up a few times a year.

[SQLGeek]

Thanks for the clarification. So there is some utility in having one at least.

[profarrell]

Can someone please explain what these CA "Estate" Sale companies are doing selling 50+ year old long guns and hand guns (pistols/revolvers) cash and carry no docs.

Sometimes the firearms are not even 50 years old. Do Estate companies have some sort of eligibility to sell firearms without FFL dealer and transfers?

How do you register any firearm if you do ever purchase a cash and carry from an Estate Sale then?

[cdtx2001]

Clarification needed here.

IF I am out of state and find a C&R eligible firearm, I can buy it with a C&R FFL, correct?

Reason I ask is I was at a dealer that said due to CA law he could not sell me a C&R firearm even with an 03 FFL due to blah blah blah CA regulations blah blah blah CADOJ says blah blah

[six seven tango]

Originally Posted by cdtx2001

Clarification needed here.

IF I am out of state and find a C&R eligible firearm, I can buy it with a C&R FFL, correct?

Reason I ask is I was at a dealer that said due to CA law he could not sell me a C&R firearm even with an 03 FFL due to blah blah blah CA regulations blah blah blah CADOJ says blah blah

Quick answer, yes. No COE required out of state when doing FTF.

Unfortunately, that dealer was misinformed. CADOJ cannot regulate FFL's outside of their jurisdiction, which is confined to the state of CA. What you do outside of CA is none of their business. When you return to CA with said C&R, then you, not the out of state selling FFL, have to deal with CA reporting/registration requirements. A quick call to the sellers ATF inspector probably would have solved the problem.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Originally Posted by cdtx2001

...Reason I ask is I was at a dealer that said due to CA law he could not sell me a C&R firearm even with an 03 FFL due to blah blah blah CA regulations blah blah blah CADOJ says blah blah

Often it helps to show the out of state FFL a copy of Form BOF 4100A. Right on the back of the form it explains how California C&R FFLs have to report C&R firearms that they acquire out of state. If the dealer is really just confused or overly cautious about California law then seeing that form might help him change his mind about making the sale. But if he's being an anti-California dickweed then he'll just come up with another excuse.

[senia]

So, if I purchase a C&R on the internet from a C&R collector in another state, which form should I use to report it? The one for "In-State" aquisition (BOF961) or Curio or Relic Firearm Report (BOF4100A). The second one is required if I "obtain curio or relic firearms WHILE out of state", but I didn't actually travel out of state to get it. On the other hand, the "in-State" form implies that I purchased it from a California resident. Technically, i took possession of the rifle in-State, so should I use the BOF961 form?

[six seven tango]

Originally Posted by senia

So, if I purchase a C&R on the internet from a C&R collector in another state, which form should I use to report it? The one for "In-State" aquisition (BOF961) or Curio or Relic Firearm Report (BOF4100A). The second one is required if I "obtain curio or relic firearms WHILE out of state", but I didn't actually travel out of state to get it. On the other hand, the "in-State" form implies that I purchased it from a California resident. Technically, i took possession of the rifle in-State, so should I use the BOF961 form?

You are taking physical possession in CA, so it would be considered an in state acquisition and you would use form BOF961.

[senia]

Thanks, that is what I was thinking too.

Originally Posted by six seven tango

You are taking physical possession in CA, so it would be considered an in state acquisition and you would use form BOF961.

[rromeo]

I'm in Virginia. My friend is selling a C&R rifle to a California resident. The buyer sent a copy of his 03 FFL and said to ship it the address on the FFL. I told my my friend that it has to go to a dealer, but I just read this thread and I forgot about the COE. I don't know if the buyer has one, but if he does, then it's okay to send directly to him?

[krwada]

Originally Posted by rromeo

I'm in Virginia. My friend is selling a C&R rifle to a California resident. The buyer sent a copy of his 03 FFL and said to ship it the address on the FFL. I told my my friend that it has to go to a dealer, but I just read this thread and I forgot about the COE. I don't know if the buyer has one, but if he does, then it's okay to send directly to him?

The COE is a California thing.

From what I can gather; California does have restrictions of all transfers for handguns, (C&R or not) across state borders. This is primarily the reason why all those C&R Internet dealers will NOT ship ANY handguns, (C&R or no), to anyone who does not possess a TYPE-01 FFL.

Once a C&R transfer, (FOR LONG GUNS), is done across California State border; then it is up to the one who takes possession, (the California Resident), to have the COE and to file the proper paper work to 'ahem' ... register the firearm to the overlords ... (CADOJ) in Sacramento.

[8200rpm]

Can two CA residents who BOTH have Type 03 but WITHOUT a COE do a face-to-face transfer without involving a Type 01 FFL?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Originally Posted by 8200rpm

Can two CA residents who BOTH have Type 03 but WITHOUT a COE do a face-to-face transfer without involving a Type 01 FFL?

We'll assume you are talking about a C&R long gun...

The licence status of the seller doesn't matter. If the transfer happens inside California then the C&R FFL who is receiving the C&R long gun needs a COE. If the transfer happens outside California then the C&R FFL receiving the C&R firearm does not need a COE.

[thehummerguy]

Does the one gun a month rule still NOT apply with 03 and COE still?
This would be for modern and C&R pistols...

[kouye]

Originally Posted by Mssr. Eleganté

If you want to avoid the 1 handgun per 30 days restriction when buying both modern and C&R handguns from a California Licensed Dealer, then you need to have a COE in addition to your C&R FFL.

And you have to find a CA dealer that has a clue. Many LGS near me don't know squat about the exemption.

[tekno]

is there a competitive site for someone that wants to get their C&R and FFL03 licence? I want to bite the bullet and do this but feel over whelmed when reading this thread.

thanks

[krwada]

Originally Posted by tekno

is there a competitive site for someone that wants to get their C&R and FFL03 licence? I want to bite the bullet and do this but feel over whelmed when reading this thread.

thanks

I posted a comprehensive guide for the TYPE-03, (C&R) FFL over at 2A Munitions.

I will look up here at Calguns to see if I did the corresponding COE thing.

[krwada]

Originally Posted by tekno

is there a competitive site for someone that wants to get their C&R and FFL03 licence? I want to bite the bullet and do this but feel over whelmed when reading this thread.

thanks

I asked for help about the California COE ... and as usual, the Calguns community came through!

This thread has pretty much all the answers you need to effectively go through with getting your California permission slip ... (COE)

[tekno]

thanks krwada

[jl1252]

Just need a lil clarification. Im a c&r holder and have a valid coe. I was told by doj that all c&r longguns have to be shipped/dros'd thru an ffl01, and then I can bypass the 10-day wait. In other words, i cannot have c&r longguns shipped to me directly any longer...is this correct? I called a few of the online dealers ive purchased from in the past and both stated they were unaware of such a change (i know its my responsibility to know) and routinely ship longguns to Ca c&r holders.

[six seven tango]

Originally Posted by jl1252

Just need a lil clarification. Im a c&r holder and have a valid coe. I was told by doj that all c&r longguns have to be shipped/dros'd thru an ffl01, and then I can bypass the 10-day wait. In other words, i cannot have c&r longguns shipped to me directly any longer...is this correct? I called a few of the online dealers ive purchased from in the past and both stated they were unaware of such a change (i know its my responsibility to know) and routinely ship longguns to Ca c&r holders.

This seems like it's coming up a lot recently. I've got to wonder if DOJ is planning some underground regulation b/s here.

The person that you talked to at DOJ is wrong. C&R handguns have to go thru an 01, but not long guns. If anyone at DOJ insists otherwise, ask them to cite the PC. So, yes, you can have a C&R long gun shipped directly to you if you have an 03/COE. Just make sure you send in your $19 with the proper from.

[jl1252]

Originally Posted by six seven tango

This seems like it's coming up a lot recently. I've got to wonder if DOJ is planning some underground regulation b/s here.

The person that you talked to at DOJ is wrong. C&R handguns have to go thru an 01, but not long guns. If anyone at DOJ insists otherwise, ask them to cite the PC. So, yes, you can have a C&R long gun shipped directly to you if you have an 03/COE. Just make sure you send in your $19 with the proper from.

Ok, thank you. The person I talked to cited the PC on the 4100 form and said that form 4100 could only be used to report out-of-state acquisitions. So i looked at form 961 which states its for reporting acquisitions in-state from non-licensees. So which form would be used if purchasing a long-gun from one of the major on-line c&r dealers like AIM or SOG?

Just trying to get my ducks in a row since things seemed to changed since my last c&r purchase.

Thanks again

[krwada]

Originally Posted by jl1252

Ok, thank you. The person I talked to cited the PC on the 4100 form and said that form 4100 could only be used to report out-of-state acquisitions. So i looked at form 961 which states its for reporting acquisitions in-state from non-licensees. So which form would be used if purchasing a long-gun from one of the major on-line c&r dealers like AIM or SOG?

Just trying to get my ducks in a row since things seemed to changed since my last c&r purchase.

Thanks again

... and it was very politely and nicely answered here

In your specific case, you will need to fill out the CADOJ BOF961

The Calguns community is very good at helping all members get things straight. There is some FUD spread about by members here. They do get called out on it pretty darned quick.

[jl1252]

I too think that 961 is the most appropriate form, but this language copied from top of page 2 of form 961 is tripping me up:

Collector In-State Acquisition of Curio or Relic Long Gun Report Requirements

Federally licensed collectors (FFL type 03) in California who have a current COE may acquire curio or relic long guns from non-licensees without completing the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer only if he/she completes and submits this report to the California Department of Justice within thirty (30) days of taking possession of the long gun. Your failure to comply with this reporting requirement could result in criminal prosecution. (Pen. Code, §§ 27590 & 27966).

Establishments like AIM, SOG, CIA, are all licensees...correct? Or am I over thinking this?

[TRICKSTER]

Originally Posted by jl1252

Ok, thank you. The person I talked to cited the PC on the 4100 form and said that form 4100 could only be used to report out-of-state acquisitions. So i looked at form 961 which states its for reporting acquisitions in-state from non-licensees. So which form would be used if purchasing a long-gun from one of the major on-line c&r dealers like AIM or SOG?

Just trying to get my ducks in a row since things seemed to changed since my last c&r purchase.

Thanks again

Use the 961. I have registered over a dozen firearms this way with no problems. In the "Acquired From" box, I mark "other" and enter "Mailed from (insert state two letter abbreviation), FFL XX-XX-XXX-XX-XX-XXXXX"

[six seven tango]

Originally Posted by TRICKSTER

Use the 961. I have registered over a dozen firearms this way with no problems. In the "Acquired From" box, I mark "other" and enter "Mailed from (insert state two letter abbreviation), FFL XX-XX-XXX-XX-XX-XXXXX"

^^This^^

The 961 seems to be a one size fits all/catch all form, and is poorly worded. Basically, if you acquired a C&R long gun without physically leaving the state, then the 961 is the proper form to use.

I do it a little different than Trickster. Instead of "mailed from", I'll put the actual company name IE: Aim Surplus, followed by their FFL number. Both ways seem to work.

[jl1252]

This is where I am having issues with using form 961 to report C&R purchases...

The form 961 references PC27966...

"Commencing January 1, 2014, if all of the following
requirements are satisfied, Section 27545 shall not apply to the
sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer is infrequent, as defined in
Section 16730.
(b) The firearm is not a handgun.
(c) The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11
of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor.
(d) The person receiving the firearm has a current certificate of
eligibility issued pursuant to Section 26710.
(e) The person receiving the firearm is licensed as a collector
pursuant to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the
regulations issued thereto.
(f) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person
to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver
in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes
information concerning the individual taking possession of the
firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of
the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete
pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the department."

So on its face, purchasing a C&R longgun from AIM and having it delivered to my doorstep, appears to meet all of the requirements of 27966 as long as I have a C&R and COE (which I do). Doesn't specify where the seller has to be located. No problem, good to go.

The problem I am still having is with the reference to "non-licensees" on page 2 of the form 961. It would seem to only apply to acquisitions from non-dealers and therefore not applicable to purchases from places like AIM.

The form seems to conflict with the penal code its based on...

jl1252

[six seven tango]

Originally Posted by jl1252

This is where I am having issues with using form 961 to report C&R purchases...

The form 961 references PC27966...


So on its face, purchasing a C&R longgun from AIM and having it delivered to my doorstep, appears to meet all of the requirements of 27966 as long as I have a C&R and COE (which I do). Doesn't specify where the seller has to be located. No problem, good to go.

The problem I am still having is with the reference to "non-licensees" on page 2 of the form 961. It would seem to only apply to acquisitions from non-dealers and therefore not applicable to purchases from places like AIM.

The form seems to conflict with the penal code its based on...

jl1252

When in doubt, follow the PC.

[krwada]

Originally Posted by jl1252

This is where I am having issues with using form 961 to report C&R purchases...

The form 961 references PC27966...

"Commencing January 1, 2014, if all of the following
requirements are satisfied, Section 27545 shall not apply to the
sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer is infrequent, as defined in
Section 16730.
(b) The firearm is not a handgun.
(c) The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11
of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor.
(d) The person receiving the firearm has a current certificate of
eligibility issued pursuant to Section 26710.
(e) The person receiving the firearm is licensed as a collector
pursuant to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the
regulations issued thereto.
(f) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person
to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver
in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes
information concerning the individual taking possession of the
firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of
the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete
pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the department."

So on its face, purchasing a C&R longgun from AIM and having it delivered to my doorstep, appears to meet all of the requirements of 27966 as long as I have a C&R and COE (which I do). Doesn't specify where the seller has to be located. No problem, good to go.

The problem I am still having is with the reference to "non-licensees" on page 2 of the form 961. It would seem to only apply to acquisitions from non-dealers and therefore not applicable to purchases from places like AIM.

The form seems to conflict with the penal code its based on...

jl1252

If you are really this paranoid ... then do what our California Overlord Masters want for you ... Do not purchase a firearm ... or do ALL transactions through an 01-FFL and be done with it.

As others have said; BOF961 and you are pretty much good to go.

(provided you do have your C&R + COE)

[jl1252]

How am I being paranoid? Im just trying to wrap my head around the language. The penal code says one thing and the form its based on says another...excuse me.

[vintagerifle]

Posted this in the wrong section sorry! <deleted>

[krwada]

Originally Posted by jl1252

How am I being paranoid? Im just trying to wrap my head around the language. The penal code says one thing and the form its based on says another...excuse me.

Believe me ... This is intentional. The politicians and their regulator lackeys will do everything they can to try and trip you up.

This stuff is rife everywhere... especially with the firearms infringements ... (regulations).