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 05-23-2022, 9:49 AM
avalon42 avalon42 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 252
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default Moving Back to California

Hi,

I moved from California to a free state approximately 9 months ago. I am currently making a move to come back for personal reasons yet want to remain complaint with current laws.

I did purchase some pistols which would be considered "off-roster".

Also, I did have two AK style weapons, do I need to sell these here before coming back? I remember the AW registration thing was going, but didnt follow up on what happened after Benitez.

Any help would be great.

Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-23-2022, 10:21 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avalon42 View Post
Hi,

I moved from California to a free state approximately 9 months ago. I am currently making a move to come back for personal reasons yet want to remain complaint with current laws.

I did purchase some pistols which would be considered "off-roster".

Also, I did have two AK style weapons, do I need to sell these here before coming back? I remember the AW registration thing was going, but didnt follow up on what happened after Benitez.

Any help would be great.

Thank you.
Since you successfully bought guns in the other state, you were a resident of that state. That's your story, and you're sticking to it.

You will need to register the guns you bought out of CA via the New Resident process. Off-Roster is fine.

You cannot, however bring in mags with a greater capacity than 10 (taking them apart does not help, then they're illegal large-capacity magazine kits).

You cannot bring in what CA calls 'assault weapons'; an AK person probably can follow up on what mods are needed to avoid that problem; of course, if the make/model of an AK is on the original list of aws, or the Kasler list, then that AK cannot be made compliant at all.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
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.



Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-23-2022, 10:24 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avalon42 View Post
Hi,

I moved from California to a free state approximately 9 months ago. I am currently making a move to come back for personal reasons yet want to remain complaint with current laws.

I did purchase some pistols which would be considered "off-roster".

Also, I did have two AK style weapons, do I need to sell these here before coming back? I remember the AW registration thing was going, but didnt follow up on what happened after Benitez.

Any help would be great.

Thank you.
It depends.

If you're returning to California as a "New Resident", you can bring in your off-roster handguns and register them as a "New Resident" for a grand total of 19.00. The weapons must be in a California legal configuration. There has been no changes to the "Assault Weapon" statutes. Please refer to PC 27560.

If you're returning to California as a "Returning Resident", then you have to ship your weapons to a California FFL who then releases them to you in California. You cannot bring them in yourself. Handguns have to be on the roster. Violation is a felony if any of the weapons are handguns. Please refer to PC 27585 and 27590.

The difference is whether you met California's definition of resident during the period you were away. Please refer to PC 17000.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-23-2022, 5:13 PM
JJZ3's Avatar
JJZ3 JJZ3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Northern California
Posts: 193
iTrader: 16 / 94%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avalon42 View Post
Hi,

I moved from California to a free state approximately 9 months ago. I am currently making a move to come back for personal reasons yet want to remain complaint with current laws.

I did purchase some pistols which would be considered "off-roster".

Also, I did have two AK style weapons, do I need to sell these here before coming back? I remember the AW registration thing was going, but didnt follow up on what happened after Benitez.

Any help would be great.

Thank you.
Don't forget to check the banned by name list if they're older Ak's.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-24-2022, 4:49 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
It depends.

If you're returning to California as a "New Resident", you can bring in your off-roster handguns and register them as a "New Resident" for a grand total of 19.00. The weapons must be in a California legal configuration. There has been no changes to the "Assault Weapon" statutes. Please refer to PC 27560.

If you're returning to California as a "Returning Resident", then you have to ship your weapons to a California FFL who then releases them to you in California. You cannot bring them in yourself. Handguns have to be on the roster. Violation is a felony if any of the weapons are handguns. Please refer to PC 27585 and 27590.

The difference is whether you met California's definition of resident during the period you were away. Please refer to PC 17000.
Here I am about to be pilloried, but I cannot agree that the difinition of resicentcy provided in PC 17000 controls whether OP remained a CA resident while he was out of the state. The definition borrowed from the vehicle code pertains to whethe an indivual has moved into the state as a resident. While it is tempting to analogize to in regard to other issues in which residency bears on firearm laws, the discussion is not limited to VC 12505.

In other words, PC 17000 is to be used to determine if a person is "new", but is not determinative of whether they are a "returning" resident. And whether certain things reaise a presumption, a presenumption is just that and can often be easily rebutted. But should we assume that VC 12505 bears on whether one was a CA resident while out of the state, emphasize the importance of domicile.

Quote:
“State of domicile” means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.
No true, fixed, ande permanent home? Ca is not your domicile. Warning. It could be tent.

Is that home your principle residence? Perhaps you had a room in your parents house that you used when in town, but they used it for storage and perhaps guests and all this time you rented a house in antother state. It's a question of fact as to which is your principal residence, but I vote for the house over the guest room.

Did you "manifest an intention" to return to CA? Maifest indicates what was done and not secret intent. Some are hung up on school. If one goes out of school to obain a degree the person is believed to remain a CA resident by virtue. I disagree, if they have manifested there intention to abandon their CA residency and that is so even when by virtue of the laws of the state of eductaion they subject the student to out of state tuition IF they failed to qualify for in state treatmenet on enrollment. This is quite common in states that treat that student as a resident for all purposes despite the clearest manifestations of their intention to never return the provious state.

But this is not a legal opinion and no one should rely on it. I know nothing - nothing.

Then there is the practical matter. Few have the resources to fight the state and some overly enthusiastic gun hater wants to make a name for themselves. It can get expensive. I guess you have to know when and where to pick your battles.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-24-2022, 6:34 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Here I am about to be pilloried, but I cannot agree that the difinition of resicentcy provided in PC 17000 controls whether OP remained a CA resident while he was out of the state. The definition borrowed from the vehicle code pertains to whethe an indivual has moved into the state as a resident. While it is tempting to analogize to in regard to other issues in which residency bears on firearm laws, the discussion is not limited to VC 12505.

In other words, PC 17000 is to be used to determine if a person is "new", but is not determinative of whether they are a "returning" resident. And whether certain things reaise a presumption, a presenumption is just that and can often be easily rebutted. But should we assume that VC 12505 bears on whether one was a CA resident while out of the state, emphasize the importance of domicile.



No true, fixed, ande permanent home? Ca is not your domicile. Warning. It could be tent.

Is that home your principle residence? Perhaps you had a room in your parents house that you used when in town, but they used it for storage and perhaps guests and all this time you rented a house in antother state. It's a question of fact as to which is your principal residence, but I vote for the house over the guest room.

Did you "manifest an intention" to return to CA? Maifest indicates what was done and not secret intent. Some are hung up on school. If one goes out of school to obain a degree the person is believed to remain a CA resident by virtue. I disagree, if they have manifested there intention to abandon their CA residency and that is so even when by virtue of the laws of the state of eductaion they subject the student to out of state tuition IF they failed to qualify for in state treatmenet on enrollment. This is quite common in states that treat that student as a resident for all purposes despite the clearest manifestations of their intention to never return the provious state.

But this is not a legal opinion and no one should rely on it. I know nothing - nothing.

Then there is the practical matter. Few have the resources to fight the state and some overly enthusiastic gun hater wants to make a name for themselves. It can get expensive. I guess you have to know when and where to pick your battles.
Chewy,

Nobody get's "Pilloried" here. It's all about having a meaningful discussion. We don't always agree, and that's what makes the discussion meaningful.

PC 17000 (which is really Vehicle Code section 12505 in disguise) simply defines the criteria under which a person is determined to be a California resident. When you look closely at the statute, it's very imprecise and different folks can apply it to the same facts and reach differing conclusions as a result.

PC 17000 makes no distinction between "New" resident and "Returning" resident. You're correct in that PC 17000 gives its definition of resident in the context of a "Personal Firearm Importer", which would necessarily be a "New" resident. PC 17000 does not speak in any context about a "Returning" resident. You have to get there by recognizing that "New" residents are addressed in PC 27560 and that "Returning" residents are governed by PC 27585. The contextual difference isn't in section 17000, it's in the difference between sections 27560 and 27585.

The term "New" and "Returning" depend on whether one has satisfied the PC 17000 criteria while they were away from California. Again, because the statute is vague, not everyone if gonna reach the same conclusion. But the key point is that, at the end of the day, it's the conclusion reached by your arresting officer and filing DDA that count.

By way of example, consider the case of a young man who lived with his parents all of his life until he enlisted in the Navy. He still has his rooms in his parent's house, keeps his California Driver's License and keeps California as his military "Home of Record" (the significance being that the Navy will return him, and his household goods the "Home of Record" when discharged). The Navy stations him in Texas, where he lives on base, and where he can lawfully purchase handguns because the federal law treats him as a Texas resident. But application of PC 17000 is gonna treat him as a California resident during the time he is in Texas because he kept his California residence (the room in the parents house) and manifested an intent to return. He's prime bait for felony charges if he brings any of those Texas handguns home.

OTOH, if that young sailor's parents sell their home, move and don't give their son their new address, he gets a Texas Driver's License and changes his home of record to Texas (for the sake of the example severing all his California ties and showing no intent to return) and later regrets the decision and moves back to California, application of PC 17000 would treat him as a new resident. He can bring in all those Texas handguns and only pay a $19.00 fee.

But you've accurately stated the big problem with PC 17000 and that the fact that it not conclusive.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-24-2022, 10:31 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Chewy,

Nobody get's "Pilloried" here. It's all about having a meaningful discussion. We don't always agree, and that's what makes the discussion meaningful.

PC 17000 (which is really Vehicle Code section 12505 in disguise) simply defines the criteria under which a person is determined to be a California resident. When you look closely at the statute, it's very imprecise and different folks can apply it to the same facts and reach differing conclusions as a result.

PC 17000 makes no distinction between "New" resident and "Returning" resident. You're correct in that PC 17000 gives its definition of resident in the context of a "Personal Firearm Importer", which would necessarily be a "New" resident. PC 17000 does not speak in any context about a "Returning" resident. You have to get there by recognizing that "New" residents are addressed in PC 27560 and that "Returning" residents are governed by PC 27585. The contextual difference isn't in section 17000, it's in the difference between sections 27560 and 27585.

The term "New" and "Returning" depend on whether one has satisfied the PC 17000 criteria while they were away from California. Again, because the statute is vague, not everyone if gonna reach the same conclusion. But the key point is that, at the end of the day, it's the conclusion reached by your arresting officer and filing DDA that count.

By way of example, consider the case of a young man who lived with his parents all of his life until he enlisted in the Navy. He still has his rooms in his parent's house, keeps his California Driver's License and keeps California as his military "Home of Record" (the significance being that the Navy will return him, and his household goods the "Home of Record" when discharged). The Navy stations him in Texas, where he lives on base, and where he can lawfully purchase handguns because the federal law treats him as a Texas resident. But application of PC 17000 is gonna treat him as a California resident during the time he is in Texas because he kept his California residence (the room in the parents house) and manifested an intent to return. He's prime bait for felony charges if he brings any of those Texas handguns home.

OTOH, if that young sailor's parents sell their home, move and don't give their son their new address, he gets a Texas Driver's License and changes his home of record to Texas (for the sake of the example severing all his California ties and showing no intent to return) and later regrets the decision and moves back to California, application of PC 17000 would treat him as a new resident. He can bring in all those Texas handguns and only pay a $19.00 fee.

But you've accurately stated the big problem with PC 17000 and that the fact that it not conclusive.
You have a very good head on your shoulders, Rick, and this is not the time to say too much about the contrast between Penal Code sections 27560 and 27585 other than the first doesn't say it only applies to new residents, but to persons moving into the state as residents. I submit that a returning resident is just as well moving to the state as a resident as is a new resident. I am not at all impressed that the AG chose to draft a "New" Resident Report Of Firearm Ownership, though it raises some issues with the tendency of the courts to defer to agencies charged with enforcement of laws. Off hand I don't recall if that is Chevron deference or Chevron deference is Federal or Californy doctrine. Regardless, the last I followed the courts are leaning more back towards literal interpretaion of statutes and giving less and less weight to the interpretation of governmental agencies. (Afer posting I took a quick peak a the doctine as well as Step Zero."

While you are undoubtedly correct that what matters for practical purposes is what the arresting officer a DDA does. Who has the money to do anything about it or take the time from work to contest charges, but that doesn't negate how the law should be correctly interpreted. I call it the way I see it.

Were one to ask me what they should do if the facts presented suggested that were a returning resident, I would caution them against risking a felony charge that imo would be ill founded, but very costly to contest. That and the court may not accept my construction of the statutes, for which I know of no precedence. I am with you on that. But if a returning resident had the bucks and the time to challenge the government, and accept the risk of being conficted of a felony, that is all together a different thing as long as I explain the options.

Last edited by Chewy65; 05-24-2022 at 10:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-24-2022, 10:35 PM
Saym14 Saym14 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SoCal——> AZ
Posts: 7,893
iTrader: 155 / 100%
Default

What about the tax rules on residency. If he paid income tax in another state during that time he was not a CA resident. CA residents must pay Ca income tax even if they work out of state . I would think if he cut off all ties in Ca during the 9 month s he would be returning as a new resident.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-25-2022, 1:52 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
You have a very good head on your shoulders, Rick, and this is not the time to say too much about the contrast between Penal Code sections 27560 and 27585 other than the first doesn't say it only applies to new residents, but to persons moving into the state as residents. I submit that a returning resident is just as well moving to the state as a resident as is a new resident. I am not at all impressed that the AG chose to draft a "New" Resident Report Of Firearm Ownership, though it raises some issues with the tendency of the courts to defer to agencies charged with enforcement of laws. Off hand I don't recall if that is Chevron deference or Chevron deference is Federal or Californy doctrine. Regardless, the last I followed the courts are leaning more back towards literal interpretaion of statutes and giving less and less weight to the interpretation of governmental agencies. (Afer posting I took a quick peak a the doctine as well as Step Zero."

While you are undoubtedly correct that what matters for practical purposes is what the arresting officer a DDA does. Who has the money to do anything about it or take the time from work to contest charges, but that doesn't negate how the law should be correctly interpreted. I call it the way I see it.

Were one to ask me what they should do if the facts presented suggested that were a returning resident, I would caution them against risking a felony charge that imo would be ill founded, but very costly to contest. That and the court may not accept my construction of the statutes, for which I know of no precedence. I am with you on that. But if a returning resident had the bucks and the time to challenge the government, and accept the risk of being conficted of a felony, that is all together a different thing as long as I explain the options.
Chewy,

The relationship of PC 27560 and 27585 is about as clear as mud. The two statutes do not harmonize very well.

But I cannot share your view that 27560 treats all folks coming into California as "Personal Firearm Importers" (to use the terms in the statute). One of the canons of statutory construction is that statutes cannot be construed in a manner that makes part of the statute unnecessary or superfluous. If we consider 27560 as controlling all persons who move into California, then 27585 becomes unnecessary and superfluous.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2022, 8:45 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Chewy,

The relationship of PC 27560 and 27585 is about as clear as mud. The two statutes do not harmonize very well.

But I cannot share your view that 27560 treats all folks coming into California as "Personal Firearm Importers" (to use the terms in the statute). One of the canons of statutory construction is that statutes cannot be construed in a manner that makes part of the statute unnecessary or superfluous. If we consider 27560 as controlling all persons who move into California, then 27585 becomes unnecessary and superfluous.
Something like that. 27585(b)(4) exempts a PFR from 27585(a). That suggests that residents may be PFIs else what would be the point of exempting them from (a)? One could convincingly arge that said exemption would be superfluous if current residents who were moving into CA after spending time outside the state cannot be personal firearm importers.
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 12:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy