Transfer Question

[newbie1234]

It doesn’t seem that the transfer in Nevada requires any paperwork at all - if the cousin and grandparent are both NV residents. Once in the grandparents possession, the interstate intrafamilial transfer is legal.

Does this work ???????? I do not see why not. All CA DoJ want to see is:
- Does the pistol legal own by a giver (legal in the State of giver resident) ?
- Is this a legal intra family transfer: GrandParent <-> Parent <--> SonOrDaughter
- Firearms transfer from Whaterver State FFL --> CA FFL, and must be a max 10 rds magazine.
- Then after the Dros and 10 days wait you are the legal owner of that firearm.
Option:
- Since you are the legal owner of the firearms you can transfer back to your cousin in NE by send the firearm to him via CA FFL --> NV FFL . Or PPT to another CA resident at CA FFL.

Am I right ? Please let me know. Thanks You.

[morrcarr67]

If the grandparents are also NV residents the cousin can GIVE the guns to the grandparents and they can in turn GIVE the guns to the OP and NO laws will be broken.

No NV state laws and so long as the guns are sent to CA for transfer through a local FFL no Federal or California laws would be broken.

California structure law doesn't effect what Nevada residents do in Nevada. Nevada law doesn't require transfer through a FFL so don't worry about the whole 4473 issue people are talking about. Even if Nevada law did require transfer through a FFL and the 4473 did have to be field out, no big deal. It's 100% legal to "aquire" a firearm as a gift for someone else.

Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is

the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or

otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from

pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the

actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona

fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave

the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire

the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving

or possessing the firearm.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download&ved=2ahUKEwii0ITZ9sTZAhVF2GMKHZE-CfEQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2wqSjpoV4XgKTrkaDYsBId

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Librarian]

Does this work ???????? I do not see why not. All CA DoJ want to see is:
- Does the pistol legal own by a giver (legal in the State of giver resident) ?

- Is this a legal intra family transfer: GrandParent <-> Parent <--> SonOrDaughter

- Firearms transfer from Whaterver State FFL --> CA FFL, and must be a max 10 rds magazine.

- Then after the Dros and 10 days wait you are the legal owner of that firearm.
Option:
- Since you are the legal owner of the firearms you can transfer back to your cousin in NE by send the firearm to him via CA FFL --> NV FFL . Or PPT to another CA resident at CA FFL.

Am I right ? Please let me know. Thanks You.

CA DOJ cares nothing about legal ownership outside of CA; they have no access to such information unless part of a criminal investigation, and the out-of-CA agency would have to cooperate.

Intrafamilial transfer is one step - parent to child or child to parent, grandparent to grandchild or grandchild to grandparent.

Once a person has purchased/received-as-a-gift a gun, passed the background check, and waited out the 10 day period, that person may do whatever legal things they like with that gun, including selling it.

[scotty99]

I think the thing that gets lost too often on Calguns is the letter of the law vs the practical application of the law. Even if what is proposed violates the letter of the law in CA (which I do not believe it does), in the real world, this case never gets made.

[FalconLair]

the cousin could've given the grandparent the firearm 1 year ago and nobody would even know any different - if said grandparent decided to do an interstate intrafamilail transfer there would be no red flag for the CA DOJ to even act on

chances of this drawing any attention would be pretty low

[Librarian]

I think the thing that gets lost too often on Calguns is the letter of the law vs the practical application of the law. Even if what is proposed violates the letter of the law in CA (which I do not believe it does), in the real world, this case never gets made.

chances of this drawing any attention would be pretty low

"It's not enforced." "Who's gonna know?"

There are thousands of people behind bars today who believed they would not get caught.

Everyone is free to accept the risks they choose. But choosing requires knowing and positive decision making.

At Calguns, we talk about the risks. What members actually do about those is up to them - but I'm darned sure I want no one coming back complaining "I didn't know!".

[downdiver2]

Pass them up to grandma/grandpa and back down to OP?

I think the thing that gets lost too often on Calguns is the letter of the law vs the practical application of the law. Even if what is proposed violates the letter of the law in CA (which I do not believe it does), in the real world, this case never gets made.

[mike452]

It's illegal now posting in this forum. There must be apps that will record and replicate this site for research and record.

[kemasa]

This is a public forum. It is viewed by many who don't have your best interests in mind and suggestions that the law be violated because you can get away with it can be used against everyone.

It should not be about what you can get away with, but what is legal.

[Two Nuggets]

Welcome to CA. Now bend over and take it.

[michaelthepsycho]

[code_blue]

Aren't you folks more concerned that OP is a newbie with 1 post count asking about a potential "loophole" (as the antis like to call it) to the roster AKA gun laws in CA.

Probably another Newsom intern as with the other recent "what if" or "can I" threads.

[kemasa]

Aren't you folks more concerned that OP is a newbie with 1 post count asking about a potential "loophole" (as the antis like to call it) to the roster AKA gun laws in CA.

Probably another Newsom intern as with the other recent "what if" or "can I" threads.

Honestly, no. The reason why is that it does not matter if it is a long time member or a new member, any suggestion of doing something illegal or which is a gray area should not be promoted on a public forum, or even a private forum.

In this case, the best suggestion is to tell the OP to become a LEO.

[code_blue]

I disagree, becoming an LEO for the exemption is a terrible idea, although I've seen more than my fair share of threads/posts about it. SMH

Best bet is to move to a free state, but if we really want to be reaching, become a CA politician. They're "exempt" from laws that even LEO's aren't.

[kemasa]

I disagree, becoming an LEO for the exemption is a terrible idea, although I've seen more than my fair share of threads/posts about it. SMH

Best bet is to move to a free state, but if we really want to be reaching, become a CA politician. They're "exempt" from laws that even LEO's aren't.

Moving is the best option, but becoming an LEO could still be an option.

Have you ever run for office? It is an educational experience. People want to vote for those who lie to them. You would have to sell your soul in order to "win", then you lose in having to deal with all the others who got elected, as well as the voters who want what they want. Hitting your head against a wall would be more enjoyable.