Transfer Question

[Rjoshhopper]

Thank You everyone I will just buy a Sig P238. What a helpful group Thank You all. Thinking about taking a job in Montana and Ohio. Guess I will look up guns laws for both before I decide.

[downdiver2]

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.

No! A quick search of this forum will reveal a ton more info we dont want exposed thats already out there, thats already being used and has been used against us, and - "technically" Cousin > Grandpa > Him is not illegal

[morrcarr67]

Thank You everyone I will just buy a Sig P238. What a helpful group Thank You all. Thinking about taking a job in Montana and Ohio. Guess I will look up guns laws for both before I decide.

Don't know about OH but I can say for sure that you'd be happy with the gun laws in MT.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[onelonehorseman]

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.

This ^^

[Librarian]

No! A quick search of this forum will reveal a ton more info we dont want exposed thats already out there, thats already being used and has been used against us, and - "technically" Cousin > Grandpa > Him is not illegal

It is if the transfer to Grandpa is intended to facilitate getting to "him".

As Quiet posted above,

Under CA laws...
That would be seen as a illegal "structured" transfer. [PC 27515 & 27520]

[Chewy65]

Exactly as Librarian says. Try reading the actual codes and applying them to a potential situation. For instance take PC 27515:

No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or
(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

If cousin is told that he should give it to GP so that GP can give it to the OP residing in CA, ask an attorney if cousin could have any liability under 27515, if has no knowledge of the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of 27540 or 27545. Same with the GP.

Now look at PC 27520:

No person, corporation, or dealer shall acquire a firearm for the purpose of selling, loaning, or transferring the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:

(a) In the case of a dealer, intent to violate Section 27510 or 27540.

(b) In any other case, intent to avoid either of the following:

(1) The provisions of Section 27545.

(2) The requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27545.

How could the cousin or the GP have intent to avoid provisions or requirements of code sections if they never heard of them or the even the gist of the law? The OP may have a problem since he knows about the code sections, but the cousin and GP?

[downdiver2]

Did you know that:
Deleware: Condoms may ony sold by doctors and wholesale druggits.
Georgia: It is illegal to purchase or possess marital aides (Vibrator, dildos, etc)
Colorado: It is against the law to kiss a sleeping woman.
California: Prostitutes are not obligated to make change for bills larger than $50 and cats and dogs are not allowed to have sex without a permit
Hawaii: It is illegal to appear in plublic wearing ONLY swimming trunks.
Eureka CA: It is forbidden for men who wear a mustache to kiss a woman
California: It is illegal to spit, unless at a baseball diamond
Dana Point CA: One may not urinate in ones bathroom with a window open
Long Beach CA: Cars are the only items allowed in a garage
Los Angeles CA: One may not throw a frisbee on any LA beach without prior consent from a lifeguard


I can quote even dumber laws we break every day as well - I just dont have the time or energy to prove a point.

So all of you follow the letter of the LAW - ALL OF THEM to the 'T'?

I dont think so!

It is if the transfer to Grandpa is intended to facilitate getting to "him".

As Quiet posted above,

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.

Exactly as Librarian says. Try reading the actual codes and applying them to a potential situation. For instance take PC 27515:



If cousin is told that he should give it to GP so that GP can give it to the OP residing in CA, ask an attorney if cousin could have any liability under 27515, if has no knowledge of the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of 27540 or 27545. Same with the GP.

Now look at PC 27520:



How could the cousin or the GP have intent to avoid provisions or requirements of code sections if they never heard of them or the even the gist of the law? The OP may have a problem since he knows about the code sections, but the cousin and GP?

[kemasa]

I see, so we should only follow the laws that we like, right?

[code_blue]

There's a difference between infractions that may or may not be enforced at the discretion of the authorities v. a misdemeanor/felony level crimes that the government authorities would love to enforce.

[Librarian]

I can quote even dumber laws we break every day as well - I just dont have the time or energy to prove a point.

So all of you follow the letter of the LAW - ALL OF THEM to the 'T'?

I dont think so!

Let me make this clearer.

At Calguns, we do not advocate violating the law. That's a violation of our terms of membership.

What any member may do with information posted here is up to them.

[Ewcmr2]

[Librarian]

Quote:
No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or
(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.
———-
I know I’m not keeping everything I ever buy forever. Even if I do plan on keeping forever, it’s going to someone when I die...
If we follow (a) & (b) the only way to legally transfer is to plan on destroying firearm when we’re done with it.

You need to learn to read statutes - a ridiculous requirement imposed on us by our Reign of Terror CA government.

Read PC 27540 and 27545.

If the intent is to get a gun from grandma with the intent to sell it to unrelated person Bob, then You Can't Do That Legally.

If the intent of the intrafamilial transfer (possibly chain of transfers) is to avoid things an FFL must do - enforce the Roster, 10-day wait), or to avoid the use of an FFL for a PPT, then You Can't Do That Legally.

If you are transferring using one of the valid exceptions - see http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...r=4.&article=6. , we're talking about 27875 in this thread - then those earlier conditions do not apply.

[scotty99]

[QUOTE=If the intent of the intrafamilial transfer (possibly chain of transfers) is to avoid things an FFL must do - enforce the Roster, 10-day wait), or to avoid the use of an FFL for a PPT, then You Can't Do That Legally.[/QUOTE]


To the Librarian, this is an honest question, and I think the core point of this thread:

Is the above statement true when cousin and Grandpa are both located in NV?

Assuming NV has no similar law, the first two people involved in this are not subject to this provision of CA law, so their transfer is legal. The OP intends to keep the firearms, so transfer from Grandpa is legal under this statute, so where has an offense occurred?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Librarian]

People in another state may do what that state allows; for gun purposes, state law principally applies to residents, while non-residents must also deal with Federal law.

CA has no access to any gun records, if any, in another state unless part of a criminal investigation, and then only if that other state cares to cooperate.

[peterinsj]

New twist, old thread. My brother in law just inherited a Ruger MkIII target, he lives in NV. He wants to gift it to his son in California so he conducts a father to son intrafamilial transfer to his son through a CA FFL.

My nephew's wife then has a hissy fit once the transfer completes saying get that effing thing out of the house our five year old lives in!!! Now my nephew decides to gift the firearm to his favorite uncle (who taught him to shoot years ago) and the transfer is DROSed by a CA FFL.

Seems like I might be able to get a target Mark III right?