....

[gt86]

.....

[SkyHawk]

They cannot use CFLC website to ship to 03 FFL. And there is a big debate going here, whether or not it is even legal for them to ship direct to 03 FFL in CA.

Anyhow, PC27555 is the law that requires FFLs to use CFLC when shipping or transferring to other FFLs

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27555

PC27820 is the exemption for infrequent transfers of 50+yr old C&R long guns:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=27820

ARTICLE 5. Exceptions to the Requirement of Obtaining a Verification Number [27805 - 27835] ( Article 5 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

27820.
If all of the following requirements are satisfied, Section 27555 does 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 manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date but is not a replica, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor.

That exemption allows 03FFLs within CA to transfer 50+ yr old long guns to other 03 FFLs within CA, without using CFLC (because they can't). Whether it applies to out of state shippers is up for debate.

[Hinnerk]

When CA PC Section 27585 (which requires most out of state acquired firearms be shipped first to an FFL01 for processing) was added, it included only the exemption for FFL03s that take possession of the firearms out of state and transport it in (per CA PC Section 27565). The original draft of the bill included an exemption for long guns shipped directly to the FFL03's address (per 27966) but that language was removed on or about 23 May 2014 even though the bill stated

It is not the intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 27585 to affect any of the following:
[...]
(4) Persons who import or bring firearms into California under existing regulatory statutes who comply with those statutes.

I recently wrote to my state reps requesting them to correct this error. It is an extreme long shot since they are both anti-2nd Amendment but there is no clearly stated reason why the bill was amended in this way, apparently in contradiction of the Legislature's stated intent, before it was passed into law.

[Hinnerk]

Perhaps someone out there that lives in a friendly district could urge their reps to introduce a bill to restore the original text exempting "A licensed collector who is subject to and complies with Section 27966." in furtherance of the intent of the Legislature.

[SkyHawk]

Perhaps someone out there that lives in a friendly district could urge their reps to introduce a bill to restore the original text exempting "A licensed collector who is subject to and complies with Section 27966." in furtherance of the intent of the Legislature.

Yes, I agree we need that language back in there.