Curio laws in Ca

[telcolineman]

Does anyone know of any documentation that Ca. changed the definition of a curio from 50 years old? I just traded for a M1 garand and just guns in Sacramento told me the laws have changed and I had to DROS a 57 year old rifle, I can't find the law anywhere on the DOJ site. ATF says 50 years old, And law enforcement agencies are not aware of this supposed new law
Please pm me with any info

Thanks Jim

I picked up the rifle tonight, I asked for the specific regs on the law change. Just guns told me to talk to the DOJ, or the BATF. I will be calling the attorney generals office about this, I feel they owe me my $35 DROS fees back and gas money for the second trip down there. Possiably file a complaint, Just and FYI for future customers

[Palimino Stripe]

They have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. A gun shop around here once told me I have to DROS a 1943 Mosin when doing a PPT. Yeah right. Gun shops always just want to cover their *ss. And with the way the BATF has been closing them at the slightest infractions- can you blame them?

*OR* If "just for guns" is a user here on Calguns that I'm unaware of- simply read the first sentance...

-Palimino

[Quiet]

In CA...
If the C&R firearm is a 50+ year old long gun, then it can be transfered between two CA residents without the use of a FFL dealer and can be done via cash & carry [PC 12078(t)(2)].
If a FFL dealer is involved (transfering out of their inventory) then a 4473/DROS needs to be done [PC 12073(a)]. A 10 day wait is also imposed, unless the reciever has a 03-FFL and COE [PC 12078(t)(1)].



Penal Code 12078
(t)(1) The waiting period described in Sections 12071 or 12072 shall not apply to the sale, delivery, loan, or transfer of a firearm that is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor, by a dealer to a person who is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto who has a current certificate of eligibility issued to him or her by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 12071. On the date that the delivery, sale, or transfer is made, the dealer delivering the firearm shall transmit to the Department of Justice an electronic or telephonic report of the transaction as is indicated in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 12077.
(2) Subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 shall not apply to the infrequent sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm that is not a handgun, which is a curio or relic manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas thereof, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor.

Penal Code 12073
(a) As required by the Department of Justice, every dealer shall keep a register or record of electronic or telephonic transfer in which shall be entered the information prescribed in Section 12077.

[dfletcher]

Does anyone know of any documentation that Ca. changed the definition of a curio from 50 years old? I just traded for a M1 garand and just for guns in Sacramento told me the laws have changed and I had to DROS a 57 year old rifle, I can't find the law anywhere on the DOJ site. ATF says 50 years old, And law enforcement agencies are not aware of this supposed new law
Please pm me with any info

Thanks Jim

If a licensed (Type 01) FFL dealer sells a C & R long gun in CA they have to do DROS and the buyer, absent having a C & R/COE, must do the 10 day wait. However, if an unlicensed individual sells a greater than 50 year old long gun to another CA resident he does not. If you're selling a greater than 50 year old C & R long gun to another CA resident I don't think there's any need to involve an FFL.

If the C & R long gun is fewer than 50 years old it is not afforded the same status as a greater than 50 year old C & R and sale must go through an FFL dealer.

[thefifthspeed]

Did you trade person to person or did you trade person to FFL?

Person to person no DROS on 50+ longgun to any persons legal to own.

Person to FFL would have to DROS just like the above poster Quiet said.

[telcolineman]

Did you trade person to person or did you trade person to FFL?

Person to person no DROS on 50+ longgun to any persons legal to own.

Person to FFL would have to DROS just like the above poster Quiet said.

Person to person, The gun I traded him had to be DROS'd

[telcolineman]

Anyone else have any info

[RaceDay]

Anyone else have any info

There is no more info. What thefifthspeed is correct.

You should have been able to do cash and carry on the Garand and taken it home. Person to person on a rifle > 50 years old, you are all legal under the law to cash and carry. The seller might ask for a copy of your CA drivers license with a signed statement saying you are not legally prohibited from buying guns just to cover their behind. You would have only had to do the DROS if you were trading/buying from a FFL01, like the store itself

On the gun you were selling (not > 50 years old), you should have done a PPT. Maybe the store wanted to double their PPTs.

[telcolineman]

There is no more info. What thefifthspeed is correct.

You should have been able to do cash and carry on the Garand and taken it home. Person to person on a rifle > 50 years old, you are all legal under the law to cash and carry. The seller might ask for a copy of your CA drivers license with a signed statement saying you are not legally prohibited from buying guns just to cover their behind. You would have only had to do the DROS if you were trading/buying from a FFL01, like the store itself

On the gun you were selling (not > 50 years old), you should have done a PPT. Maybe the store wanted to double their PPTs.

Thanks,
That is my guess. Just for guns wanted to double their DROS fees

Jim

[trautert]

To clarify one point just a bit. Firearms greater than 50 years old are Relics. This is all that really matters in California. Firearms that are on the list because someone petitioned the BATFE to put it on the list are curios.

[user name]

I wonder if Starbucks would mind you doing the transfer there?

[jacques]

If the sale is between two non FFL's with a C&R , does it have to be face to face, or can the firearm be shipped from one person to the other directly?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

If the sale is between two non FFL's with a C&R , does it have to be face to face, or can the firearm be shipped from one person to the other directly?

If you are talking about California's exemption to its dealer transfer requirements for 50+ year old C&R long guns, then it doesn't matter if the transaction is face to face or shipped. But it is much easier for you to accidently make an illegal transfer if you are shipping to a stranger. When you do the transfer face to face you can check the buyer's ID to make sure they are a California resident and 18+ years old. If you are doing the transfer by mail then there is no way for you to verify to whom you are actually shipping the rifle unless the buyer has a C&R FFL that you can verify with BATFE.

[littlejake]

There is no more info. What thefifthspeed is correct.

You should have been able to do cash and carry on the Garand and taken it home. Person to person on a rifle > 50 years old, you are all legal under the law to cash and carry. The seller might ask for a copy of your CA drivers license with a signed statement saying you are not legally prohibited from buying guns just to cover their behind. You would have only had to do the DROS if you were trading/buying from a FFL01, like the store itself

On the gun you were selling (not > 50 years old), you should have done a PPT. Maybe the store wanted to double their PPTs.

If you hold a C&R FFL-3, you need to get the Driver's License information of the transferee for entry in the disposition columns of your federal bound book.

In reading 12078 (t) (2) (or t 1) the actual wording refers to a California Dealer which has a broader meaning than just having a type 1 FFL. A CA Dealer has to have an FFL-1 AND be listed by DOJ and have a CFD number plus all the business permits. Almost all FFL-1's are CA Dealers -- there are a few who have exemptions.

MILTECH is one that comes to mind... at least as of a couple of years ago, they were an FFL-1 exempt from having to be a CA Dealer. (Since they are primarily in the business of restoration of mil surp rifles.)

And as correctly stated above, when a CA Dealer is in the transfer process, then DROS, 4473, NICS and waiting periods come in. An FFL-3 with a COE gets to skip some of the process when a CA dealer is involved -- never gets to skip CA DROS.

Disclaimer -- this is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer.

[telcolineman]

Back up with more info