C&R affected by 2008 rules?

[Bill88]

[M. D. Van Norman]

I believe licensed collectors are exempt from this requirement, but it is probably confusing and frightening enough to get another batch of folks to stop selling to us.

[Bill88]

Thanks for the reply.

I am pretty concerned, though, because in looking through the Penal Codes I am not finding a "collector's exemption" (at least it's not jumping out at me). It is fairly easy to find in the Penal Code the "collector's exemption" for the C&R perks such as multiple handguns within 30 days and being legally allowed to buy C&R guns (including C&R handguns) out-of-state so long as you do the paperwork (for any handguns) within 5 days of your return to Calif., but I am not finding any exemption in the law regarding being able to legally receive C&R long guns shipping directly to a C&R FFL03 once this "unique verification number" stuff gets operational in 2008.

Granted that it may be hard to predict the future on this until we can see actual implementation regulations, but, again, I am not so convinced at all at this point that the law is providing a "collector's exemption".

[M. D. Van Norman]

[M. D. Van Norman]

This is why the California Penal Code kills me.

12072.If the department finds that the intended recipient is not on one of these lists, the department shall notify the inquiring party that the intended recipient is ineligible to receive the firearm.

12083. (a) Commencing January 1, 2008, the Department of Justice shall keep a centralized list of persons who identify themselves as being licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code as a dealer, pawnbroker, importer or manufacturer of firearms whose licensed premises are within this state and who declare to the department an exemption from the firearms dealer licensing requirements of Section 12070. The list shall be known as the centralized list of exempted federal firearms licensees.

You will note that the centralized list does not include collectors. Does paragraph (D) thus mean the end of interstate sales to California FFL-03s?

[Pthfndr]

The CFD pertains to licensed DEALERS, who are licensed per 12021.

C&R holders are NOT licensed dealers. They are holders of a Federal Firearms License for COLLECTORS of Curios and Relics.

IIRC the state was going to try to include C&R holders, but there was no money allocated for it.

If EOD_guy sees this thread I'm sure he will shed more light on it.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[Bill88]

Matthew-

I am afraid that I have to agree with you that whether or not there is a C&R exception, the out-of-state dealers are just going to give up California business out of disgust / frustration. This is probably the actual "bad" part of it all.

I am not going to pretend to speak for EOD_guy, but I think EOD_guy might point out the following (which looks like the "exception" we all hope exists and which maybe answers my original question):

Penal Code 12078 (t)(2) says:

"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."

It's 12072 (f)(1) that is causing this problem, and 12078 (t)(2) provides the C&R exception the way I read it. So 12078 (t)(2) is what the out-of-state dealers absolutely positively must be aware of vis-a-vis 12072 (f)(1).

Anyway, the above is my unofficial opinion. I think we all would like respected forum members like EOD_guy to "weigh in" on this.

[torsf]

Hmm... it looks like that as soon as I have my C&R it's to the poor house for me!!

[grammaton76]

I foresee the big problem as being the "infrequent" part there. Century's lawyers, and the various other places' lawyers, are likely to tell them to err on the side of caution and decide that C&R's aren't good anymore in CA.

[EOD Guy]

Matthew-

I am afraid that I have to agree with you that whether or not there is a C&R exception, the out-of-state dealers are just going to give up California business out of disgust / frustration. This is probably the actual "bad" part of it all.

I am not going to pretend to speak for EOD_guy, but I think EOD_guy might point out the following (which looks like the "exception" we all hope exists and which maybe answers my original question):

Penal Code 12078 (t)(2) says:

"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."

It's 12072 (f)(1) that is causing this problem, and 12078 (t)(2) provides the C&R exception the way I read it. So 12078 (t)(2) is what the out-of-state dealers absolutely positively must be aware of vis-a-vis 12072 (f)(1).

Anyway, the above is my unofficial opinion. I think we all would like respected forum members like EOD_guy to "weigh in" on this.

I think you have it correct. Subdivision (d) of 12072 is the exemption from dealer sales and has been in the penal code for quite a-while. The exemption from 12072, subdivision (f), paragraph (1) was added to 12078(t)(2) at the same time 12072(f)(1) was added to the penal code. The intent was obviously to exempt transfers of 50 year old C&R rifles and shotguns from that section.

As far as out of state dealers being confused or concerned about C&R sales, we will have to wait and see.

[Bill88]

Thanks for your inputs, EOD_Guy, we always like to hear your point of view.

At this point in this discussion, I think grammaton76 has identified the biggest issue, i.e. the use of the term "infrequent" in the 12078 (t)(2) C&R exception.

Digging further into the Penal Code, 12078 (u)(1) says that "infrequent" as used in Section 12078 has the same meaning as its use in 12070 (c)(1).

12070 (c)(1)(B) says "infrequent" means, for long guns, "occasional and without regularity".

So the C&R rifle sale in the parking lot between a couple of old codgers is clearly exempt, the BIG GRAY AREA is sales by a C&R dealer who might have "frequent" sales in California but sales to any individual Californian might be "infrequent", then you can't blame them if they err on the side of caution.

I suppose we have to wait and see, but that damnable word "infrequent" certainly has the potential to mess things up for us big-time. I cannot infer from the face value of all this that the legislature had any intent beyond exempting the old-codgers-in-a-parking-lot scenario.

(It IS hard for me to believe, though, that the legislature was actually intelligent enough to specifically chip away at the C&R-long-gun-delivered-to-your-door scenario, since, after all, they are incapable of making any gun laws except those that say "only police and criminals are allowed to have guns". Maybe we let them put one over on us totally by accident.)

[EOD Guy]

Thanks for your inputs, EOD_Guy, we always like to hear your point of view.

At this point in this discussion, I think grammaton76 has identified the biggest issue, i.e. the use of the term "infrequent" in the 12078 (t)(2) C&R exception.

Digging further into the Penal Code, 12078 (u)(1) says that "infrequent" as used in Section 12078 has the same meaning as its use in 12070 (c)(1).

12070 (c)(1)(B) says "infrequent" means, for long guns, "occasional and without regularity".

So the C&R rifle sale in the parking lot between a couple of old codgers is clearly exempt, the BIG GRAY AREA is sales by a C&R dealer who might have "frequent" sales in California but sales to any individual Californian might be "infrequent", then you can't blame them if they err on the side of caution.

I suppose we have to wait and see, but that damnable word "infrequent" certainly has the potential to mess things up for us big-time. I cannot infer from the face value of all this that the legislature had any intent beyond exempting the old-codgers-in-a-parking-lot scenario.

(It IS hard for me to believe, though, that the legislature was actually intelligent enough to specifically chip away at the C&R-long-gun-delivered-to-your-door scenario, since, after all, they are incapable of making any gun laws except those that say "only police and criminals are allowed to have guns". Maybe we let them put one over on us totally by accident.)

The "infrequent" transfer clause has been in the law for a long time and only applies to transfers between non dealers. Out of state dealers have been selling 50 year old C&R rifles and shotguns to California C&R FFL holders for many years, without objection by Cal DOJ.