Yugo M59 SKS - C&R Eligible?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Does an interstate mail-order sale occur inside California (subject to the 50-year rule) or outside California (not subject to the 50-year rule)? Lacking any case law to answer this question, I would have to assume that only personal interpretations apply.

CalDOJ is of the opinion that out of state mail-order sales take place inside California. I think they base this on the fact that out of state mail order sales are subject to sales tax (use tax) in California, not in the state the item comes from.

I thought they were illegal in California because of the grenade launcher?

Some companies either remove the grenade launcher or cover it with a welded on sleave to make it non-functional so they can sell the M59/66 in California. You would think that this would remove the C&R status of the rifle because it is no longer in original military configuration. But BATFE seems to be letting the distributors do it. I guess they didn't want to be seen as punishing people for destroying grenade launchers. It might not look good in the press.

And the M59 doesn't have a grenade launcher, so it is OK to own in California without modification.

[saki302]

I saw one GL at the Costa Mesa show that mae me do a double-take. It has the last GL ring enlarged so a 22mm grenade will not fit. Otherwise, it's a dead ringer for the real deal. I need to find one of these!

-Dave

[M. D. Van Norman]

CalDOJ is of the opinion that out of state mail-order sales take place inside California. I think they base this on the fact that out of state mail order sales are subject to sales tax (use tax) in California, not in the state the item comes from.

California would like to collect use taxes on all taxable items purchased in other states for use here. The question remains to be the legality of the transaction itself, rather than its tax-exempt status or lack thereof.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for taking delivery of a C&R rifle less than 50 years old?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

The question remains to be the legality of the transaction itself, rather than its tax-exempt status or lack thereof.

I wasn't trying to imply that DOJ cared about if we pay tax on the transaction. Just that they use the precident of the sales tax issue to establish that the transaction is really taking place in California. By not charging you sales tax, the out of state seller is admitting that the transaction is not taking place in their state. So DOJ could easily make that case that the transaction must be taking place in California.

That is, they could easily make the case if they tried to make the case. But I don't know if they ever have tried to enforce this. I know of two California C&R FFL's who accidently received C&R handguns directly from a big out of state distributor. They both had copies of their C&R FFL's on file with the distributor, but then sent in copies of their local dealers' FFL's to purchase these handguns. The distributor then shipped the handguns directly to the C&R FFL's instead of the dealers. Both of these collectors notified CalDOJ and asked what to do. In both cases, CalDOJ told them just to mail in the Form 4100 with payment to register the handguns and to make sure they never let it happen again.

[kenc9]

Which two distributors will?

Most gun shows I have been too have SKS's for sale from dealers...Cash and carry.

-ken

[M. D. Van Norman]

However, the tax in question is a use tax. Since the transaction does not, in fact, take place in California, the state has no authority to collect sales tax.

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that the law favors the FFL-03 holder.