Gun Transfer ?

[Big-Kr3w]

so a guy I know is trying to buy a shotgun right now, the guy said he aquired the gun from his buddy that past away and no paper work was done for the transfer, now the buyer would like to buy the gun but the seller wants him to just buy it off of him w. out a DROS. The guy sounds honest...If the gun wasnt in his name can it still be transferred via a DROS.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Yes, you can still do a PPT and DROS on a shotgun for which the seller has no paperwork. Regular long guns are not registered in California. The DROS processs doesn't check to see who owns the gun now. It just checks to see if the buyer is eligible. On handguns the DROS process also registers the handgun in the new owner's name, but does nothing with the seller's info.

Less than 20 years ago, unlicensed Californians could still transfer firearms amongst themselves without going through an FFL, so there are a lot of legally owned guns out there with no "paperwork".

If the shotgun is at least 50 years old then they can still do the transfer without going through an FFL, if they are both residents of California.

[Big-Kr3w]

thanks for the info

[kermit315]

That is illegal. Please dont advocate illegal activity on Calguns.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

so really you could sell a buddy a gun with out a DROS, not legally in california, but no one would have any idea.

If the gun was ever found by the police after being used in a crime at any time in the future, it could be traced back to the last person who bought it through an FFL. The police can do this by following the paper trail created by the "bound books" and Forms 4473 that all FFL's use to record firearms transactions. This is not considered "registration" since they can't just check a database for your name to see what you have or to see who owns the shotgun now.

If they trace the gun back to you then you would have to explain to them that you sold it to somebody else. They might ask if you sold it through an FFL and then you might have to decide whether or not to incriminate yourself.

So even if you sell the gun to a really close trusted friend, you still have to worry that somewhere down the line his kid, or nephew or one of their friends or a burgler might take the gun and get into trouble with it.

But most of the time the trouble starts when the new owner blabs to some stranger at a gunshop/gunshow/shooting range that he bought the gun without going through an FFL, and the stranger turns out to be Iggy Chinn.

[Big-Kr3w]

thanks for the info amendment, I will relay the information, very appreciated.

Kermit sorry I was just asking the question, In NO way do my BUDDYS or MYSELF, dis obey gun laws in california, its already hard enough out here, would not want to make it anyworse.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

...I was just asking the question, In NO way do my BUDDYS or MYSELF, dis obey gun laws in california...

I took your question as an honestly hypothetical question.

[rayra]

Amendment's example is a poor fit for the OP's scenario, as it applies mostly to new firearms and to the chain of custody / ownership from the factory, to the wholesaler / distributor, to the ffl that sold it, to the first owner. After that and if there were no subsequent documented transactions, the firearm is essentially untraceable using that method.
A different situation obtains if that firearm was previously reported stolen, in which case its discovery in your possession could be a problem for you. Doing a PPT thru a FFL will help protect you from that exposure.

[.454]

That is illegal. Please dont advocate illegal activity on Calguns.

There is nothing illegal here, the seller lost the paperwork from when he purchased the gun and was not sure if he can sell the gun without proof of how he acquired it. His false assumption may sound silly to all of you but not every gun owner in CA is a walking Encyclopaedia of gun regulations like we Calgunners are
I already talked to him and the problem is clarified, the two parties will meet at Turners on Monday for FFL transfer.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Amendment's example is a poor fit for the OP's scenario, as it applies mostly to new firearms and to the chain of custody / ownership from the factory, to the wholesaler / distributor, to the ffl that sold it, to the first owner. After that and if there were no subsequent documented transactions, the firearm is essentially untraceable using that method.

It's still traceable after that if each subsequent owner remembers to whom he sold the gun and is willing to cooperate with the police. Granted, in his first post the OP said one person in the chain of ownership was dead. But the "poor fit" example I gave was not in response to the OP's first post. It was in response to his now deleted second post.

[kermit315]

It's still traceable after that if each subsequent owner remembers to whom he sold the gun and is willing to cooperate with the police. Granted, in his first post the OP said one person in the chain of ownership was dead. But the "poor fit" example I gave was not in response to the OP's first post. It was in response to his now deleted second post.

.454, there is a continuity issue now, but trust me when I say that I stand by what I posted.

[Steve O]

The laws are written to show us what is illegal. Some times the best way to ask about how to do something legally is to ask about what would be a crime.

Just imagine if one had to ask about the 100 different ways to legally acquire a gun, instead of asking about the one illegal way.