FFL Question - want to sell rifle

[boludo12]

I am in possession of a Marlin 60 that is my cousin's rifle. We used to shoot a lot and he would keep the rifle in my safe here in Socal so when he visited it would be here to use. The rifle has been in my possession since the mid 90s at least. He passed away 3 years ago.

I'm wanting to sell the rifle but I'm not the legal owner. Can I sell it? Does the DROS look at who is selling and match up to records?

Any help would be appreciated.

[Calguns77]

I am in possession of a Marlin 60 that is my cousin's rifle. We used to shoot a lot and he would keep the rifle in my safe here in Socal so when he visited it would be here to use. The rifle has been in my possession since the mid 90s at least. He passed away 3 years ago.

I'm wanting to sell the rifle but I'm not the legal owner. Can I sell it? Does the DROS look as who is selling and match up to records?

Any help would be appreciated.

No. It will only flag if its stolen. There was also no long gun registratiom until 2015. Its a felony though, and now you have a paper trail showing your intent.

[boludo12]

I guess I keep it then forever. Thanks for the info.

[Angrysnarf]

I knew I should have bought that euro m1 garand for 400 in 2013

[Mitch]

I guess I keep it then forever. Thanks for the info.

You can sell it.

You and your cousin committed an illegal transfer. You can't undo that, it is water under the bridge. On the other hand, the statute of limitations for the transfer has doubtless expired since the 1990s.

The provenance of the firearm is not examined during transfers, so there is no reason, legal or practical, why you should not sell it if you want to.

[Calguns77]

Except hes stating their was no illegal transfer in the 90's, hes admitting he took ownership only after his friend died 3yrs ago. Statute of limitations on a felony is typically 3yrs in CA so he might be clear. But honestly why risk it even with this thread for a $100 .22?

[Librarian]

Failing to transfer through an FFL is a misdemeanor, not felony.

27545.

Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer’s license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).

27590.

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), a violation of this article is a misdemeanor.

"this article' means

ARTICLE 1. Crimes Relating to Sale, Lease, or Transfer of Firearms [27500 - 27590]

[Calguns77]

Failing to transfer through an FFL is a misdemeanor, not felony.
"this article' means

Heh, the one time I listen to gun shop owners and don't immediately double check online. Lol.

Might want to make sure no one in his family reported it lost/stolen before you sell it though. That will get flagged.

[Mitch]

Except hes stating their was no illegal transfer in the 90's, hes admitting he took ownership only after his friend died 3yrs ago. Statute of limitations on a felony is typically 3yrs in CA so he might be clear. But honestly why risk it even with this thread for a $100 .22?

The illegal transfer occurred once the OP was in possession of the rifle for more than 30 days.

[sigstroker]

There was no illegal transfer then. If you're going to take that tack, he was the legal owner back in the 90's.

If you're going to claim the cousin owned it until his death and OP committed a crime at that time, the crime is unprovable. OP can simply say the cousin gave it to him in the 90's, a legal transfer. And nobody can prove any different.

It's sickening how quickly Californians want to bend over for the law, even if it doesn't apply.

[Oceanbob]

Sell it without worry.

Long guns were not registered until 1-1-2014

Nobody cares. You're the OWNER now.

No paperwork required.

Bob

[Mitch]

There was no illegal transfer then. If you're going to take that tack, he was the legal owner back in the 90's.

If you're going to claim the cousin owned it until his death and OP committed a crime at that time, the crime is unprovable. OP can simply say the cousin gave it to him in the 90's, a legal transfer. And nobody can prove any different.

It's sickening how quickly Californians want to bend over for the law, even if it doesn't apply.

A crime was committed. Luckily, it no longer matters.

Understanding and accepting facts is not "bending over for the law." No one has to prove anything to anyone.

PS: I'm not a Californian.

[AregularGuy]

A crime was committed. Luckily, it no longer matters.

Understanding and accepting facts is not "bending over for the law." No one has to prove anything to anyone.

PS: I'm not a Californian.

Hmm...Now I wonder, was lending a firearm for more than 30 days illegal in the 90's? If not then no crime after all. I'm too lazy to look into whether it was or not but just a thought I had. I can't keep up with current laws let alone thos 2 decades old.

[boludo12]

Thanks all for the input. I called my uncle and told him about the rifle and wanting to sell it. We had discussed it previously. He decided that instead of selling it he wants it to use with his grandkids and have the memory of his son's rifle. So it's a non issue now. Its going back to the family.