Getting rid of handgun belonging to deceased relative

[ar15barrels]

If your wife has power of attorney, she can simply sell it.
She would be acting on behalf of her mother since she has the power of attorney.
That's the cleanest solution.

She could PPT it to you if you wanted to keep it.
It would be like it was PPT'd from your mother in law to you because of the power of attorney.

[SoCalPI]

If your wife has power of attorney, she can simply sell it.
She would be acting on behalf of her mother since she has the power of attorney.
That's the cleanest solution.

She could PPT it to you if you wanted to keep it.
It would be like it was PPT'd from your mother in law to you because of the power of attorney.

Thanks.

[sidelock]

I have bought firearms from people selling their parent's and grand parent's. They're never "registered" under the seller's name.

PPT went through without any delay.

From what I understand via conversations with BATFE & DOJ inspectors during annual FFL inspections, the PPT background check "only" focused on buyer's qualification, not on how the seller acquired the firearm. Unless the firearms were on the stolen list.

That's exactly why those off roster handguns got sold by non-LE individuals via PPT without any questions asked by CA DOJ.

[Quiet]

I have bought firearms from people selling their parent's and grand parent's. They're never "registered" under the seller's name.

PPT went through without any delay.

From what I understand via conversations with BATFE & DOJ inspectors during annual FFL inspections, the PPT background check "only" focused on buyer's qualification, not on how the seller acquired the firearm. Unless the firearms were on the stolen list.

That's exactly why those off roster handguns got sold by non-LE individuals via PPT without any questions asked by CA DOJ.

CA's fiream registration database is a historical archive that tracks the firearm's history.

Which is why CA DOJ BOF is inputting all paper records, going back to 1924, into the database.

It's also why during the DROS process the transferor/seller/loaner is recorded as the "previous owner". [PC 28060(c)]

A firearm record will show the current registered owner and it can be queried to show all the previous registered owners.

In the past few years, CA DOJ BOF has admitted that detection and tracking of transfer violations is inadequate due to their system not being set up for it to easily detect violators, but they are working on ways to improve their system.

[sidelock]

In the past few years, CA DOJ BOF has admitted that detection and tracking of transfer violations is inadequate due to their system not being set up for it to easily detect violators, but they are working on ways to improve their system.

Good information, thank you very much.

Does this means those who are flipping off-roster pistols via "questionable" sources will have consequences in the future?
I know there're couple isolated cases involving off-roster pistols under investigation as we speak, but I thought those were just isolated cases simply because of quantity.

[Librarian]

CA's fiream registration database is a historical archive that tracks the firearm's history.

Which is why CA DOJ BOF is inputting all paper records, going back to 1924, into the database.

It's also why during the DROS process the transferor/seller/loaner is recorded as the "previous owner". [PC 28060(c)]

A firearm record will show the current registered owner and it can be queried to show all the previous registered owners.

In the past few years, CA DOJ BOF has admitted that detection and tracking of transfer violations is inadequate due to their system not being set up for it to easily detect violators, but they are working on ways to improve their system.

That said, there are many firearms legally owned in CA that
- have never been transferred inside CA since 1991,
- or, were imported by new residents prior to 1998 and not subsequently transferred inside CA
- or, were long guns transferred intra-family before 2014
and are therefore not in AFS, and need not be.

[P5Ret]

In the past few years, CA DOJ BOF has admitted that detection and tracking of transfer violations is inadequate due to their system not being set up for it to easily detect violators, but they are working on ways to improve their system.

Yeah and they are probably using the same people who set up DMVs systems, so it won't happen anytime soon or work.

[DB>]

CA's fiream registration database is a historical archive that tracks the firearm's history.

Which is why CA DOJ BOF is inputting all paper records, going back to 1924, into the database.

It's also why during the DROS process the transferor/seller/loaner is recorded as the "previous owner". [PC 28060(c)]

A firearm record will show the current registered owner and it can be queried to show all the previous registered owners.

In the past few years, CA DOJ BOF has admitted that detection and tracking of transfer violations is inadequate due to their system not being set up for it to easily detect violators, but they are working on ways to improve their system.

Sounds a little like trying to count grains of sand... there are likely thousands and thousands of firearms out there that were NEVER put into a tracking system (I've got a really sweet old rifle from the '30's that doesn't even have a serial #!). I'm sure we all know of "unregistered" guns out there... I can think of a few I'm "aware" of, and I'm not scared or even slightly worried a single one will ever be used nefariously!

It's very unlikely that most non-gun people have even the slightest inkling of "proper" inheritance and transfers when someone passes on, or wants to "gift" a firearm.

Going back and inputting "paper records" back to 1924 sounds like an improbable if not impossible task.

From a purely practical standpoint the background check is supposed to make sure the current buyer is "OK" to own a firearm, but I suspect that other than the case of a stolen firearm, the provenance/chain of custody of the actual firearm is not part of the equation, no matter how much the legalese tries to make it so.

Has there ever been a case where a seller of a firearm they have possession of where that possession was not because of criminal activity/theft was prosecuted for what would seem to be a "non-crime"? I know because of the crazy laws, we all try our best to "cross our eyes" and "dot our knees" because "Simon (or Gavin) says", but perhaps the simple, practical reality is that "the system" cannot possibly achieve the level of control it aspires to?



I'm sure the OP doesn't want a handgun going to a sociopath/psychopath (none of us want that, right?), but other than posting the gun up in the marketplace and selling through a PPT, which will cover that "background check" question, is it really necessary to establish "ownership" beyond non-criminal "possession"?