Out of state intrafamilial transfers

[tazmanian devil dog]

[waygeekierthanu]

No, you cannot cross state lines and get a gun from him. He would have to mail it here or bring it here to an FFL and we would transfer it to you

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[tazmanian devil dog]

[/QUOTE]

[waygeekierthanu]

Yes, The second to firearm crosses state lines it has to go through a dealer

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[edgerly779]

Lots of posts on this. You can ship to ffl there who understands intrafamilial interstate. No need for ffl here by the way.

[Librarian]

Lots of posts on this. You can ship to ffl there who understands intrafamilial interstate. No need for ffl here by the way.

... unless the receiving FFL wants to do business that way.

But there is no legal requirement to use an FFL to ship.

For details on the answer to the OP, see also the sticky in the legal forum http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=503873

[tazmanian devil dog]

So not that I didn’t believe you guys but I did get off the phone with the California department of justice this morning and they told me that I could take delivery of the pistol myself, bring it back to California and as long as the magazines were 10 rounds or under I could just do the online intrafamilial transfer. So what gives? Why all the mentioning of FFL holders?

[waygeekierthanu]

What they told you violates federal law not California law, the ATF would tell you a different story

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[SloChicken]

Look here.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php?title=Transferring_firearms_Interstate

[tazmanian devil dog]

I did call ATF. They told me I was fine to do that as long as I didn’t violate either CA law or the other states law.

[Librarian]

So not that I didn’t believe you guys but I did get off the phone with the California department of justice this morning and they told me that I could take delivery of the pistol myself, bring it back to California and as long as the magazines were 10 rounds or under I could just do the online intrafamilial transfer. So what gives? Why all the mentioning of FFL holders?

What they told you violates federal law not California law, the ATF would tell you a different story

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I did call ATF. They told me I was fine to do that as long as I didn’t violate either CA law or the other states law.

Geez, even the ATF is screwing this up; shows how bad the law is.

Here's the US Code that applies - 18 USC 922 (a):

(a) It shall be unlawful—
...
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides ...

AZ resident cannot transfer a gun to not-AZ-resident directly. That's a risk of 5 years in Federal prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

[tazmanian devil dog]

So why then, would the ATF tell me what they did? Not trying to be a dick but can anyone explain that? There are a lot of scared to death FUDDS on Calguns and similar sites that are scared to fart the wrong way for Gods sake. Again, why would both ATF AND CALDOJ tell me what they did???????

[SloChicken]

Not sure why I even bother,

But here is one more attempt to get through the wall ...

From ATFs own site,

“ Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]”

Q: May a person (who is not an alien) who resides in one State and owns property in another State purchase a handgun in either State?

If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State. However, simply owning property in another State does not qualify the person to purchase a handgun in that State.

[27 CFR 478.11]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

[Librarian]

Again, why would both ATF AND CALDOJ tell me what they did???????

CA-DOJ is merely incompetent; since they are not charged with enforcing Federal law, it seems their telephone-answerers are not properly trained. This has been an issue for at least a decade - remember training budgets are approved by the elected Attorney General, and the last several have been anti-gun.

Why BATF would screw this up, I cannot guess. They, at least, ought to be conversant with 18 USC 922.

In either case, you cannot safely rely on a telephone conversation as a defense - it takes a written opinion from an authorized official.

Nor, as it happens, is a set of posts on a web site authoritative.

I suggest you might want to hire your own lawyer, taking care to select one familiar with firearms law.

But a competent lawyer is going to tell you 'use an FFL for interstate transfer".

Long explanation in the sticky http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=503873

[MOA squirrel]

Easy "slo chicken " I don't see anywhere the Op stating he would not heed calguns advise.