Unregistered

[ar15barrels]

yes he is alive and living in California, my direct problem is that he never registered them when he bought them 30 years ago

Won't matter unless one of them was previously stolen and reported as such.

[therealnickb]

yes he is alive and living in California, my direct problem is that he never registered them when he bought them 30 years ago

Please read the posts above.

[DB>]

If you really don't want 'em, I'm sure "someone" will give you more than buyback prices for them and help you or your dad to get to a FFL to do a PPT...

[Ryan_N1989]

Say there was an issue with one or both of them would I be in trouble or would I just lose them?

[pacrat]

Hello,

my father gave me 2 guns about 10 yrs ago told me they didn't need to be transferred to me, but i asked him recently if he registered them (so i can have them in my name and make this as legal as possible) he told me he never registered them. is there a way i can transfer them to me to own them or shall i surrender them at a gun buy back?

Btw one is a 10/22 rifle and the other is a .22 Mag single six

AT THIS TIME You can choose to register in your name or not. Without any legal repercussion what so ever.

10 yrs ago Dad giving you guns was technically a misdemeanor. BUT,
"Statute of Limitations" for that long ago misdo, is 3 yrs.

And since their is NO LAW requiring you to register firearms already in your possession. There is no legal mandate, that you do so.

[1]...YOU CAN, jump through state hoops and pay fees to make the state aware of your possession.

[2]...YOU CAN, do nothing.

YOUR CHOICE.

[Garand Hunter]

Loose lips sink ships....remember that ole adage ? I just receive them and shut up when that occurs. For what its worth, years past rifles were not required to be registered as told above.

Psalm 1

[TheGood]

AT THIS TIME You can choose to register in your name or not. Without any legal repercussion what so ever.

10 yrs ago Dad giving you guns was technically a misdemeanor. BUT,
"Statute of Limitations" for that long ago misdo, is 3 yrs.

And since their is NO LAW requiring you to register firearms already in your possession. There is no legal mandate, that you do so.

[1]...YOU CAN, jump through state hoops and pay fees to make the state aware of your possession.

[2]...YOU CAN, do nothing.

YOUR CHOICE.

This is not true. If OP is in possession of a firearm that is not registered in his name, but IS registered in his father's name (purchased after Jan 1 1980), and he says it's his, then he is in violation of the law NOW not 10 years ago. I'd venture to guess that OP was a child (or maybe not yet born) when the pistol was purchased.

[pacrat]

This is not true. If OP is in possession of a firearm that is not registered in his name, but IS registered in his father's name (purchased after Jan 1 1980), and he says it's his, then he is in violation of the law NOW not 10 years ago. I'd venture to guess that OP was a child or maybe (or maybe not yet born) when the pistol was purchased.

CONGRATULATIONS, you just won the MOST IGNORANT post of the day award.

Showing a total disregard of REALITY.

It doesn't matter even one little bit when Dad came into possession of the guns he illegally gave to OP ten yrs ago.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

A statute of limitations is a law that forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. The main purpose of these laws is to ensure that convictions are based upon evidence (physical or eyewitness) that has not deteriorated with time. After the time period has run, the crime can no longer be prosecuted, meaning that the accused person is essentially free.

In this instance, with the original crime being a misdemeanor, with a "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS" of 3 yrs. Neither Dad nor OP can be charged and prosecuted, 7 yrs after the SOL term.

[Sir Toast]

The Librarian has spoken. Close thread.

Yup.

Sorry Ryan, I had not re-checked the thread to answer your question.

[redcliff]

This is not true. If OP is in possession of a firearm that is not registered in his name, but IS registered in his father's name (purchased after Jan 1 1980), and he says it's his, then he is in violation of the law NOW not 10 years ago. I'd venture to guess that OP was a child or maybe (or maybe not yet born) when the pistol was purchased.

Not to pile on, but you should be aware that prior to 1991 it was perfectly legal to transfer privately owned handguns and long guns between California residents without using an FFL or notifying anyone. There has been no law since then requiring firearms purchased in that manner/time frame to now be registered that I am aware of.

[-hanko]

CONGRATULATIONS, you just won the MOST IGNORANT post of the day award.

Showing a total disregard of REALITY.

It doesn't matter even one little bit when Dad came into possession of the guns he illegally gave to OP ten yrs ago.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

In this instance, with the original crime being a misdemeanor, with a "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS" of 3 yrs. Neither Dad nor OP can be charged and prosecuted, 7 yrs after the SOL term.

Calguns is beginning to be a storehouse of FUD...why do folks post their absolute opinion without having the slightest idea of what they're posting?

Definitely a total disregard of reality,

[TheGood]

Not to pile on, but you should be aware that prior to 1991 it was perfectly legal to transfer privately owned handguns and long guns between California residents without using an FFL or notifying anyone. There has been no law since then requiring firearms purchased in that manner/time frame to now be registered that I am aware of.

That's if he was old enough to own it in 1991, and I'm thinking he probably wasn't. You can't say you owned it/transferred it prior to being able to.

[TheGood]

CONGRATULATIONS, you just won the MOST IGNORANT post of the day award.

Showing a total disregard of REALITY.

It doesn't matter even one little bit when Dad came into possession of the guns he illegally gave to OP ten yrs ago.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

In this instance, with the original crime being a misdemeanor, with a "STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS" of 3 yrs. Neither Dad nor OP can be charged and prosecuted, 7 yrs after the SOL term.

Ownership of a firearm that is currently registered to another person is an ACTIVE CRIME. They don't need the father's statement that he gave it to him X number of years ago, they have the records saying that it currently BELONGS TO THE FATHER.

So, right back at ya on the "stupidest post" comment.

[Librarian]

Ownership of a firearm that is currently registered to another person is an ACTIVE CRIME.

Got a cite to the PC that says so?

[SanDiego619]

Was the pistol purchased in California 30 years ago? It should have been "registered" upon purchase, unless he bought it from someone outside of an FFL transfer.