Unregister a serial number for a returned firearm?

[Quiet]

Actually, no, the form does not remove them as "the owner."

I've been retired for eight years now, so I don't have an exact recollection of the verbiage used in AFS returns.

The AFS can be queried in a number of different ways, most commonly by name, or by weapon make and serial number.

When queried by name, it will return all weapons indexed to the name. You can't really rely on those returns being the most current, so if there is a weapon of interest, you need to run it again by serial number to determine if the name hit is the most current record for the weapon.

When queried by serial number, you get all records indexed to that number. For a weapon that has been transferred many times, you'll see every transaction record.

I once purchased a S&W 66 from a dealer who assured me that it was "New, in the box." I did the DROS and 4473 paperwork and kept the weapon in the safe for several years. I later elected to carry it as a duty weapon with LASD. I was required to complete an LASD personnel document in order to do so, and that document required a copy of the AFS record for the weapon. I then saw that the AFS contained a DROS record for the weapon prior to mine (by about 90 days). I contacted the dealer and learned that the weapon had been previously sold, but had never been delivered to the buyer (at least that 's what the dealer said).

Thirty years later, I submitted a private person's request to DOJ for all AFS records in my name. The document returned to me by DOJ was very significantly redacted from the underlying AFS records. It appeared to have been "scrubbed" of any names other than my own. If your understanding of AFS records was drawn from the private inquiry avenues, you would very reasonably conclude that name information is removed from the AFS, but that isn't the case.

For your purposes in representing clients, the distinctions that I've made are probably nothing more than semantic. But I'm speaking to a larger audience here on Calguns. My major point about the AFS being a historical database, rather than a current registry, has significance to other LEOs and to those who may have interactions with the DOJ APPS Unit (the nice folks who follow up on prohibited persons). The key point being that a "stale" AFS record cannot be used to support a legal conclusion that a named person is currently in possession of the firearm. I've seen that distinction pointed out by more than one judge when reviewing search warrant affidavits in firearms cases.

Quite frankly, If we're looking at someone as a criminal suspect, the fact that they self-reported themselves as no longer possessing a particular firearm, really isn't going to change the conduct of the investigation in the least.

What he said.

Adding to that...

When you search a person's AFS record, it will indicate what firearm records are listed to that person as the current owner.

When you search for a specific firearm's AFS record, it will indicate the current owner and it will also indicate all the previous owners of that specific firearm.

Once a firearm has a record created in AFS, it never gets deleted and the information is retained forever.

CA DOJ BOF is still in the process of inputting old paper DROS records, going back to the 1920s, into AFS.
Supposedly, they are currently processing records from the 1950-1960s.


A Notice of No Longer in Possession that is processed by CA DOJ BOF amends the firearm's AFS record by updating the current owner of the firearm and it does not delete that firearm's AFS record.

[ohsmily]

Actually, no, the form does not remove them as "the owner."

I've been retired for eight years now, so I don't have an exact recollection of the verbiage used in AFS returns.

The AFS can be queried in a number of different ways, most commonly by name, or by weapon make and serial number.

When queried by name, it will return all weapons indexed to the name. You can't really rely on those returns being the most current, so if there is a weapon of interest, you need to run it again by serial number to determine if the name hit is the most current record for the weapon.

When queried by serial number, you get all records indexed to that number. For a weapon that has been transferred many times, you'll see every transaction record.

I once purchased a S&W 66 from a dealer who assured me that it was "New, in the box." I did the DROS and 4473 paperwork and kept the weapon in the safe for several years. I later elected to carry it as a duty weapon with LASD. I was required to complete an LASD personnel document in order to do so, and that document required a copy of the AFS record for the weapon. I then saw that the AFS contained a DROS record for the weapon prior to mine (by about 90 days). I contacted the dealer and learned that the weapon had been previously sold, but had never been delivered to the buyer (at least that 's what the dealer said).

Thirty years later, I submitted a private person's request to DOJ for all AFS records in my name. The document returned to me by DOJ was very significantly redacted from the underlying AFS records. It appeared to have been "scrubbed" of any names other than my own. If your understanding of AFS records was drawn from the private inquiry avenues, you would very reasonably conclude that name information is removed from the AFS, but that isn't the case.

For your purposes in representing clients, the distinctions that I've made are probably nothing more than semantic. But I'm speaking to a larger audience here on Calguns. My major point about the AFS being a historical database, rather than a current registry, has significance to other LEOs and to those who may have interactions with the DOJ APPS Unit (the nice folks who follow up on prohibited persons). The key point being that a "stale" AFS record cannot be used to support a legal conclusion that a named person is currently in possession of the firearm. I've seen that distinction pointed out by more than one judge when reviewing search warrant affidavits in firearms cases.

Quite frankly, If we're looking at someone as a criminal suspect, the fact that they self-reported themselves as no longer possessing a particular firearm, really isn't going to change the conduct of the investigation in the least.

Semantics. Exactly. Under your definition even a DROS to another person doesn't "remove them as the owner" which is contrary to the way such a transaction is viewed /treated by the courts, prosecutors, and BOF. A DROS to someone else or the NLIP form create an entry showing the disposition of that firearm. If such an entry is made, a prohibited person won't get a knock and talk (or worse) from BOF because they see the disposition. But we're on the same page but seem to frame/term things differently.

[ar15barrels]

Need some information about a situation I recently experienced. I purchased a stripped AR15 lower, went through the DROS process and 10 day wait, and took delivery. After getting it home, found the lower was defective, the manufacturer forgot to drill the hole for the buffer tube retaining pin.

I returned the lower to the manufacturer who is shipping a replacement to my FFL to go through the process again which will include a separate serial number. They also mentioned they would likely drill the hole in the defective lower and sell it as a blem to someone else.

Given that the defective serial number is now registered in my name in CA and will be subsequently sold to someone else, can I "unregister" the lower with the CA DOJ?

I like to keep things clean and a serial number out there going to who knows who, could erroneously come back to me at some point. Would rather unregister so that DOJ's records do not point back to me just in case.

Any info would be appreciated!

Fila a "no longer in possession" report.
That way, the DOJ will know you don't have it anymore.

https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/bof-4546-nlip-09-2016.pdf

[Batman]

I'm still confused as to why the manufacturer can't either:

A. Fix the gun you have, or
B. Send you a new lower with the same serial number.

I had a polymer AR lower crack. I sent them the bad one, and they sent me a new lower with the same serial number.

[ar15barrels]

I'm still confused as to why the manufacturer can't either:

A. Fix the gun you have, or
B. Send you a new lower with the same serial number.

I had a polymer AR lower crack. I sent them the bad one, and they sent me a new lower with the same serial number.

A. Drilling the buffer detent hole is pretty easy but refinishing the reciever to get finish inside the hole would cost more than making a new reciever.
B. Because it's not economical to re-manufacture a new aluminum receiver with the same serial number.

The polymer receivers are made without serial numbers and then they engrave the serial number on the little metal tab so it's MUCH easier for a polymer receiver to be remanufactured.
You can't compare that to the process of an aluminum reciever.