Attempted illegal purchase

[CSACANNONEER]

But for C&R purposes it is no longer qualified as a C&R firearm Per BATFE

And there lies the problem. While, IANAL, I just don't see why the OP is worried about the current federal interpetation of what constitutes a C&R firearm when he is only worried about CALIFORNIA'S legal definition or C&R for the purposes of transfering a long gun without the use of a FFL. California law is pretty clear about it needing to be +50 years old. I have never seen any indication that California's legal definition of C&R would change if the stock was changed out.

It really sounds like the OP erred on the side of extreme caution and decided to refuse a perfectly legal sale based on the fact that the seller didn't want to sign some sort of unofficial and unnessessary statement or provide a stranger with a hard copy of his ID. I wonder if the seller was going to give the buyer a copy of the seller's ID? I wonder if the seller was going to provide a written statement stating that he was the legal owner of said firearm, that he was not prohibited from selling said firearm, that said firearm had never been used in any crime (ever) and that, in calguns tradition, the gun has less than 200 rounds down the pipe??????

[Cokebottle]

Okay....

So as an 03FFL, I purchase a "tacticool" Mauser.
It's no longer a C&R by Federal definition, but qualifies for FTF in California.

Since it's not a Federal C&R, do I have to log it in my bound book?

[CSACANNONEER]

Okay....

So as an 03FFL, I purchase a "tacticool" Mauser.
It's no longer a C&R by Federal definition, but qualifies for FTF in California.

Since it's not a Federal C&R, do I have to log it in my bound book?

What a great question to ask ATF at SHOT next week. I'll try to remember to ask it and post their response here.

[drifter2be]

And there lies the problem. While, IANAL, I just don't see why the OP is worried about the current federal interpetation of what constitutes a C&R firearm when he is only worried about CALIFORNIA'S legal definition or C&R for the purposes of transfering a long gun without the use of a FFL. California law is pretty clear about it needing to be +50 years old. I have never seen any indication that California's legal definition of C&R would change if the stock was changed out.

It really sounds like the OP erred on the side of extreme caution and decided to refuse a perfectly legal sale based on the fact that the seller didn't want to sign some sort of unofficial and unnessessary statement or provide a stranger with a hard copy of his ID. I wonder if the seller was going to give the buyer a copy of the seller's ID? I wonder if the seller was going to provide a written statement stating that he was the legal owner of said firearm, that he was not prohibited from selling said firearm, that said firearm had never been used in any crime (ever) and that, in calguns tradition, the gun has less than 200 rounds down the pipe??????

Then I have been greatly mis-informed because everywhere that I looked stated that the aftermarket stock on the rifle means it no longer qualifies as C&R and therefore is not eligible for FTF and must be transferred through an FFL. AFAIK Federal laws always supersede State laws, except where state laws are MORE restrictive, so if under the Fed definition the rifle is no longer C&R than the CA definition doesn't matter anyway.

[CSACANNONEER]

Then I have been greatly mis-informed because everywhere that I looked stated that the aftermarket stock on the rifle means it no longer qualifies as C&R and therefore is not eligible for FTF and must be transferred through an FFL.

While I have never seen a definiative answer, most people are erring on the side of caution. But, I've yet to find anything in California law that states that a +50 year old long arm needs to also meet the current (this whole new stock is no longer a C&R thing is a new ATF interpetation of federal law and not in any law text) federal definition of C&R.

[Cokebottle]

Then I have been greatly mis-informed because everywhere that I looked stated that the aftermarket stock on the rifle means it no longer qualifies as C&R and therefore is not eligible for FTF and must be transferred through an FFL. AFAIK Federal laws always supersede State laws, except where state laws are MORE restrictive, so if under the Fed definition the rifle is no longer C&R than the CA definition doesn't matter anyway.

Buuuut......

Federal law does not require an FFL to process intrastate person to person sales.

So we're back to the point where, as long as California considers it C&R long gun (over 50 years old), then California doesn't require an FFL, and since it is an intrastate transfer between residents, the BATFE doesn't require an FFL.

[drifter2be]

Buuuut......

Federal law does not require an FFL to process intrastate person to person sales.

So we're back to the point where, as long as California considers it C&R long gun (over 50 years old), then California doesn't require an FFL, and since it is an intrastate transfer between residents, the BATFE doesn't require an FFL.

So basically if it is a 50 year old long gun, then regardless of changes, i.e. synthetic stock, scope mounts, etc, it does not have to go through an FFL as long as the sale is between two CA residents?

If thats the case then someone really needs to sticky this information because there is a lot of confusion and wrong information posted here as well as a few other forums, on this subject.

[Tripper]

In calguns tradition, the gun has less than 200 rounds down the pipe??????

LOL

[CSACANNONEER]

So basically if it is a 50 year old long gun, then regardless of changes, i.e. synthetic stock, scope mounts, etc, it does not have to go through an FFL as long as the sale is between two CA residents?

If thats the case then someone really needs to sticky this information because there is a lot of confusion and wrong information posted here as well as a few other forums, on this subject.

The bottom line is that no one knows if it is the case or not. It does follow the letter of the law but, 58 DAs in Ca probably have 72 different opinions. Many people are erring on the side of caution and others are just following the letter of the law. Obviously, the state would like their DROS money but, is it legally required? IANAL but, I say "no".

[m1a1driver]

nothing illegal happened, so I wouldnt report anything. However that gun IS c&r since it IS over 50 years old anyway...

[joepamjohn]

At what point is a C&R gun considered "not original" anymore? A sanded or refinished stock? A post WW2 reworked M1 Garand or carbine? A Browning A5 with a Ram Line Synthetic stock. An addition of a recoil pad an an old Model 70? Where do you draw the line?

[a1c]

At what point is a C&R gun considered "not original" anymore? A sanded or refinished stock? A post WW2 reworked M1 Garand or carbine? A Browning A5 with a Ram Line Synthetic stock. An addition of a recoil pad an an old Model 70? Where do you draw the line?

Yeah, I think it's a grey area. For instance, I don't really understand why you can get a M28/76 shipped to your door. It's not over 50 years old, only the barrel and a few parts are original, and it's not listed on the BATFE curios list.

[celler]

Read "Boston's Gun Bible" and now I'm REALLY paranoid. Malum prohibitum blows.

[Altahick]

who cares its not your problem dont be a narc!

[diggersdarling]

Do people actually worry about the stock? Seriously, it is a C&R rifle.