Wife's gun, can I transport it without her?

[norcal_patriot]

So my wife and I have a Glock 19, that's registered to her.

Am I able to transport it? (legally locked and ammo separated of course)

Isn't this just considered "loaning" which is legal?

Calguns Wiki: Can I loan a handgun to an adult who has a Handgun Safety Certificate?
Yes, if the person is known to you, the loan is infrequent, and the duration of the loan is 30 days or less.
If the person is not known to you, you may loan the handgun to them at an official target range for the purpose of shooting targets if the firearm remains on the premises of the target range.

Just making sure to cover my arse. Thanks guys

[DannyInSoCal]

Yep.

[Peter.Steele]

Hell, in Madera County you could even put the gun registered to her on your CCW.

[bigred1]

it's not loaning if your married, it's considered communal property

[Librarian]

it's not loaning if your married, it's considered communal property

No good reason to believe a gun is community property, at the possession and use level. CA does not recognize multiple-individuals as owners of guns, though back when they were registering 'assault weapons' is seems it was possible to register one to multiple individuals.

[iluvmycolt]

I believe you can transport any gun you want as long as it's not stolen and safely locked and or secured.

[tozan]

No good reason to believe a gun is community property, at the possession and use level. CA does not recognize multiple-individuals as owners of guns, though back when they were registering 'assault weapons' is seems it was possible to register one to multiple individuals.

They have no problem claiming my out of state income is communal so why not guns...lol

[Peter.Steele]

No good reason to believe a gun is community property, at the possession and use level. CA does not recognize multiple-individuals as owners of guns, though back when they were registering 'assault weapons' is seems it was possible to register one to multiple individuals.

That's arguable. I had to do some research on community property vs separate property when there is a question of registered owners, titles, etc., a while back, and I don't have the citations handy ... but there are some very strong avenues with which this could be attacked.

[Librarian]

That's arguable. I had to do some research on community property vs separate property when there is a question of registered owners, titles, etc., a while back, and I don't have the citations handy ... but there are some very strong avenues with which this could be attacked.

Possibly. But it's just easier to conclude that one spouse had made a legal paperless loan of the gun, for under 30 days, to the other spouse.

If things might come to a distribution of property in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, community property rules probably would be pertinent.

But, for the prominent example, DROS software will accept just one name as the purchaser, and Penal Code always refers to the singular version of 'buyer'. Perhaps it is a defect in the imagination of the Legislature that no consideration of gun ownership has allowed for multiple owners in the Penal Code.

[Peter.Steele]

Possibly. But it's just easier to conclude that one spouse had made a legal paperless loan of the gun, for under 30 days, to the other spouse.

If things might come to a distribution of property in the event of a dissolution of the marriage, community property rules probably would be pertinent.

But, for the prominent example, DROS software will accept just one name as the purchaser, and Penal Code always refers to the singular version of 'buyer'. Perhaps it is a defect in the imagination of the Legislature that no consideration of gun ownership has allowed for multiple owners in the Penal Code.

Community property rules don't just apply in a dissolution, though that is the time that most people tend to invoke them, because there's so few circumstances where it would matter during a continuing marriage.

Evidence Code 662 says "The owner of the legal title to property is presumed to be the owner of the full beneficial title. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof." Registration, etc., would tend to fall squarely in the middle of that. However, EC662 is substantially weakened by In re Marriage of Judy and Clarence Haines, 33 Cal.App4th 277.

While PC may refer to "buyer," and the DROS software may not have slots for more than one name ... think about AW registration, and how weapons were registered to husband and wife, or parent and child, or other combinations.

I don't have time right now to fully dive into this rabbit hole, and I don't have access to Lexis anymore ...

[Librarian]

Neither a lawyer nor a community-property maven, but in this context I just don't find community property considerations helpful.

Perhaps in a legal defense situation there might be some applicability in court, but, as already noted in a different thread, one need not 'own' a firearm to transport it.

[Peter.Steele]

Neither a lawyer nor a community-property maven, but in this context I just don't find community property considerations helpful.

Perhaps in a legal defense situation there might be some applicability in court, but, as already noted in a different thread, one need not 'own' a firearm to transport it.

How would it not be helpful? If it's not community property, then if the guy has the gun and his wife isn't right there with him, then it's a loan. If it's been riding around in his trunk for more than 30 days, and she hasn't been in his car for more than 30 days, then it's an illegal transfer. If, however, it's community property, then he already had property interest in it, and no illegal transfer took place.

[Librarian]

How would it not be helpful? If it's not community property, then if the guy has the gun and his wife isn't right there with him, then it's a loan. If it's been riding around in his trunk for more than 30 days, and she hasn't been in his car for more than 30 days, then it's an illegal transfer. If, however, it's community property, then he already had property interest in it, and no illegal transfer took place.

Difficult to prove, don't you think?

By that line of thinking, every time the one (registered owner) spouse enters the car, the 30-day timer resets.

Much as I think the Legislature has done and continues to do a terrible job with regard to gun laws, I'm going to leave 'guns and community property' as they appear on their face in the Penal Code - that is, unconnected.

If some folks are really concerned about this problem, there are two clear solutions: 1) buy another gun; 2) have the one spouse convey title to the gun in writing to the other spouse.

Everything else involves lawyers and judges and probably juries - my suggestions above are lots less expensive.

[jonc]

Gtg

[norcal_patriot]

Thanks for clearing it up.


Now, what if.. I had to use it? Is that just opening a whole 'nother can of worms?