Help please on Private Transfers Pre 1991

[hadjin]

Hello.. Jan 1 1991 new private transfer laws went into place.

I already looked at the CalGuns Wiki page but need a little more clarification to be sure my understanding of the state of the law back then is accurate.

Prior to 1991, private transfers of both long guns and Hand guns were allowed without any documentation between the parties, and no subsequent notification to any agency within California was back then, or even now as a result of some retroactive law, is required.

There was no other obligation on either party ... like sales document, ID check, Calif resident check, further inquiry, etc. Literally, cash for gun, everyone walks away. Is this correct ?

I am NOT speaking about any "Assault" or any otherwise specifically identified type of weapon; but rather your "run of the mill" 9MM, 45 Cal, Shotgun, or Rifle. Also, obviously no party being aware of the gun being stolen, or used in a crime, or one party being a minor, etc.

As well as your personal understanding, any direction to a statute or citation for confirmation would be expecially helpful.

Thank you.

[taperxz]

Pretty simple, go down to your local gun store and do a private party transfer. They will guide you through it. Buyer will have his 10 day waiting period seller will have cash in in hands and walk away. If the RIFLE is a c&r and over 50 yrs old you can do this transfer person to person with no dros. All pistols must be done at and ffl in CA.

[hadjin]

Excuse me, no offense, but did you read my question ?

Please reply if you are familiar with the Pre1991 law.

Thanks

[taperxz]

sorry, my misunderstanding of what you were asking, i thought you were asking for clarification between then and now.

[Crom]

Prior to 1991, PPT, it was cash for gun, walk away as far as I know.

Bill Wiese wrote this:

Private, unpapered sales of legal firearms between California residents in CA were legal until 1 Jan 91. On & after 1 Jan 1991, all firearms sales - both long guns and handguns - had to go through the DROS process, use of a CA FFL, and the 10 day wait.

[jdberger]

Could you please clarify the question?

[edwardm]

There is no law to cite in response to your question. Before 1/1/1991 there was no law that mandated private party transactions *of the sort you describe* go through an FFL.

So yes, I'm familiar with the *lack* of law in question, prior to 1991. Exactly what tree are you barking up, and why?

And don't say "just curious", either. My hound barks up a tree, he doesn't do it out of curiosity. It means he's got his nose in something. Whether or not I think he *should* have his nose in whatever, well...that's another matter.

Excuse me, no offense, but did you read my question ?

Please reply if you are familiar with the Pre1991 law.

Thanks

[bwiese]

The only requirement pre-1991 (and after 1968) to use an FFL would have been if the gun was being transferred across state lines/between residents of different states.

Otherwise, before 1/1/91, two CA residents could hand each other their guns and go on their merry way.

For the specific instance of nonprohibited Californians transferring guns to other Californians before 1/1/91, there was no FFL required, nor any registration papers to file. You just handed your cash and grabbed your gun.

[hadjin]

Edward.. Thanks for the reply, but

Just what YOU think where or not my "nose" should or shouldn't be, doesn't really interest me. My question is genuine and sincere, I couldn't care less of what you think my motivation for asking is.

So.. since you are familiar with the "lack" of law in question, are you saying that there was no obligation on either party for anything other than a bargained for exchange ? ie..no confirmation of california citizenship, etc.

[hadjin]

Thank you Bill, Crom, and others ... Edward too

regards,

[creekside]

The only requirement pre-1991 (and after 1968) to use an FFL would have been if the gun was being transferred across state lines/between residents of different states.

Otherwise, before 1/1/91, two CA residents could hand each other their guns and go on their merry way.

For the specific instance of nonprohibited Californians transferring guns to other Californians before 1/1/91, there was no FFL required, nor any registration papers to file. You just handed your cash and grabbed your gun.

I was born in 1973. Therefore, there was no lawful way for me to purchase a firearm as an adult prior to the California state legislature imposing this requirement.

Could any Constitutional argument be made on this basis, such as denial of equal protection? I doubt it but now I'm curious.

[Librarian]

I was born in 1973. Therefore, there was no lawful way for me to purchase a firearm as an adult prior to the California state legislature imposing this requirement.

Could any Constitutional argument be made on this basis, such as denial of equal protection? I doubt it but now I'm curious.

"The law changed before I could take advantage of the old way"?

I very much doubt it.

The law changed before I was old enough to take advantage of mail-ordering firearms, or buying them from Sears.

13th Amendment changed the law so no one could own another person.

The American Revolution happened, preventing me from being born under a monarchy.

The barbarians destroyed Rome, and denied me the opportunity of being a Roman Citizen.

[jdberger]

@Librarian -

The last two, maybe.....

[edwardm]

Fair enough, but it interests *me*.

I think others have answered your follow-up question, so I'll hush now.

Edward.. Thanks for the reply, but

Just what YOU think where or not my "nose" should or shouldn't be, doesn't really interest me. My question is genuine and sincere, I couldn't care less of what you think my motivation for asking is.

So.. since you are familiar with the "lack" of law in question, are you saying that there was no obligation on either party for anything other than a bargained for exchange ? ie..no confirmation of california citizenship, etc.

[Bruce]

Yup it was great "Back in the Day". Ole Bob had something he was selling? Here's the money, here's your gun, thanks. Should still be that way. Of course "Back in the Day" the idividual was held responsible for his actions, not the things he used, his political beliefs, whether his mommy drank too much before he was born, or some other stupid notion.