Tweet
I was asked a question at the range recently, and had to admit that I didn't know whether there could be some sort of legal issue, what with all the 'fine points' of Federal and California law.......so......is this one 'FUD' or a serious potential problem?
Visualise, if you will, two shooters, call them Tom and Dick, who are acquaintances, or somewhat social friends, who shoot together at a range from time to time.
They both had looked at rifles from a shipment of Soviet surplus, at a gun shop, where they both are acquaintances of Harry, the store clerk. (or possibly the store owner, that detail wasn't clear)
Tom bought a mediocre Nagant, after deciding against buying a nicer one for more $. He regretted his decision a few weeks later, but hadn't a lot of spare $. In a conversation at the gun store, Dick offers to buy Tom's mediocre Nagant at the price Tom paid for it, which would provide Tom with enough ready $ to buy the nicer one he really wanted. Harry, the store clerk, says that would make Tom a criminal for having done a 'straw purchase' on Dick's behalf, in that the rifle in question was recently purchased by Tom.
Now, everything I've read would seem to indicate that once a C&R class of rifle has been purchased by a private collector, that owner is free to sell it on a 'cash-and-carry' basis to another private collector (given the specs that the purchaser is over 21, not a felon, or otherwise disqualified from purchasing any firearm in California)
Neither Tom nor Dick has a Federal C&R license.
So........the question, I think, would be......was Harry 'bluffing' or spreading 'FUD' regarding the 'straw purchaser' issue?
Is there any specific or even generalised length of time which must elapse before someone who has purchased a C&R rifle from a dealer, with the DROS documentation, may sell the rifle on an undocumented 'cash-and-carry' basis to some other private individual?
Has this ever been a question addressed in any case law or has there ever been any sort of established 'presumption' of intent in any situation of this general nature?
(Tom had not purchased that rifle with the intention of re-selling it. He had not offered any other firearms for sale in the past year, so there was no reasonable appearance of Tom attempting to act as a de-facto unlicensed dealer)
cheers
Carla
Visualise, if you will, two shooters, call them Tom and Dick, who are acquaintances, or somewhat social friends, who shoot together at a range from time to time.
They both had looked at rifles from a shipment of Soviet surplus, at a gun shop, where they both are acquaintances of Harry, the store clerk. (or possibly the store owner, that detail wasn't clear)
Tom bought a mediocre Nagant, after deciding against buying a nicer one for more $. He regretted his decision a few weeks later, but hadn't a lot of spare $. In a conversation at the gun store, Dick offers to buy Tom's mediocre Nagant at the price Tom paid for it, which would provide Tom with enough ready $ to buy the nicer one he really wanted. Harry, the store clerk, says that would make Tom a criminal for having done a 'straw purchase' on Dick's behalf, in that the rifle in question was recently purchased by Tom.
Now, everything I've read would seem to indicate that once a C&R class of rifle has been purchased by a private collector, that owner is free to sell it on a 'cash-and-carry' basis to another private collector (given the specs that the purchaser is over 21, not a felon, or otherwise disqualified from purchasing any firearm in California)
Neither Tom nor Dick has a Federal C&R license.
So........the question, I think, would be......was Harry 'bluffing' or spreading 'FUD' regarding the 'straw purchaser' issue?
Is there any specific or even generalised length of time which must elapse before someone who has purchased a C&R rifle from a dealer, with the DROS documentation, may sell the rifle on an undocumented 'cash-and-carry' basis to some other private individual?
Has this ever been a question addressed in any case law or has there ever been any sort of established 'presumption' of intent in any situation of this general nature?
(Tom had not purchased that rifle with the intention of re-selling it. He had not offered any other firearms for sale in the past year, so there was no reasonable appearance of Tom attempting to act as a de-facto unlicensed dealer)
cheers
Carla
Comment