CA SB704 - FFL transfer for firearm barrels

[GOEX FFF]

(c) Commencing July 1, 2027, the licensed firearms dealer shall
legibly record all of the following on a form to be prescribed by
the department pertaining to the sale or transfer of the firearm
barrel:
(1) The date of the sale or transfer.
(2) The purchaser’s or transferee’s driver’s license or other
identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(3) The make, model, and caliber of the firearm that the firearm
barrel is designed for or used in.
(4) The purchaser’s or transferee’s full name.
(5) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or
transfer.

So, if I'm reading it right, unless you know for sure the make, model and caliber of the receiver you would use the barrel on, an FFL won't be able to transfer a barrel to you.

Meaning, (and using the AR platform as an example) if you plan on buying an upper you better have the lower first so you know exactly who made it and model number to which the barrel is going on, or you'll be denied the transfer.

Find a good deal on a barrel/upper for a future build? NOPE, you must have the exact receiver first before you can buy/transfer the barrel for it.

And THEN what happens if you decide later to put your new barrel/upper on a different make and model receiver from the one that was it was recorded and associated with? Will Kalifornia make that a crime, too?
What a fuster cluck....

[Silence Dogood]

Signed by Newsom today.

[The Gleam]

So, if I'm reading it right, unless you know for sure the make, model and caliber of the receiver you would use the barrel on, an FFL won't be able to transfer a barrel to you.

Meaning, (and using the AR platform as an example) if you plan on buying an upper you better have the lower first so you know exactly who made it and model number to which the barrel is going on, or you'll be denied the transfer.

Find a good deal on a barrel/upper for a future build? NOPE, you must have the exact receiver first before you can buy/transfer the barrel for it.

And THEN what happens if you decide later to put your new barrel/upper on a different make and model receiver from the one that was it was recorded and associated with? Will Kalifornia make that a crime, too?
What a fuster cluck....

Mmpf. I'll just need to start buying barrels or uppers in Nevada or Arizona - as I already do for ammo. Costs a lot less in taxes too.

California's loss.

---

[SanDiego619]

Mmpf. I'll just need to start buying barrels or uppers in Nevada or Arizona - as I already do for ammo. Costs a lot less in taxes too.

California's loss.

---

I buy all that online. Now I can't ship it to CA. What a bunch or *******s.

[OlderThanDirt]

So, if I'm reading it right, unless you know for sure the make, model and caliber of the receiver you would use the barrel on, an FFL won't be able to transfer a barrel to you.

Meaning, (and using the AR platform as an example) if you plan on buying an upper you better have the lower first so you know exactly who made it and model number to which the barrel is going on, or you'll be denied the transfer.

Find a good deal on a barrel/upper for a future build? NOPE, you must have the exact receiver first before you can buy/transfer the barrel for it.

And THEN what happens if you decide later to put your new barrel/upper on a different make and model receiver from the one that was it was recorded and associated with? Will Kalifornia make that a crime, too?
What a fuster cluck....

There isn’t anything in the law, yet, that prohibits doing a completely different build than what was identified to the FFL. It could be as simple as identifying a lower receiver as a “Newsom AR-15 Sporter/Sphincter in 5.56” or a “Bonta Butt Burner AR15 in 450 Bushmaster.” We could have a lot of fun with this if we can find someone to manufacture AR lowers with catchy make and model numbers. Old timers probably remember that a bunch of Calguns lowers were manufactured 10 of 15 years ago.

[Bolt_Action]

What I don't get about this is, what if I need to have a gun rebarrelled out of state by the manufacturer? Do I send it out and have them rebarrel it, and they send it back to me, or does it have to go through an FFL on the way back now, or what?

[GOEX FFF]

What I don't get about this is, what if I need to have a gun rebarrelled out of state by the manufacturer? Do I send it out and have them rebarrel it, and they send it back to me, or does it have to go through an FFL on the way back now, or what?

16525. (a) As used in Section 33700, “firearm barrel” means
the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile
or shot charge is fired. A firearm barrel includes any forging,
casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that
has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be
completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel,
or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as
a firearm barrel once completed, assembled, or converted. A
firearm barrel may have a rifled or smooth bore.
(b) A firearm barrel that is attached or affixed to a firearm is
not subject to the requirements of Section 33700

IANAL, but (b) looks like any barrel that is already attached to a firearm does not apply to being a stand alone barrel defined in Section 33700

[abinsinia]

How to transfer a barrel in California without a background check,

1. Attach barrel to a complete firearm
2. Lone the gun to the buyer (for 1 minute, in your presence)
3. Buyer removes the barrel and keeps it
4. Buyer returns the receiver and other parts

Seems like it's legal per the law.

[L.A. Saiga]

I feel so much safer now

[CALI-gula]

How to transfer a barrel in California without a background check,

1. Attach barrel to a complete firearm
2. Lone the gun to the buyer (for 1 minute, in your presence)
3. Buyer removes the barrel and keeps it
4. Buyer returns the receiver and other parts

Seems like it's legal per the law.

And seems like you could attach it with duct tape. Attached is attached.

.

[Garbcollector]

IANAL, but (b) looks like any barrel that is already attached to a firearm does not apply to being a stand alone barrel defined in Section 33700

But a rebarrel means they are replacing the existing barrel so the way I understand it the new barrel would need a background check? California does a excellent job of making laws vague

[GOEX FFF]

And seems like you could attach it with duct tape. Attached is attached.

.

Yeah, and it doesn't say WHERE it must be attached to or how many barrels can be attached at once....theoretically you could tape multiple barrels or a bundle of them to one firearm. On the stock, the forearm, the slide....etc, get home and remove them.

[GOEX FFF]

But a rebarrel means they are replacing the existing barrel so the way I understand it the new barrel would need a background check? California does a excellent job of making laws vague

Perhaps or perhaps not..Kalifornia makes it convoluted on purpose.

[Silence Dogood]

I love the creativity shown above but I am reminded of stories of CA legislators making changes to laws after reading criticisms and creative solutions here on calguns before my time. I suggest that we restrict our discussions to the details of the law as written and leave the work arounds (the quiet part) unspoken before the state moves the goal posts against is again.

Although the Glock ban seems to be getting the most press nationwide of the three anti-2A laws just signed, I actually see this one as at least as objectionable if not most so. If this precedent stands, what will be next? Triggers? Magazines? Bolts? Firing pins?

[CALI-gula]

I love the creativity shown above but I am reminded of stories of CA legislators making changes to laws after reading criticisms and creative solutions here on calguns before my time. I suggest that we restrict our discussions to the details of the law as written and leave the work arounds (the quiet part) unspoken before the state moves the goal posts against is again.

Although the Glock ban seems to be getting the most press nationwide of the three anti-2A laws just signed, I actually see this one as at least as objectionable if not most so. If this precedent stands, what will be next? Triggers? Magazines? Bolts? Firing pins?

No. That was only and has ever been speculation, stymied by FUD that what we do here on Calguns is their resource for ideas out of the wish for self importance. They are, and remain, nothing but 'stories'. It sounds great as if we hold all the keys to the knowledge of firearms, but restraint of any discussion is just pitched by a lot of nail biters living in fear of these legislators that think of themselves as more important than they actually are.

The reality is much more sinister; they receive advice directly from 'California law enforcement firearm specialists' chiming in on the attributes and fundamentals of firearms who equally would like to see the citizens who sign their paycheck become their subjects under these same laws. Calgunners should not be so enamored with their own firearm knowledge to think we are the end all and be all of firearms knowledge solely because we are also 2nd Amendment activists and defenders.

Strange but true.

There are plenty of extremely knowledgeable individuals on firearms, in many ways much more than anyone posting here on Calguns, that are also on the side of abolishing the 2nd Amendment entirely. I've met some of them in person, unfortunately. And those people are more than willing to offer up their services on recommendations and advice to devise such Anti-2nd Amendment bills. A perfect example of that would be what arose out of AB50 banning .50BMG rifles (where those experts testified to the legislature about such firearms in person) and the very recent passage of AB1127 aka 'the Glock Ban' which was not the brainchild of the author that wrote it, I can guarantee you that much.

Additionally, the legislation has since passed, so they can't go back and change it now without also going through the legislative process to revise it, and the legislative session is over. Not taking about it at all, NOT exposing the workarounds, merely helps them enforce their law by way of FUD.

By exposing those workarounds as you say, it was also helps expose their impotency at being legislators. It's necessary to do that to show how nonsensical such legislation is at face value, that these legislators are otherwise appointed the power to create laws about issues they know nothing about themselves, and even when coached by back-stabbing professionals, they still get the language wrong. In many ways, by doing that here on Calguns, we have been able to contribute to the legal fight against such erroneous legislation, and in some cases, helping to reverse those nonsensical laws.

.