Deleted

[kcbrown]

This is impossible. What happens if you go and sell all your guns an hour after the TRO is issued? You can't turn anything into the police if you don't own it, it's no longer your property.

You didn't properly read what I said.

Selling it is an option, but it must be to a qualified FFL.

For normal guns, that's not a problem, because you can always buy them back after (though off-roster handguns would need to be converted to single-shot first).

But RAWs are different. Once you sell it, you cannot buy it back. There is no way to legally re-acquire a RAW.

And that is why you are completely screwed if you are slapped with a TRO in an anti-gun county and own a RAW. If that happens, your RAW is history, because the only option you have that would preserve your ownership of it is to turn it into the police, and there's no way the police would actually hold onto it for you in that case. It would be destroyed or "lost" by the time you were able to get it back.

[kcbrown]

I don't know if this is true. I acquired my RAW around 2004 or so from a dealer, who sold it to me with the DOJ's blessing. It was OK'd by the DOJ since I was getting it to replace a damaged AR-15 receiver I had registered previously. So even if I gave my RAW to the police and they drilled a hole through the receiver I'm sure I could still get another one.

That's interesting. Do you or did you work in a law enforcement capacity at the time? Those things matter. I'm speaking in terms of what's likely to happen to an average gun owner in a rabidly anti-gun county.

In any case, good luck repeating that performance with Kamala Harris' DOJ...

But tell me exactly where I go afoul of the law with this plan:

1) I give my guns to an out-of-state relative, relinquishing any and all control I have over my firearms. Doesn't this satisfy the requirements of the law here in CA?

No, it does not. The law clearly states that your only two options are to either sell the firearm(s) to a qualified FFL or to turn them into the police.

See California Civil Code of Procedure, Section 527.9. The first bit says:

(a) A person subject to a temporary restraining order or injunction issued pursuant to Section 527.6, 527.8, or 527.85 or subject to a restraining order issued pursuant to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, or Section 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, shall relinquish the firearm pursuant to this section.

(b) Upon the issuance of a protective order against a person pursuant to subdivision (a), the court shall order that person to relinquish any firearm in that person's immediate possession or control, or subject to that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours of being served with the order, either by surrendering the firearm to the control of local law enforcement officials, or by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified in Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code. A person ordered to relinquish any firearm pursuant to this subdivision shall file with the court a receipt showing the firearm was surrendered to the local law enforcement agency or sold to a licensed gun dealer within 48 hours after receiving the order. In the event that it is necessary to continue the date of any hearing due to a request for a relinquishment order pursuant to this section, the court shall ensure that all applicable protective orders described in Section 6218 of the Family Code remain in effect or bifurcate the issues and grant the permanent restraining order pending the date of the hearing.

There is more, but none of it gives you any alternative other than somehow getting an exemption from the relinquishment requirement for the firearm in question, and the conditions under which such an exemption can be granted are explicitly defined and do not include the permanent loss of the firearm.


(the irony of the abbreviation of the code being "CCCP" is not lost on me)

Also, why would a law enforcement agency "lose" or "destroy" my firearms?

You have to be kidding me. We're talking about a rabidly anti-gun county here. Their motivation for causing you to permanently lose your "assault weapon" (indeed, all your firearms) should be clear. Do you think it's an accident that CGF is having to sue San Francisco, Oakland, and the California DOJ for refusal to return firearms?

What's in it for them to get involved with such a legal hassle?

It's not their money they're playing with, it's yours and that of the rest of the residents in the county. They don't care anything about how much it "costs". The costs are a pittance to them, since the budget of most rabidly anti-gun counties is in the billions. Oh, and keep in mind, the judges are on their side, not yours.

Worst case scenario, it seems I can give my guns to ANY law enforcement agency in this state, not just the one in my count.

Nope, the law explicitly says you must surrender the weapon to local law enforcement officials.

edited to add: If you are so worried about them "losing" it, why not fit the gun's stock with a GPS or cellular tracking device?

That would be cool, but I'd bet money the battery would run out by the time all was said and done. The more interesting question would be what you'd be able to do about it if you located it.

[mcisniper]

Had this happen a while ago. Surrendered my stuff to the PD and when it was all said and done; I got it all back. They were shocked that I was better armed and equipped than the PD. No issues but I don't have an RAW either. Call the PD and ask them. My local PD, was really professional about it and even helped my load up afterwords.


Don't play games with the law. You need to get this sorted quickly to ensure compliance.

my .02

Michael

[kcbrown]

I understand where you're coming from, but the term "local", as used in "local law enforcement official" is not legally defined. Local could mean, to you, within 500 miles or so. There is NO WAY that you could be in legal trouble if you lived in southern CA and you gave your firearms to a law enforcement agency in Kern County.

You could try that, but I would expect most courts to take a dim view of that. I would expect them to interpret "local law enforcement" to mean the county or city law enforcement organization which is nearest your residence or which is nearest the court itself.

Also, here'a an idea. Technically, you have 24 hours to comply AFTER being served the order. If you know you've got a vindictive crazy out to get you with a TRO, it seems a good course of action would be to relinquish the firearms voluntarily until the heat blows over. That way, if at the time you are served you no longer have any control over your firearms, you can't sell them or give them over to law enforcement.

Yes, that will work, but it means you have to see the TRO coming.

Not necessarily. If you have the device designed to operate on a 10% duty cycle, it could last for many months. If the TRO is bogus and you get a good lawyer to go to work right away, that should be plenty of time.

Hmm...that's doable, although a 10% duty cycle is probably far too aggressive. One burst transmission per hour is probably sufficient. However, it only shows you where it went, not what condition it's in. I like this idea very much, though, at least on a theoretical basis.

How are you going to get it to transmit its location with a strong enough signal that you'll be able to track it but not strong enough to violate FCC regulations? You'll have to use a frequency which is capable of transmitting through walls and other obstructions. If the thing is put in a safe, then there's essentially no chance you'll be able to see it -- a safe acts much like a Faraday Cage.

I would also turn in the firearms in the presence of a lawyer who makes it clear that we are all watching and documenting the actions of the department that is receiving the firearms.

Like I said, the people in the department aren't playing with their own money when it comes to legal consequences, so they don't care. You certainly should have a lawyer present at the time, but I don't think it'll make any difference in the outcome in a rabidly anti-gun jurisdiction.

I would work in tandem with the ATF to make sure they understand the consequences for "lost" firearms.

The ATF is an anti-gun organization! If anything, I would actually expect them to help with the "loss" of the firearm(s), not prevent their loss.

Lastly I would offer a significant financial award to one or two individuals in the department contingent on the firearms safe return at the end of the TRO ordeal.

That could work, though it could also work against you, in that it may be seen as bribery.

Also I wan't law enforcement at the time (nor have I ever been) when I did the AR-15 receiver replacement. There was a specific term for what I did, I believe it was referred to as a "variance", which effectively replaced my receiver with an identical unit, but with a new serial number. After the new receiver was verified as received/destroyed by the manufacturer, the new one's serial number was put on my registration form, at which point the FFL could release the new receiver to me. At the end of the day, I was actually surprised how smoothly everything went.

Well, in the case we're discussing, this might work if the PD verifies that the unit was destroyed, but if it is just "lost" then the above may not work. It raises an interesting question: what are your options if your RAW is stolen?

[kcbrown]

If it's stolen, you're out of luck. Paying someone to do something they are legally required to do is never considered bribery. Bribery laws are pretty clear on this. However, there are no laws on what constitutes a "local" law enforcement agency, so if the court wants to take a "dim view" of me stowing my firearms at the sheriff's department in Kern, I don't care. What are they going to do about it?

It's a court. What are they going to do about it? Hold you in contempt, that's what. It won't be pretty.

And yes, the ATF may be anti gun, but in my past experience when you get two governmental bureaucracies involved with a legal issue that is covered by both organizations, things tend to get done quickly and very well. Works great when you get the ATF and the TSA involved with "lost luggage" that includes a firearm.

LOL!!

You've got a good point here. That strategy could work. Or it could backfire.

ATF versus TSA works well in a "lost luggage" situation because ATF will presume that a non-law-enforcement person stole it, and their goal is to get firearms out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But in the case of you turning your guns into the police, the ATF will know that someone in law enforcement, or someone that law enforcement likes, has it, even if illegally. I have a lot of trouble imagining they'd care in that case, and can easily see them actually favoring that situation.

It looks to me like the modern ATF is corrupt beyond words. Look at Fast and Furious, the gun records flap in Alaska, etc., if you don't believe me. And corrupt agencies work with other corrupt agencies when they share the same goal. In the scenario we're discussing, that goal is the same: to deprive you of your firearms.


If your RAW "disappears" as a result of having to surrender it, it will essentially be "stolen" and you will have no recourse with the DOJ for replacing it. I expect the same is true if it is destroyed without record of its destruction.