CADOJ website FAQ, at you peril, right?

[Tmckinney]

Saw this on the CADOJ FAQ re PPT needing to be DROSed

""Antique firearms," as defined in section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement. For additional exceptions, refer to Penal Code sections 27850 through 27966."

Now I know that antiques don't need it, but I can't find any section of the PC that exempts C and R guns from going through DROS.

I wonder if one could claim entrapment on this if prosecuted.

Let me be clear, I know this to be wrong and have no intention of finding it out the hard way. Just ranting about the crappy DOJ website info.

[pterrell]

Saw this on the CADOJ FAQ re PPT needing to be DROSed

""Antique firearms," as defined in section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement. For additional exceptions, refer to Penal Code sections 27850 through 27966."

Now I know that antiques don't need it, but I can't find any section of the PC that exempts C and R guns from going through DROS.

I wonder if one could claim entrapment on this if prosecuted.

The FAQ is not kept up to date. You need to read the PC for yourself in order to understand the laws. I'm pretty sure it says on the front page that information posted there may be out of date or inaccurate.

[hermosabeach]

Plenty of people get charged for violations of rules they did not know existed.

Is it worth 50K to find out if the defense works?