Handgun registration in CA.

[ap3572001]

2a - a gun registered to NO ONE is legal to own, possess and use:
- some guns have not been transferred since 1990;
- some guns are long guns last transferred before 2014;
- some guns were moved into CA before 1998.

And, there is the illegal market, size unknown, where proper transfer procedures have not been followed; such guns are not problematic based on 'registration' or lack of same.

Thanks Librarian.

Two questions.

1). Are there states where hangduns MUST be registered to the owner?

( Just like a CCW permit sometimes has specific handguns listed . And those are the only guns a person can carry with that permit)

2).How do handguns that are a result of an improper transfer can be not problematic?

Thanks.

[Librarian]

Thanks Librarian.

Two questions.

1). Are there states where hangduns MUST be registered to the owner?

( Just like a CCW permit sometimes has specific handguns listed . And those are the only guns a person can carry with that permit)

2).How do handguns that are a result of an improper transfer can be not problematic?

Thanks.

For 1, not sure - CA keeps me focused here, but I get the impression that NY, MA, and NJ might have that.

As to 2, note I said "not problematic based on 'registration' or lack of same." The illegal transfer would be a problem; not being properly registered, in itself, is nothing.

[Tincon]

Lorax, I respect your knowledge and opinions, but this is just semantics. You can call it whatever you want but if a governmental agency knows you have a particular piece of property, as far as I am concerned, then it's De facto registration. I don't care if it's a firearm, vehicle, or piece or furniture.

It might be "de facto" but it's not actual. If you sell your gun out of state there is no requirement to tell the DOJ. And there is no requirement to tell the DOJ about all the guns you have that you got in ways that do not or did not require DROS (for example, home builds).

[ap3572001]

For 1, not sure - CA keeps me focused here, but I get the impression that NY, MA, and NJ might have that.

As to 2, note I said "not problematic based on 'registration' or lack of same." The illegal transfer would be a problem; not being properly registered, in itself, is nothing.

Sorry, maybe Its just the way I think , but isn't being not properly registered handgun a result of illegal transfer?

A bought a handgun last year and gave it to B. ( Both A and B have a right to own firearms) , The act that A and B committed is illegal, but that handgun in a possession of B is not problematic.

B can go use it , PPT is to C, ship it to an FFL etc.

I am older, some guns I own I bought in 1980's from private sellers. Are they not properly registered?

Thanks.

[Tincon]

Sorry, maybe Its just the way I think , but isn't being not properly registered handgun a result of illegal transfer?

A bought a handgun last year and gave it to B. ( Both A and B have a right to own firearms) , The act that A and B committed is illegal, but that handgun in a possession of B is not problematic.

B can go use it , PPT is to C, ship it to an FFL etc.

That is correct.

I am older, some guns I own I bought in 1980's from private sellers. Are they not properly registered?

It isn't in the registry provided for by PC section 11106, so in that respect it isn't "registered." Generally

[Librarian]

Sorry, maybe Its just the way I think , but isn't being not properly registered handgun a result of illegal transfer?

A bought a handgun last year and gave it to B. ( Both A and B have a right to own firearms) , The act that A and B committed is illegal, but that handgun in a possession of B is not problematic.

B can go use it , PPT is to C, ship it to an FFL etc.

I am older, some guns I own I bought in 1980's from private sellers. Are they not properly registered?

Thanks.

No, you keep missing it: registration (to whatever degree one wants to describe it) in CA is a result of a properly documented transfer or importation. (Or, 'voluntary' documentation such as 'assault weapon registration' and the occasional VOLREG.)

'Registration' is not required outside of those events, and required documented events have beginning dates, as already noted. The most recent is 2014, when DROS began to collect information on long guns equivalent to what was/is collected for hand guns.

All long guns transferred through intrafamilial transfer or through a dealer prior to 2014 are not registered (pace the volreg and 'assault weapon' things). That's legal.

You suggest you bought some guns from private parties in the 1980s. Required use of an FFL began in 1991 - had those been handguns purchased through an FFL in CA before you bought them, they might still be 'registered' to that original buyer, since DROS on handguns started before 1923. But because those 1980s transactions predated the requirement for FFL/DROS/'registration', still legal to have done that, and legal that such guns not be associated with you in AFS.

[ap3572001]

No, you keep missing it: registration (to whatever degree one wants to describe it) in CA is a result of a properly documented transfer or importation. (Or, 'voluntary' documentation such as 'assault weapon registration' and the occasional VOLREG.)

'Registration' is not required outside of those events, and required documented events have beginning dates, as already noted. The most recent is 2014, when DROS began to collect information on long guns equivalent to what was/is collected for hand guns.

All long guns transferred through intrafamilial transfer or through a dealer prior to 2014 are not registered (pace the volreg and 'assault weapon' things). That's legal.

You suggest you bought some guns from private parties in the 1980s. Required use of an FFL began in 1991 - had those been handguns purchased through an FFL in CA before you bought them, they might still be 'registered' to that original buyer, since DROS on handguns started before 1923. But because those 1980s transactions predated the requirement for FFL/DROS/'registration', still legal to have done that, and legal that such guns not be associated with you in AFS.

Thanks again. So basically ,as I suspected , guns bought privately before 1991 are just fine and recent guns that had improper transfer are not . got it. Makes sense.

[Librarian]

Thanks again. So basically ,as I suspected , guns bought privately before 1991 are just fine and recent guns that had improper transfer are not . got it. Makes sense.

... but because the failure to properly transfer is a misdemeanor, not because the guns might not be registered. 'Not registered' is ordinarily no crime - no PC to cite, no charge to make against a person with an 'unregistered firearm' in the general case. (But again, 'assault weapons' ...)

[samsteel]

I know this question is not related to the topic discussed but I need your input. I lost my DROS, went to the FFL/dealer to get a copy but already out of business. what should I do to get a proof that i own the handgun? thanks in advance.

[Tincon]

I know this question is not related to the topic discussed but I need your input. I lost my DROS, went to the FFL/dealer to get a copy but already out of business. what should I do to get a proof that i own the handgun? thanks in advance.

For what purpose do you require proof?

[Librarian]

For whatever reason, if the selling/transferring dealer correctly submitted DROS, the gun will be 'yours' in AFS.

Send in this form - http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/ag...teCitizen.pdf? and you will get a list of what CA thinks you may have had transferred to you.

[Reloaderdave]

I apologize if this is thread hijacking, but I've been searching the web and
forums for two days now, and I really need an answer to my question below.
(sigh) This is confusing, so I'll ask:
I purchased a pistol in 1990 at Turner's, and a shotgun in 1993 at Turner's.
Are either of these two firearms effectively registered?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
Dave

[Librarian]

I apologize if this is thread hijacking, but I've been searching the web and
forums for two days now, and I really need an answer to my question below.
(sigh) This is confusing, so I'll ask:
I purchased a pistol in 1990 at Turner's, and a shotgun in 1993 at Turner's.
Are either of these two firearms effectively registered?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
Dave

Pistol, 1990 - yes; handgun DROS reporting was in effect, even if not entirely electronically submitted.

Shotgun, 1993 - no; no long gun info was sent to DOJ before 2014.

[Reloaderdave]

Pistol, 1990 - yes; handgun DROS reporting was in effect, even if not entirely electronically submitted.

Shotgun, 1993 - no; no long gun info was sent to DOJ before 2014.

Librarian, THANK YOU for answering my question. That is a great help
and appreciated!

Dave

[CSACANNONEER]

Q: Does the AFS have records on every gun in circulation in California?
A. No, it does not.

Q. What kind of firearms records does it have?

A. The bulk of the firearms records that are in AFS are related to dealer's records of sales, and that's exactly what it is. It's a dealer records of sales. It's not a registration. It's simply a record of a sale that was made at a particular date and time. And so that pretty much -- that's the other part of the information in AFS has to do with assault weapons registrations that were mandated back in 1989 and continued through -- I think through 2001 where certain guns were identified as assault weapons under California statute had to be registered by residents of California.
..
Q. Is there any limit in time for long gun records, like the records only go back for a certain amount of time?
A. With the exception of assault weapon registration, long gun records, the department only began retaining long gun records effective January 1st of 2014.
Q. I have the same question for handguns. How far back does the handgun records go?
A. I've seen the handgun records in AFS that go back to, like, the early 1900's.
Q. Is there complete -- are there complete handgun records going back that far?
A. They're not necessarily complete. They were records that were taken in at that particular time.
Q. So if you have a DROS record from the early 1900s, does that tell you who has the gun today?
A. No, those people are probably long passed away.
Q. If you have a DROS record at any time, does it tell you that that same person has the gun today?
A. No, not necessarily.
..
Q. All right. So for public safety reasons, it's possible for other agencies to access your AFS system to determine if somebody at least in your system, on your records is shown to have purchased a firearm and had not transferred it.
A. AFS, again, it's a leads database. So it doesn't mean just because it says that, there's a firearm in that house. It doesn't mean there's an actual firearm in the house. We don't have a registration process in California. It's a lead, so it's possible. It alerts the officer to be a little bit more cautious potentially, because potentially, there could be a firearm there.
Q. You said that earlier in your testimony, too. You're saying that California doesn't have a registration system.
A. Right.
Q. But, in fact, since 1991, at least for handguns, the State of California has kept records for every transaction; correct?
A. There are transaction records, yes. But when people die, or when they leave the State, when they sell the firearm out of state, there is no requirement for them to notice the department that they're no longer in possession. That firearm can leave the state, can come back into the state in various ways. So there is no real registration. If there is real registration, you'd have to reregister your gun every so many years and say you're still in possession of that gun, or let us know when you're no longer in possession of that firearm. We don't have that. So we're not really tracking it. All we know is what we believe was the last possessor of that firearm. That's what's in AFS. It's a leads database. It's not an absolute database.

OK, if the person who is an expert on the AFS says it's not "registration" then, how come the penal code differentiates between handguns "registered" to you and handguns not "registered" to you? I think his testimony could be used to help or hurt just about every gun owner depending on how it is being used. If it is not "registration" and certain entities require guns to be registered prior to allowing them to be placed on a CCW, does that make all CCWs issued by them invalid? Could his testimony be used to prove this portion of the PC is invalid?

PC 25400 (a)(6)(B)

(B) The person is not listed with the Department of Justice
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106 as the
registered owner of that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.