Un-registering (selling out of state)

[quadmx301]

Scenario: Person travels out of state to stay with relatives/friends for a few months. They bring a few of their guns they bought during the past year. While there, financial hardship strikes, and they have to sell them.

Question 1: Can they legally sell them Face-to-face?

Question 2: If so, how would that person go about "un-registering" the guns to them?




Disclaimer: this is purely academic, it's not me

[munkeeboi]

If the person is a resident of another state then the person he is selling to, then NO. Interstate MUST go through a FFL (unless C&R)

If the person is from CA, and he makes the sale, it needs to be at a FFL anyways no matter where he is in the country. Seller can fill out a No longer in possession form for CA to sooth his mind.

[johnthomas]

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/BOF4546NLIP0209.pdf?

[Librarian]

Scenario: Person travels out of state to stay with relatives/friends for a few months. They bring a few of their guns they bought during the past year. While there, financial hardship strikes, and they have to sell them.

Question 1: Can they legally sell them Face-to-face?

Question 2: If so, how would that person go about "un-registering" the guns to them?

Already correctly answered but as to (2), why bother?

[M1NM]

Question 2: If so, how would that person go about "un-registering" the guns to them?

Already correctly answered but as to (2), why bother?

The form doesn't un-register the gun it still is in the database as yours only marked as no longer in possesion.

[Quiet]

Scenario: Person travels out of state to stay with relatives/friends for a few months. They bring a few of their guns they bought during the past year. While there, financial hardship strikes, and they have to sell them.

Question 1: Can they legally sell them Face-to-face?

If the person is a resident of another state then the person he is selling to, then NO. Interstate MUST go through a FFL (unless C&R)

Adding on to what munkeeboi posted...
This is to comply with Federal laws. [18 USC 922 (a)(3)&(5)]
Failure to utilize a FFL, equates to a Federal felony for both parties (seller & buyer).

[dwtt]

.
Question 1: Can they legally sell them Face-to-face?

Question 2: If so, how would that person go about "un-registering" the guns to them?

The questions have already been answered, but why do you and others still believe there is some benefit to "unregistering" a gun sold outside of CA? There's no benefit, and you will only cause a burden for the buyer when you tell him his name, address, and other personal information will be given to CA DOJ because he's buying a gun previously owned in CA. If it was me, I wouldn't want to buy your gun, and instead buy from someone else.

[Chewy65]

The questions have already been answered, but why do you and others still believe there is some benefit to "unregistering" a gun sold outside of CA? There's no benefit, and you will only cause a burden for the buyer when you tell him his name, address, and other personal information will be given to CA DOJ because he's buying a gun previously owned in CA. If it was me, I wouldn't want to buy your gun, and instead buy from someone else.

You notify the DOJ in case the gun is used in a crime and John Law comes knocking. The benefit is, that should this happen your assertion that you sold the gun is much more credible, than if you make the claim after the 7/11 clerk was shot with it during a robbery.

[I Swan]

You can also just save any FFL paperwork and info from a legal out of state sale. I've done a dew I did not self report. Also the types of guns I did sell like a 91 Mosin or a bolt action shotgun aren't exactly weapons likely to be used in a crime.

[I Swan]

The questions have already been answered, but why do you and others still believe there is some benefit to "unregistering" a gun sold outside of CA? There's no benefit, and you will only cause a burden for the buyer when you tell him his name, address, and other personal information will be given to CA DOJ because he's buying a gun previously owned in CA. If it was me, I wouldn't want to buy your gun, and instead buy from someone else.

This is why I really don't want to sell any guns or C&R guns to CA 03 FFL's once I finalize my move out of state. Out of principle I'm tired of my name being brought up to DOJ or registered.

[dwtt]

You notify the DOJ in case the gun is used in a crime and John Law comes knocking. The benefit is, that should this happen your assertion that you sold the gun is much more credible, than if you make the claim after the 7/11 clerk was shot with it during a robbery.

There's no benefit since the name and address of the person written on the form isn't verified. If the BATFE were called to trace a crime gun and you're in the chain of ownership, you'll be contacted. If the gun was sold, just tell them it was sold, and filing that no longer in possession form with CA DOJ won't improve your credibility, just as not filing the form won't reduce your credibility.

Also, here's an illustration of the CA mentality that doesn't work well in the free states. A CA gun owner who wants to fill out the form to let CA DOJ know who the new owner is in another state now has effectively extended CA's registration scheme to another state. Does anyone think a resident of AZ, NV, TX, or any other state wants their information stored with CA DOJ? It may be difficult for some here to understand, but almost no gun owner in the other states want to be registered with CA DOJ for a gun they own in their home state. They don't want gun registration, and by filling out the DOJ no longer in possession form, you're essentially registering them with CA DOJ. This is one of the reasons why gun owners in the rest of the nation don't like CA.

[Chewy65]

There's no benefit since the name and address of the person written on the form isn't verified. If the BATFE were called to trace a crime gun and you're in the chain of ownership, you'll be contacted. If the gun was sold, just tell them it was sold, and filing that no longer in possession form with CA DOJ won't improve your credibility, just as not filing the form won't reduce your credibility.

Also, here's an illustration of the CA mentality that doesn't work well in the free states. A CA gun owner who wants to fill out the form to let CA DOJ know who the new owner is in another state now has effectively extended CA's registration scheme to another state. Does anyone think a resident of AZ, NV, TX, or any other state wants their information stored with CA DOJ? It may be difficult for some here to understand, but almost no gun owner in the other states want to be registered with CA DOJ for a gun they own in their home state. They don't want gun registration, and by filling out the DOJ no longer in possession form, you're essentially registering them with CA DOJ. This is one of the reasons why gun owners in the rest of the nation don't like CA.

I understand why a buyer wouldn't want to be in a data base, but the question was if there is a benefit. If there is any question that you were involved with the crime, there definitely is a benefit. Its like the guy who reports his car stolen, after the accident. You would more likely be believed had you previously filed a report.

[bandook]

Wrong analogy. Stealing a car is a crime and one expects that to be reported to the police - it least to initiate insurance claims.

[Chewy65]

Wrong analogy. Stealing a car is a crime and one expects that to be reported to the police - it least to initiate insurance claims.

And if the hit and run happens at 2 a.m., at 9:30 a.m. you report that it was stolen sometime after 7:00 p.m. the day before? Tell me you wouldn't be more credible if you reported the theft at 9:00 p.m. that day (5 hours before the accident).

[munkeeboi]

I think the point is that as a CA resident, the only way you can sell it would be through a FFL and thus a notice of transfer (new registration) is established and a Not in possession would be unnecessary.

You will always be linked to that specific firearm, but if the transfer was done legally, it will show that it was transferred to another person(s) if it ever turned up in a crime.

If you were a resident in a state were FTF non-FFL transactions were legal, I can see how that form would be more important.