Transfer RAW after Jan 1 out of state

[Dogster]

If i decide to sell a RAW after Jan 1 out of state is that still possible? However, as I'm reading the lal it will be illegal to post an ad for an RAW with no exemption for out of state. What about if it's on a non-CA based website? Also, would it be legal if the buyer were in AZ or NV to physically take the rifle to an FFL in the other state and transfer it to the buyer? Thanks!

[Librarian]

If i decide to sell a RAW after Jan 1 out of state is that still possible?

1) However, as I'm reading the lal it will be illegal to post an ad for an RAW with no exemption for out of state.

2) What about if it's on a non-CA based website?

3) Also, would it be legal if the buyer were in AZ or NV to physically take the rifle to an FFL in the other state and transfer it to the buyer? Thanks!

Easy part first: (3) is easy and legal.

(1) and (2) both seem out:

30600.

(a) Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for four, six, or eight years.

However, things CA thinks are 'assault weapons' generally are widely available outside CA; the price for which you might sell something common would likely be less than one paid for the gun in CA. That is, guns as investments, for most CA residents, are probably not a good idea.

[UP2MTNS]

Easy part first: (3) is easy and legal.

(1) and (2) both seem out:

But I could read that as, its illegal to put up for sale (make available) in CA, but selling it FROM CA is legal.

Example: If I put an add for my AR10 up on gunbroker.com and specifically state 'Not for sale in CA'....even though I'm shipping from my CA address, shouldn't that satisfy the law?

I could just as easily ship from my parents place in Reno, but what's the difference. I'm not putting it for sale IN CA.

[strongpoint]

But I could read that as, its illegal to put up for sale (make available) in CA, but selling it FROM CA is legal.

Example: If I put an add for my AR10 up on gunbroker.com and specifically state 'Not for sale in CA'....even though I'm shipping from my CA address, shouldn't that satisfy the law?

I could just as easily ship from my parents place in Reno, but what's the difference. I'm not putting it for sale IN CA.

The law doesn't say that. It says:

Any person who, within this state ... keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale ...

Do you see an exemption somewhere for out-of-state sales? If so, please point it out.

[RickD427]

But I could read that as, its illegal to put up for sale (make available) in CA, but selling it FROM CA is legal.

Example: If I put an add for my AR10 up on gunbroker.com and specifically state 'Not for sale in CA'....even though I'm shipping from my CA address, shouldn't that satisfy the law?

I could just as easily ship from my parents place in Reno, but what's the difference. I'm not putting it for sale IN CA.

Strongpoint is right on this.

What you're really trying to do here is to give an alternative reading to the statute to make it say what you want to make it say. The courts are pretty good at slamming folks who do that.

Let's try parsing out the words of the statute with appropriate diagnostic questions:

1) Are you a person within the state of California? If your answer is "yes", move on to question 2. If you're not in California, or if you're a robot or a zombie, then you're good to go.

2) Are you offering the weapon for sale? If your answer is "yes", you've violated the statute. (Please note I left the other two potential avenues of violation out of the question for brevity).

Please also note the absence of any qualifiers on question (2). The element is complete upon the offer. The statute may have better suited the intent of the author if there were a qualifier like "offer to sell the weapon in California", but the statute was not so qualified.

[UP2MTNS]

Strongpoint is right on this.

What you're really trying to do here is to give an alternative reading to the statute to make it say what you want to make it say. The courts are pretty good at slamming folks who do that.

Let's try parsing out the words of the statute with appropriate diagnostic questions:

1) Are you a person within the state of California? If your answer is "yes", move on to question 2. If you're not in California, or if you're a robot or a zombie, then you're good to go.

2) Are you offering the weapon for sale? If your answer is "yes", you've violated the statute. (Please note I left the other two potential avenues of violation out of the question for brevity).

Please also note the absence of any qualifiers on question (2). The element is complete upon the offer. The statute may have better suited the intent of the author if there were a qualifier like "offer to sell the weapon in California", but the statute was not so qualified.

OK, thx I get it. Hell, I have zero plans to sell anything at the moment, but just trying to make sure I understand all my options/laws/etc since it looks like I'm going to have at least one RAW on my hands within the next year.

So even if you were to sell something to a guy in TX using gunbroker.com, you'd still have to 'transport' your RAW out of state (before placing the ad) and ship from NV or AZ. (?)

And then if CA DOJ questions you on the sale (eventually they'll get notified when the Texas FFL transfer goes through, right?), then you'd have the Nevada/AZ 'shipping from' address and bill of sale paper work to prove it?

Or do you have to 'de-register' anyway?

What a pita.

[Librarian]

OK, thx I get it. Hell, I have zero plans to sell anything at the moment, but just trying to make sure I understand all my options/laws/etc since it looks like I'm going to have at least one RAW on my hands within the next year.

1) So even if you were to sell something to a guy in TX using gunbroker.com, you'd still have to 'transport' your RAW out of state (before placing the ad) and ship from NV or AZ. (?)

2) And then if CA DOJ questions you on the sale (eventually they'll get notified when the Texas FFL transfer goes through, right?), then you'd have the Nevada/AZ 'shipping from' address and bill of sale paper work to prove it?

3) Or do you have to 'de-register' anyway?

4) What a pita.

1) It seems to me that's the cleanest, most obvious way to be compliant

2) No. No communication from out of state FFLs to CA gov't, unless CA should initiate a criminal investigation and go through usual channels. You would, however, have the documentation as you say.

3) No. You might find it convenient for your own reasons, but not required by law.

4) Indeed.

[UP2MTNS]

^^thx again.

[strongpoint]

Let's try parsing out the words of the statute with appropriate diagnostic questions:

1) Are you a person within the state of California? If your answer is "yes", move on to question 2. If you're not in California, or if you're a robot or a zombie, then you're good to go.

2) Are you offering the weapon for sale? If your answer is "yes", you've violated the statute. (Please note I left the other two potential avenues of violation out of the question for brevity).

Please also note the absence of any qualifiers on question (2). The element is complete upon the offer. The statute may have better suited the intent of the author if there were a qualifier like "offer to sell the weapon in California", but the statute was not so qualified.

This is a wonderful summary illustrating the fact that laws often create fairly simple step-by-step tests based on a literal interpretation of the words. Being able to parse a statute into a series of such tests and then walk through them is key to being able to understand what laws do and don't regulate. And part of the work required of a practicing attorney (or an interested/invested party -- like, say, a California firearm[s] owner) is keeping up with court decisions that affect how the tests are structured and how the answers are defined.

[BAJ475]

Strongpoint is right on this.

What you're really trying to do here is to give an alternative reading to the statute to make it say what you want to make it say. The courts are pretty good at slamming folks who do that.

Let's try parsing out the words of the statute with appropriate diagnostic questions:

1) Are you a person within the state of California? If your answer is "yes", move on to question 2. If you're not in California, or if you're a robot or a zombie, then you're good to go.

2) Are you offering the weapon for sale? If your answer is "yes", you've violated the statute. (Please note I left the other two potential avenues of violation out of the question for brevity).

Please also note the absence of any qualifiers on question (2). The element is complete upon the offer. The statute may have better suited the intent of the author if there were a qualifier like "offer to sell the weapon in California", but the statute was not so qualified.

I know what the words say but to apply the statues to prohibit California residents who are not in the business of selling firearms, to preclude them from selling or advertising any firearm for sale to a resident of another state would seem to be a clear violation of the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I see a 42 USC 1983 suit coming.

[Blade Gunner]

Easy part first: (3) is easy and legal.

(1) and (2) both seem out:

However, things CA thinks are 'assault weapons' generally are widely available outside CA; the price for which you might sell something common would likely be less than one paid for the gun in CA. That is, guns as investments, for most CA residents, are probably not a good idea.

Hopefully this will constitute a partial taking in litigation, but I'm not holding my breath.

[strongpoint]

I know what the words say but to apply the statues to prohibit California residents who are not in the business of selling firearms, to preclude them from selling or advertising any firearm for sale to a resident of another state would seem to be a clear violation of the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I see a 42 USC 1983 suit coming.

You might very well be right; start drafting the papers. But unless and until a positive outcome is achieved in such a lawsuit, this law (and others with similar phrasing, such as the large-capacity magazine law) says what it says.

[RickD427]

I know what the words say but to apply the statues to prohibit California residents who are not in the business of selling firearms, to preclude them from selling or advertising any firearm for sale to a resident of another state would seem to be a clear violation of the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. I see a 42 USC 1983 suit coming.

There may well be a violation of both the First Amendment as well as the Commerce Clause, but we will not know that until there is a published court decision. As of this moment, the law is facially valid.

Quick legal question - How would propose that a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit be filed against the state? States and State agencies enjoy immunity from 42 USC 1983 lawsuits under the Eleventh Amendment. Please refer to Edelman v Jordan.

[Dogster]

Thanks for the answers and discussion. I was only thinking of the future if I wanted, or for some reason, needed to sell a RAW (like getting in a bind for my kids mega-expensive CA college tuition).Actually it cheaper to ship her out-of-state for college than pay big $$ for CA colleges, which is one of the things high school college counselors are suggesting. Maybe I should send a gun or two with them so they can go the range without being hassled. Of course that may require off-campus storage, depending on the state...

[UP2MTNS]

cheaper to ship her out-of-state for college than pay big $$ for CA colleges,

sounds like its easier to ship your kid out of state, than to ship your RAW out of state