VolReg of Off Roster Pistols/Firearms

[daniel.ratner]

Want to make sure I am comparing apple and apples here...

If someone chooses to volreg their Off Roster pistols and other CA compliant firearms, is this similar to the new resident form? If someone moved to CA and had off roster firearms, I thought I understood they had 60 days to register them, but from what I had seen, this timeframe was loosely controlled.

How is this ever verified by DOJ? Do they research old 4473's from out of state?

I want to make sure that I am not giving bad advice to a new resident.

[SkyHawk]

CA PC 27560(a) says a new resident has 60 days

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27560.&lawCode=PEN

But look what PC27570(a) and (b) says:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27570.&lawCode=PEN

27570.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that a violation of Section 27560 or 27565 shall not constitute a “continuing offense” and the statute of limitations for commencing a prosecution for a violation of Section 27560 or 27565 commences on the date that the applicable grace period specified in Section 27560 or 27565 expires.

(b) Sections 27560 and 27565 shall not apply to a person who reports ownership of a handgun after the applicable grace period specified in Section 27560 or 27565 expires if evidence of that violation arises only as the result of the person submitting the report described in Section 27560 or 27565.

What that says is - if you tell on yourself by filing late, it is not a violation of PC27560 as long as DOJ does not find out some other way that you filed late, before you tell them yourself.

It also says the statute of limitations starts 60 days after a new resident moved in, and not when DOJ finds out about a scofflaw registrant.

It seems that they really don't want to use this law against new citizens who are merely tardy and otherwise not up to nefarious activity.

I would suggest that a new resident who is late, still use the new resident form and not volreg.

I would expect this gets handled with no drama, DOJ is just happy to have as many guns registered and in the system as they can.

As always, the usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer applies

[daniel.ratner]

Thanks! I figured they were just happy to know what is in the state...

On another note, if he chooses to sell via PPT, do they need to be registered first?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Librarian]

Thanks! I figured they were just happy to know what is in the state...

On another note, if he chooses to sell via PPT, do they need to be registered first?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

No.

'Registration' is not a required attribute of a firearm. It's a by-product of a report to CA - sale (DROS), transfer (intrafamilial and other, OPLAW form), new resident report.

[daniel.ratner]

No.



'Registration' is not a required attribute of a firearm. It's a by-product of a report to CA - sale (DROS), transfer (intrafamilial and other, OPLAW form), new resident report.

Got it thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SkyHawk]

Thanks! I figured they were just happy to know what is in the state...

On another note, if he chooses to sell via PPT, do they need to be registered first?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They do not need to be registered to sell via PPT. PC27560(a)(2) says they can be sold rather than being registered.