PPT from out of state to CA Resident

[JimmyD562]

Hello fellow freedom lovers. I am fairly new to this forum. Does anyone know the proper and legal means of conducting PPT from an out of state resident to CA resident? Is it even legal? I know a friend of a friend who is able to purchase out of state and posses the identification to do so. However this friend of a friend also has a cali ID. If they acquired a gun out of state and are willing to PPT with me, do they have to declare in CA or is it as simple as a PPT from CA resident to CA resident. I fell in love with the SP01 and now I want a TS2.

[Gryff]

A non-California resident may transfer a gun to a California resident through an FFL, but the Safe Handgun Roster applies. If the transfer is between two California residents, then the Roster does not apply.

A person with IDs in two different states (say California and Nevada) who buys a gun in Nevada, and then uses his California ID to conduct a PPT to another Californian is most likely committing some form of federal crime.

[9Cal_OC]

No can do Jimmy D.

If that friend of a friend engages in that, it’s a felony per handgun.

[1911RONIN]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[edgerly779]

Clueless buddy soon to be brig bunny. Must go thru ffl here . No ppt here. Transfer on roster or ca legal firearm . federal law.

[Librarian]

A non-California resident may transfer a gun to a California resident through an FFL, but the Safe Handgun Roster applies. If the transfer is between two California residents, then the Roster does not apply.

A person with IDs in two different states (say California and Nevada) who buys a gun in Nevada, and then uses his California ID to conduct a PPT to another Californian is most likely committing some form of federal crime.

Feds don't care, if they use a CA FFL for the transfer, but CA sticks in its oar (in CA, "PPT" stands for "Private Party Transfer" which allows 2 unlicensed CA residents to transfer using a CA FFL to facilitate)

That's the CA part. If Bob, the NV resident, brings the gun to CA, CA wants the gun transferred to him (in his role as Bob, the CA resident) by him through a CA FFL. PC 27585.

[Quiet]

Hello fellow freedom lovers. I am fairly new to this forum. Does anyone know the proper and legal means of conducting PPT from an out of state resident to CA resident? Is it even legal? I know a friend of a friend who is able to purchase out of state and posses the identification to do so. However this friend of a friend also has a cali ID. If they acquired a gun out of state and are willing to PPT with me, do they have to declare in CA or is it as simple as a PPT from CA resident to CA resident. I fell in love with the SP01 and now I want a TS2.

Short answer:
What you are asking about can not be legally done for non-exempt off-Roster handguns.


Long answer:
For all intents and purposes, for CA a PPT is a face to face private party transfer between CA residents that is facilitated by a CA FFL dealer.
~If one the parties involved is a non-resident of CA, then the transfer is not a PPT and considered a type of dealer transfer.
~If the firearm is shipped, then the transfer is not a PPT and considered a type of dealer transfer.

Therefore...
A firearm transfer between a CA resident and a non-resident of CA is not considered a PPT and considered a type of dealer transfer.
~The firearm needs to be CA legal and, if it is a handgun, then is must be listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale or be exempt from it.


CA laws requires a CA resident to utilize a CA FFL dealer to legally import a firearm they acquire in another State into CA.
Failure to utilize a CA FFL dealer equates to a misdemeanor per long gun and a felony per handgun.
The CA DROS system will not allow a CA resident to import a non-exempt off-Roster handgun into CA, so any handgun they want to import must be listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale or be exempt from it.

Therefore...
If a person resides in another State and resides in CA, that person can legally acquire a firearm in that other State but can not legally bring the firearm to CA unless it is shipped to a CA FFL dealer, who then transfers (DROS/10 day wait/1in30 day wait) it to the CA resident.
~The firearm needs to be CA legal and, if it is a handgun, then is must be listed on the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale or be exempt from it.

[Chewy65]

Cute, but . . .

Everyone assumes that the out of state resident is also a California resident because they possess Califorinia "ID". That is probably a safe bet, but is it for certain?

For that matter, if you go to a CA FFL to transfer to a CA Resident, do you haave to affirm that you are a resident of CA or do you simply present your CA ID?

Think about this hypothetical. Joe moves to TX and abandons all connections to CA, forgetting about Cal ID he got. After moving to TX he gets a TXDL and a few months later buys a handgun that is off roster in CA. A few months later he he brings that gun to CA when he visits his old buddy, Jeff.

Up until that point, has Jo violated any laws of the State of California? Anyway, they go to the range and Jeff takes a shine to Jo's off roster canon and he buys it from Joe. They take it to the range office to do the transfer through the range operator, who is an FFL. About all the FFL has to do with the Joe is to ask him for his California ID.

Under these circumstances, I do not believe Joe is a California resident. If he is not a CA Resident, how does PC 27585 have any bearing on the transaction? Jeff didn't obtain it from out of state. Per the above given facts, Jo did nothing untowards to prevent his old CA ID from being cancelled and fact is he never knew if it should have been invalidated or surrendered.

I vaguely recall some discussion of CalGuns to the effect that the need to present Califronia ID to a FFL isn't required by any law or statute, but is simply the result of the manner in which the DOJ designed the electronic Dros system.

[Quiet]

As long as the person retains a valid CA DL/ID, CA DOJ will continue to consider them a CA resident, regardless of what State they actually reside in.
^Retention of a valid CA DL/ID is "an act that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient". [VC 516(g)(h) and 12505(a)(1)(D)]

PC 27585(a) will apply as soon as that person enters CA with a firearm they acquired in another State.




Vehicle Code 516
“Resident” means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
The following are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration:
(a) Address where registered to vote.
(b) Location of employment or place of business.
(c) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(d) Attendance of dependents at a primary or secondary school.
(e) Filing a homeowner’s property tax exemption.
(f) Renting or leasing a home for use as a residence.
(g) Declaration of residency to obtain a license or any other privilege or benefit not ordinarily extended to a nonresident.
(h) Possession of a California driver’s license.
(i) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

Vehicle 12505
(a)(1) For purposes of this division only and notwithstanding Section 516, residency shall be determined as a person’s state of domicile. “State of domicile” means the state where a person has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal residence and to which he or she has manifested the intention of returning whenever he or she is absent.
Prima facie evidence of residency for driver’s licensing purposes includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(A) Address where registered to vote.
(B) Payment of resident tuition at a public institution of higher education.
(C) Filing a homeowner’s property tax exemption.
(D) Other acts, occurrences, or events that indicate presence in the state is more than temporary or transient.

Penal Code 27585
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that the person purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless the person first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

Penal Code 27590
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), or (e), a violation of this article is a misdemeanor.
(c) If any of the following circumstances apply, a violation of this article shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment:
(7) A violation of Section 27585 involving a handgun.

[Quiet]

The CA DROS system will not process a PPT unless both parties involved have valid CA DL/ID or have valid Mil ID with permanent orders for CA.

The CA DROS system will not allow a non-exempt CA resident to import a non-exempt off-Roster handgun, that they legally acquired in another State, into CA.

The reasons why the CA DROS system is set up in this manner has not been officially explained by CA DOJ.
^I believe they have mentioned it has to do with how they enforce PC 32000(a)(1), but not sure about that.



Penal Code 32000
(a)(1) A person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

[Chewy65]

Quiet. You correctly copied those two Penal Code sections, but aren't you assuming a bit much from possession of a CID? PC 516 provides that (g) and (h) are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration, which is not here in issue. Even if they were relevant, they would only be evidence of residency, but where does anything say they are conclusive on the issue?

I doubt that even the DOJ would accuse a person visiting the state of ellegal importation as a resident, if they had no other continuing contact with it ohter than possession of an old ID and a visit to an old buddy.

I think it was Librarian who said something to the effect that by requiring possession of a CDL/ID to do a DROSS the DOJ effectively enacted backdoor law. Not quite in that language.

As for PC 32000(a)(1), where's the violation?

A person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, (neither party manufactured or caused to be manufactured anything in this state)
imports into the state for sale (it was not imported into the state for sale),
keeps for sale (it was never kept in the state for sale. The out of stater kept it in the state to do some target practice),
offers or exposes for sale (it was never offered or exposed for sale. The buyer liked it so much he approached his visitor and talked him into selling it to him),
gives, or lends an unsafe handgun (it was never given or lent. Check the factual scenario.) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

[jeremiah12]

Quiet. You correctly copied those two Penal Code sections, but aren't you assuming a bit much from possession of a CID? PC 516 provides that (g) and (h) are evidence of residency for purposes of vehicle registration, which is not here in issue. Even if they were relevant, they would only be evidence of residency, but where does anything say they are conclusive on the issue?

I doubt that even the DOJ would accuse a person visiting the state of ellegal importation as a resident, if they had no other continuing contact with it ohter than possession of an old ID and a visit to an old buddy.

I think it was Librarian who said something to the effect that by requiring possession of a CDL/ID to do a DROSS the DOJ effectively enacted backdoor law. Not quite in that language.

As for PC 32000(a)(1), where's the violation?

A person in this state who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, (neither party manufactured or caused to be manufactured anything in this state)
imports into the state for sale (it was not imported into the state for sale),
keeps for sale (it was never kept in the state for sale. The out of stater kept it in the state to do some target practice),
offers or exposes for sale (it was never offered or exposed for sale. The buyer liked it so much he approached his visitor and talked him into selling it to him),
gives, or lends an unsafe handgun (it was never given or lent. Check the factual scenario.) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.

This is confusing, if the friend is not a CA resident, then Federal law comes into play and it becomes an interstate transfer which still requires the involvement of a CA FFL. Since it is off-roster, it cannot be tranferred.

The only transfers that are exempt from the roster are PPTs between two CA residents and Interstate Intrafamilial transfers.

Finally, if someone convinces you to sell it, it is extremely difficult to argue that it was not exposed for sale. The moment the offer was accepted it was exposed for sale.

I drive a 93 4Runner and I am asked a few times a month if I would sell it. The answer is a hard no. I a few months ago someone offered me $10,000 for it. I said I would sell it for $20,000 cash. He said that was too much. I told him that is its value to me. So I do have a price, but one can be found for much cheaper and I know that.

This is a situation where the two parties involved are purposely attempting to get around the roster and CA closed that avenue in 2014 IIRC. So rather than gamble with your freedom and gun rights, it is better to pay the off-roster tax, move to a free state to enjoy buying what ever you want, or be blessed with a direct blood relative that lives in a free state that can gift you that off roster gun that you want.

Personally, I am just saving my money as I am close to retirement and escaping from CA. I will then purchase all the off-roster guns I have been wanting.

[Chewy65]

This is confusing, if the friend is not a CA resident, then Federal law comes into play and it becomes an interstate transfer which still requires the involvement of a CA FFL. Since it is off-roster, it cannot be tranferred. But see your next sentence.

The only transfers that are exempt from the roster are PPTs between two CA residents and Interstate Intrafamilial transfers.

Finally, if someone convinces you to sell it, it is extremely difficult to argue that it was not exposed for sale. The moment the offer was accepted it was exposed for sale. Really? To me that is a stretch, if the eventual transferor never made any effort to sell it and finally caved in to the pleas of a friend to sell it. Consider whether a vague and ambiguous statute is enforceable.

I drive a 93 4Runner and I am asked a few times a month if I would sell it. The answer is a hard no. I a few months ago someone offered me $10,000 for it. I said I would sell it for $20,000 cash. He said that was too much. I told him that is its value to me. So I do have a price, but one can be found for much cheaper and I know that. Not being "priceless'" does not equaate with "exposed for sale". For example, I have some family heirlooms. One is what is known as a trade gun circa 1850's. It stays in the house and virtually no one is even aware of its existent, though an expert who once appraised it tried to buy it. I am not interested in selling it, but if offered several thousand dollars I would part with it. This is what is known as a question of fact, but I believe a jury would be hard pressed to find "beyond a reasonable doubt" that I ever offered it for sale.

This is a situation where the two parties involved are purposely attempting to get around the roster and CA closed that avenue in 2014 IIRC. So rather than gamble with your freedom and gun rights, it is better to pay the off-roster tax, move to a free state to enjoy buying what ever you want, or be blessed with a direct blood relative that lives in a free state that can gift you that off roster gun that you want. I agree it is wise to pay the exhorbitant price to get one via a private party on the open market than to risk being charged, but not with the rest.

Personally, I am just saving my money as I am close to retirement and escaping from CA. I will then purchase all the off-roster guns I have been wanting.

It is all to easy when evaluating a code section to forget that the Constitution bars prosectution under strained constructions of overly vague and ambiguous statutes. True, for several years the courts have been permitting such ambiguities to be cured by deferring to interpretations given by agencies charged with enforcement of such laws. See the Chevron Doctrine, which more and more is being called into question. One argument being that the legislative body, be it Congress or a state Assembly, is charged with making laws and they cannot delegate the duty to an executive agency.

Bear in mind that proof of guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt, which can be a real trick when the statute itself is so vague it is difficult to tell if it applies.

[ap3572001]

This sounds complicated....... I was always under impression that if two people who both have valid Ca ID walk into a gun shop , they can PPT ANY handgun that is legal to own in California. Has anything changed?

[19K]

This sounds complicated....... I was always under impression that if two people who both have valid Ca ID walk into a gun shop , they can PPT ANY handgun that is legal to own in California. Has anything changed?