Inherited un-registered revolver

[sirdutch]

I know a lady who recently inherited a revolver from her father's estate. She says her dad told her it was never registered. She wants to keep it but wants to register it so it's legal. I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not. Is there a process or paperwork she can fill out to register the revolver or should just turn it in? I think she out to just turn it in but it was her dad's.

[M1NM]

It is LEGAL just the way it is. There was no requirement that guns be registered until a few years ago. Inheritance laws are different google the transfer process of that vs purchase or gift.
There is a form if she wants to register it - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/a...orms/oplaw.pdf
But who's to say when her dad gave it to her? I'd go for long before the law went into effect.

[Quiet]

The reporting requirement for an intra-familial transfer of a handgun started on 01-01-1993.

The reporting requirement for an intra-familial transfer of a long gun started on 01-01-2014.

[edgerly779]

She does not have to do anything. She can go on cfars and register pay 19 bucks. Only some clueless person would say turn it in.

[LAKA90034]

1. Thank you for seeking advice. Hopefully, you did not interject your opinion prior to finding someone who is informed to help.

2. She can easily register it. The is absolutely no reason to surrender her father's firearm to be destroyed.

[sirdutch]

Okay. All that said, Quiet indicated that it needs to be reported as of 01/01 1993 for handguns.
It's got to be an particular intra- familial form then.

I'm somewhat familiar with the transferring process of a registered pistol from a father to a son when dad was still kicking.

Her biggest concern is that her pop's revolver was "never registered" before, ever.
Perhaps I should advise her to consult with an attorney knowledgeable with California gun law. She's a little paranoid and wants to do things right but she's not exactly well to do, if you know what I mean. Thanks for everyone's advice. Any additional comments will be appreciated as well.

[RickD427]

Okay. All that said, Quiet indicated that it needs to be reported as of 01/01 1993 for handguns.
It's got to be an particular intra- familial form then.

I'm somewhat familiar with the transferring process of a registered pistol from a father to a son when dad was still kicking.

Her biggest concern is that her pop's revolver was "never registered" before, ever.
Perhaps I should advise her to consult with an attorney knowledgeable with California gun law. She's a little paranoid and wants to do things right but she's not exactly well to do, if you know what I mean. Thanks for everyone's advice. Any additional comments will be appreciated as well.

There's really no issue here.

There is no prohibition on the possession of an unregistered firearm that is not an NFA weapon, Assault Weapon, or .50 BMG Rifle.

All she needs to do is to submit an "Operation of Law (DOJ-BOF Form 4544A)" transfer report to DOJ and pay the $19.00 fee.

[Dvrjon]

Add another $25 for the FSC test/card.

[sbo80]

It is LEGAL just the way it is.

Without more details from OP, that may not be true. "It was never registered" could also mean he bought it out of the back of a truck during Covid, or one of his friends gave it to him a few years ago, etc. It is possible that an unregistered firearm is legally so, but also possible it is not. Any conclusion we are making is an assumption without the requisite details.

[Mark49]

Or her father bought it prior to 1991 and noone has a clue to its ownership.

Most of my guns I bought old days CCRs," no records" back in the day", many my dad gave me longgggg ago. My 2 cents is just pay the $19 bucks.

Don't sweat it, Love your dad, you have something to remember him by!

[otteray]

Without more details from OP, that may not be true. "It was never registered" could also mean he bought it out of the back of a truck during Covid, or one of his friends gave it to him a few years ago, etc. It is possible that an unregistered firearm is legally so, but also possible it is not. Any conclusion we are making is an assumption without the requisite details.

In the examples shown, would a statute of limitations protection apply if going the 'Operation of Law' route?
This question popped up on another group, and the 'experts' there seemed to think so.
I am skeptical.

[RickD427]

In the examples shown, would a statute of limitations protection apply if going the 'Operation of Law' route?
This question popped up on another group, and the 'experts' there seemed to think so.
I am skeptical.

There is no application of the statute of limitations to this circumstance.

The criminal statute of limitations only applies to the person having criminal liability for the violation of a statute. If Mr. SirDutch's ladyfriend's father acquired the weapon illegally, the SOL applies only to the father and to other persons who were legal principles in the violation.

The SOL does not apply to the weapon, or to the daughter who inherits the weapon.

There is a technical possibility a LEO could lawfully seize the weapon as being evidence of crime. That is a tactic occasionally used in the investigation of crimes. Because the SOL has the potential to be "Tolled", the authority to seize evidence is not extinguished once the time period of the SOL has run out. But I have never seen that tactic used in the circumstances described here.