Replacement Warranty Firearm

[gunRfun]

Greetings Calguns,

What happens if your replacement warranty firearm is accidentally sent to you? What should be the next step? Go straight to the FFL with it and run DROS?

Regards,

[Tovarish]

Greetings Calguns,

What happens if your replacement warranty firearm is accidentally sent to you? What should be the next step? Go straight to the FFL with it and run DROS?

Regards,

What law do you think you'd be breaking by doing nothing? Federal law specifically allows replacement to be sent directly to the customer. And most of the state laws are directed at the seller/FFL.

You could submit a voluntary registration to DOJ if you're concerned about having an unregistered firearm. But that's not illegal. Maybe it matters if you're using it for CCW?

[gunRfun]

Awesome thank you for replying. I will look more into it to stay on the safe side.

[Librarian]

What law do you think you'd be breaking by doing nothing?

California law treats a replacement firearm as 'new', and requires transfer through an FFL. That is, 'new serial number' = 'new gun'.

This is a problem when the gun being replaced is not on the Roster.

So, what appears to be the case here is a misdemeanor violation of the CA requirement to use an FFL for transfer by the shipper. (Perfectly legal in Federal law, as you note.)

As with most violations of the law, there is no clear recovery path; legislatures pass laws and expect them to be obeyed, and specify penalties for failing to obey.

OP, I recommend you speak to your lawyer.

[randian]

So, what appears to be the case here is a misdemeanor violation of the CA requirement to use an FFL for transfer by the shipper.

Plus a 10 year gun ban if convicted, right?

[Decoligny]

California law treats a replacement firearm as 'new', and requires transfer through an FFL. That is, 'new serial number' = 'new gun'.

This is a problem when the gun being replaced is not on the Roster.

So, what appears to be the case here is a misdemeanor violation of the CA requirement to use an FFL for transfer by the shipper. (Perfectly legal in Federal law, as you note.)

As with most violations of the law, there is no clear recovery path; legislatures pass laws and expect them to be obeyed, and specify penalties for failing to obey.

OP, I recommend you speak to your lawyer.

Taking into consideration that the OP did not request that the replacement firearm be sent to him, I don't see there being a major problem.

Division 6, Chapter 4, of the Penal Code deals with CRIMES RELATING TO SALE, LEASE, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS.

Everything listed here holds the person, corporation, or firm doing the transfer responsible, so any possible criminal charges would go to the Manufacturer.

I would definitely consult a lawyer, but my IANAL gut feeling on this is that you will probably be advised to fill out and submit a VolReg form.

If the lawyer is being really super careful, they might suggest your sending the firearm back to the Manufacturer with instructions on the proper method of transfering a handgun to a California resident.

[bountyhunter]

Taking into consideration that the OP did not request that the replacement firearm be sent to him, I don't see there being a major problem.

Division 6, Chapter 4, of the Penal Code deals with CRIMES RELATING TO SALE, LEASE, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS.

Everything listed here holds the person, corporation, or firm doing the transfer responsible, so any possible criminal charges would go to the Manufacturer.

I would definitely consult a lawyer, but my IANAL gut feeling on this is that you will probably be advised to fill out and submit a VolReg form.

If the lawyer is being really super careful, they might suggest your sending the firearm back to the Manufacturer with instructions on the proper method of transfering a handgun to a California resident.

+1 The manufacturer legally is held to the highest standard in the transaction. If the owner has his original paperwork, all he has to do is say he sent the gun in for work and it was returned. I don't see how he could be convicted of a crime.... but this is california. I don't see how he could be charged for an illegal transfer since he did not transfer a gun: he owned it when he sent it in and he owned the gun when it came back. If necessary changes were made by the manufacturer based on parts available, that's on them.

[Decoligny]

+1 The manufacturer legally is held to the highest standard in the transaction. If the owner has his original paperwork, all he has to do is say he sent the gun in for work and it was returned. I don't see how he could be convicted of a crime.... but this is california. I don't see how he could be charged for an illegal transfer since he did not transfer a gun: he owned it when he sent it in and he owned the gun when it came back. If necessary changes were made by the manufacturer based on parts available, that's on them.

The issue we have here is that he owned A gun which he sent in for warranty work. They could not fix it, so they sent him a DIFFERENT gun, a new replacement gun with a totally different serial number without going through a CA FFL. So now he has an unregistered firearm in his posession with no DROS having been done.
Only two ways I know of fixing the situation is VolReg form, or send new gun back to manufacturer so they can go through CA FFL and transfer legally.

[Sunday]

Bury that gun and buy another.

[bountyhunter]

The issue we have here is that he owned A gun which he sent in for warranty work. They could not fix it, so they sent him a DIFFERENT gun, a new replacement gun with a totally different serial number without going through a CA FFL.

I understand exactly. My point is, what level of legal knowledge can they reasonably expect the average owner to have, when the gun maker sent the gun to him and the maker has the responsibility of being an expert in firearms. If this is a prosecutable crime, I don't know how they would convict the guy of anything. The only crime he committed was sending his gun for repair at the manufacturer then accepting what they sent back.

As an analogy: what if you took your car to the dealer for repair and they used illegal (non California approved) parts which resulted in it putting out excess emissions. Are you supposed to do a detialed review of what they did, what they used and then do legal research to make sure it complied with kali law?

[meno377]

I understand exactly. My point is, what level of legal knowledge can they reasonably expect the average owner to have, when the gun maker sent the gun to him and the maker has the responsibility of being an expert in firearms. If this is a prosecutable crime, I don't know how they would convict the guy of anything. The only crime he committed was sending his gun for repair at the manufacturer then accepting what they sent back.

As an analogy: what if you took your car to the dealer for repair and they used illegal (non California approved) parts which resulted in it putting out excess emissions. Are you supposed to do a detailed review of what they did, what they used and then do legal research to make sure it complied with kali law?

That analogy doesn't really work. You're talking about parts in a car compared to a whole new firearm. Also as a consumer they can't expect everyone to be a auto mechanic. Apples and Oranges.

[fairfaxjim]

This is California - if you have a firearm you are guilty of SOMETHING! Seriously, there are 2 parties in any transaction, and the receiver in this instance knows the transfer was improper. If you think that a DA would not charge for this if known, how's your luck running? Remember, they LOVE the attention of firearms cases.

One person can't just walk into an FFL and DROS a firearm - doesn't work. You aren't even supposed to have the firearm until the DROS is completed. That's why a PPT requires both parties, with ID's.

This is a transfer of a new firearm from an out of state manufacturer. By CA Law it MUST be DROS'd by a CA FFL. As far as I know the only CA legal way to handle this would be to return the firearm to the manufacturer (legal for individual to do, except that it is not legally in their possession at the moment??) and have them ship it to an FFL for DROS to the customer. Unfortunately, that requires that the customer pay the FFL's out of state transfer fee and DROS fee, on the north side of $100 in most cases.

I had to have Sig replace a rifle under warranty when brand new. I was able to get the selling FFL to receive the replacement at no charge and convinced Sig to throw in some extra magazines to offset the second DROS fee. Otherwise it would have cost me a minimum of $125 to get a warranty replacement for a rifle that had never been fired.

As said above, these jackwad produced CA gun laws have no basis in reality, and when things don't go exactly to the letter, there is really no logical recovery in most cases.

[SnipeShot]

OP, I had something similar happen to me the CA DOJ told me to self register it. Here is the thread I posted a few years back. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=351235