New FPC case on out of state handgun purchases: Elite Precision Customs v. ATF

[CCWFacts]

Press release

Complaint

Filed the day President Trump took office!

This would render the California roster not very meaningful, as we could just buy whatever is available when we are out of state. The roster lawsuit could still continue, because the roster would remain a burden, but those of us who are motivated to get a new Gen 5 Glock with the new Aimpoint would be able to get that out of state (if we can find it in stock somewhere).

My non-lawyer take on this is that Trump has already issued an EO to direct the DoJ to protect the 2A and one thing they could do to achieve that is to settle this case quickly by giving in to the demands. The EO directs the Attorney General to review:

(v) The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

[NewbieDoo]

Thinking through this (also as a non-lawyer), how is it that it took so long for this lawsuit to be filed? It would seem that as soon a Bruen came down (or even before), someone would have brought a claim that the federal requirement for firearm purchases to go through an FFL in one's state of residence would constitute an infringement on a constitutional right. Even disregarding off-rosters, if I find a Gen3 G19 on clearance in Phoenix for $150, there's no reason I should have to get it shipped to an FFL here that will charge me another $150-$200 for a transfer fee and DROS. The background check is based on a federal database, unless I'm mistaken.

Presumably, this would have no impact on possessing firearms deemed illegal by a state (e.g., semi-autos with a threaded barrel installed in CA). Obviously, it would make off-roster pistols obtainable by non-leos, but seeing as how the roster restricts what FFLs can sell and not what residents can possess, the roster can remain intact. It's so obvious once you see it.

[CCWFacts]

And an update on this: the government has asked for a time extension, specifically so they can decide on what they want to do given Trump's executive order for protection of the 2a:

3. Following a change in administration, on February 7, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled Protecting Second Amendment Rights. See President Donald J. Trump, Presidential Actions: Protecting Second Amendment Rights (Feb. 7, 2025),
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...endment-rights . Among other things, the Order directs the Attorney General to review “[t]he positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.” Id. § 2(b)(v)
4. In light of that development, Defendants respectfully move to extend their deadline to respond to the Complaint by 30 days to provide additional time for the Attorney General to review the position to be taken by the United States in this litigation.

This seems like a positive development!

[CCWFacts]

Looks like the government is not planning to settle this.

[BAJ475]

Thinking through this (also as a non-lawyer), how is it that it took so long for this lawsuit to be filed? It would seem that as soon a Bruen came down (or even before), someone would have brought a claim that the federal requirement for firearm purchases to go through an FFL in one's state of residence would constitute an infringement on a constitutional right. Even disregarding off-rosters, if I find a Gen3 G19 on clearance in Phoenix for $150, there's no reason I should have to get it shipped to an FFL here that will charge me another $150-$200 for a transfer fee and DROS. The background check is based on a federal database, unless I'm mistaken.

First, this case has nothing to do with CA directly. For me, I could purchase a non NFA firearm out of state and have it shipped to my local FFL (North Idaho Arms in Post Falls, ID) and BZ would charge me $10 to do the transfer. When I was in CA, I had a local FFL who charged even less (zero), although I tipped him $25, because I wanted him to be successful and stay in business. You need to find an FFL who wants your business and will not rip you off.

Presumably, this would have no impact on possessing firearms deemed illegal by a state (e.g., semi-autos with a threaded barrel installed in CA). Obviously, it would make off-roster pistols obtainable by non-leos, but seeing as how the roster restricts what FFLs can sell and not what residents can possess, the roster can remain intact. It's so obvious once you see it.

Do you understand that not all semi-autos with threaded barrels are illegal in CA. Think of a featureless AR with a 16 inch barrel and a muzzle break.

[NewbieDoo]

First, this case has nothing to do with CA directly. For me, I could purchase a non NFA firearm out of state and have it shipped to my local FFL (North Idaho Arms in Post Falls, ID) and BZ would charge me $10 to do the transfer. When I was in CA, I had a local FFL who charged even less (zero), although I tipped him $25, because I wanted him to be successful and stay in business. You need to find an FFL who wants your business and will not rip you off.

This is my point. I should not have to have it shipped to a CA FFL to begin with. If I'm in Utah on a ski trip and I find a Gen3 Glock 19 on clearance, I should be able to buy it then and there (as long as I pass the background check from that FFL), and walk out of the store with it. It should be the same as a car, a bottle of bourbon, or anything else. It shouldn't need to be shipped from the Utah FFL to a CA FFL to be released to me at a later date.

[BAJ475]

This is my point. I should not have to have it shipped to a CA FFL to begin with. If I'm in Utah on a ski trip and I find a Gen3 Glock 19 on clearance, I should be able to buy it then and there (as long as I pass the background check from that FFL), and walk out of the store with it. It should be the same as a car, a bottle of bourbon, or anything else. It shouldn't need to be shipped from the Utah FFL to a CA FFL to be released to me at a later date.

While I do not disagree that you should be able to purchase a handgun in Utah while on a ski trip, changing or overturning federal law would not change the fact that, under CA law, you could not bring that handgun back to CA without having it shipped to a CA FFL. Furthermore, there is no way a Utah FFL could process a CA DROS. So your problem is not federal but CA law and the only way to escape that dilemma, is to become a resident of a free state.

[NewbieDoo]

While I do not disagree that you should be able to purchase a handgun in Utah while on a ski trip, changing or overturning federal law would not change the fact that, under CA law, you could not bring that handgun back to CA without having it shipped to a CA FFL. Furthermore, there is no way a Utah FFL could process a CA DROS. So your problem is not federal but CA law and the only way to escape that dilemma, is to become a resident of a free state.

IANAL, but to both of those points: (1) as I understand it, one can bring handguns into CA as a "personal firearm importer" as long one submits a New Firearm Ownership Report (or Firearm Ownership Report, I'm not sure) within 60 days of import ... however, the requirement is largely moot for current residents because of the Federal ban on selling to out of state-residents; and (2) The requirement to DROS is a CA FFL requirement to legally transfer ownership to a CA resident, not a requirement of residents.

Presumably, by eliminating the Federal Ban, purchases can be legally made out of state and returned to CA fully above board. Again this is my non-expert understanding of the current state of play.

[CCWFacts]

Presumably, by eliminating the Federal Ban, purchases can be legally made out of state and returned to CA fully above board. Again this is my non-expert understanding of the current state of play.

That's my understanding as well, although IANALOAFFL and I'm sure the state would try to find some way to prevent that. It would create a significant new and not very difficult path to get off-roster guns here, while still leaving the roster intact so the roster lawsuit could keep moving. Of course guns would still need to comply with state laws on possession - no threaded barrels etc. I think it could also allow a bypass of one gun per 30 days rule.

[BAJ475]

IANAL, but to both of those points: (1) as I understand it, one can bring handguns into CA as a "personal firearm importer" as long one submits a New Firearm Ownership Report (or Firearm Ownership Report, I'm not sure) within 60 days of import ... however, the requirement is largely moot for current residents because of the Federal ban on selling to out of state-residents; and (2) The requirement to DROS is a CA FFL requirement to legally transfer ownership to a CA resident, not a requirement of residents.

Presumably, by eliminating the Federal Ban, purchases can be legally made out of state and returned to CA fully above board. Again this is my non-expert understanding of the current state of play.

Let me respond to you and CCWFacts. NO. My understanding is as follows. The requirement to register within 60 days applies to non-residents moving into CA with the intent to be domiciled in CA. If there is no intent to be domiciled in CA, they are merely visitors, who do not have to register their firearms. The requirement to register within 60 days does not apply to Californians that may have been allowed to purchase firearms in another state, due to the way the feds define residence, which is not the same as CA. For federal Gun Control Act purposes, a person is a resident of a state in which he or she is present with the intention of making a home in that state. Mere presence is not enough, except for certain military personnel who reside in one state with a duty station in an adjoining state. They are considered residents of both states. There is no federal requirement that you be domiciled in that state. Say you own two homes, one in CA and one in ID, and you spend 6 months in ID and then 6 months in CA. While residing in ID you could purchase firearms in ID because under federal law you are residing in ID and ID does not have any gun laws preventing you from buying guns is ID. Instead of using the federal definition of a resident, CA use the concept of domicile, which is where you intend to reside indefinitely and, where, whenever you are absent, you intend to return to. Thus, under CA law, if you are registered to vote in CA or have a CA homeowners exemption on your CA home, the State of CA deems you to be a person who is domiciled in CA and subject to its jurisdiction, even while you are residing in ID. What is potentially confusing is that you can have multiple residences but only one domicile. So, if you are domiciled in CA and you purchased firearms in ID while residing there based on the federal definition of residency, to bring those firearms into CA, they would have to be sent to a CA FFL for delivery to you, which is CA not federal law. So, it is your intent to return to and reside in CA that precludes your scheme.

[abinsinia]

Let me respond to you and CCWFacts. NO. My understanding is as follows. The requirement to register within 60 days applies to non-residents moving into CA with the intent to be domiciled in CA. If there is no intent to be domiciled in CA, they are merely visitors, who do not have to register their firearms. The requirement to register within 60 days does not apply to Californians that may have been allowed to purchase firearms in another state, due to the way the feds define residence, which is not the same as CA. For federal Gun Control Act purposes, a person is a resident of a state in which he or she is present with the intention of making a home in that state. Mere presence is not enough, except for certain military personnel who reside in one state with a duty station in an adjoining state. They are considered residents of both states. There is no federal requirement that you be domiciled in that state. Say you own two homes, one in CA and one in ID, and you spend 6 months in ID and then 6 months in CA. While residing in ID you could purchase firearms in ID because under federal law you are residing in ID and ID does not have any gun laws preventing you from buying guns is ID. Instead of using the federal definition of a resident, CA use the concept of domicile, which is where you intend to reside indefinitely and, where, whenever you are absent, you intend to return to. Thus, under CA law, if you are registered to vote in CA or have a CA homeowners exemption on your CA home, the State of CA deems you to be a person who is domiciled in CA and subject to its jurisdiction, even while you are residing in ID. What is potentially confusing is that you can have multiple residences but only one domicile. So, if you are domiciled in CA and you purchased firearms in ID while residing there based on the federal definition of residency, to bring those firearms into CA, they would have to be sent to a CA FFL for delivery to you, which is CA not federal law. So, it is your intent to return to and reside in CA that precludes your scheme.

It was recently discovered that the FBI was providing California with out of state gun purchase records for people who CA claimed were residents of California. So it's a good bet California knows if you purchase firearms out of state. I suspect Trump ended this, but it's likely California will find some other way.

[NewbieDoo]

Let me respond to you and CCWFacts. NO. My understanding is as follows. The requirement to register within 60 days applies to non-residents moving into CA with the intent to be domiciled in CA.

I was not aware the requirement only applied to non-residents moving to CA. It was my impression the registration requirement applies to residents and non-residents alike, but since Federal law prohibits out-of-state purchases, the net effect is that only non-residents can legally make use of the provision (as residents would, in-effect, be conceding that they purchased firearms out of state). If what you're saying is accurate...that even legal out of state purchases of CA compliant handguns cannot legally be brought into CA by CA residents under CA law...then this federal case is moot for CA residents.

[BAJ475]

It was recently discovered that the FBI was providing California with out-of-state gun purchase records for people who CA claimed were residents of California. So it's a good bet California knows if you purchase firearms out of state. I suspect Trump ended this, but it's likely California will find some other way.

As I stated above, there are situations where a person domiciled in California could lawfully purchase firearms in another state, i.e., under federal law they are a resident of that other state. For example, a member of the military domiciled in California with a duty station in another state or a person with two residences. Whether California knows is irrelevant, so long as the person does not try to import the firearm into California.

[abinsinia]

As I stated above, there are situations where a person domiciled in California could lawfully purchase firearms in another state, i.e., under federal law they are a resident of that other state. For example, a member of the military domiciled in California with a duty station in another state or a person with two residences. Whether California knows is irrelevant, so long as the person does not try to import the firearm into California.

I'm not disputing if it's legal. I'm just making the point that the FBI is providing purchase documents to California. If you think it not relevant, that's fine, but other people may want to know that.

[BAJ475]

I'm not disputing if it's legal. I'm just making the point that the FBI is providing purchase documents to California. If you think it not relevant, that's fine, but other people may want to know that.

My intent was not to start a debate, but only to help clarify where the lines are. And yes, people should know what the FBI was doing.