-
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.Originally posted by bwiese -
It's going to be just about impossible for a LEO to arrest the subject in the circumstances described by the OP. You're correct that there may be an illegal transfer, if the transfer took place after the use of an FFL was required (I don't have easy access to that effective date). However, if the weapon is a long gun, the violation is only a misdemeanor (refer to Penal Code sections 27545 and 27590). The violation (the transfer of the weapon) would have to occur in the officers presence for him to make a custodial arrest. If the officer attempted to charge the subject by complaint, which is possible, he would first have to secure a filing from the District Attorney. That's not going to happen without some evidence in addition to the "confession" of the subject.
Given all of the factors involved in this one, the OP is on pretty solid ground going to his LE agency.If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.Comment
-
Not sure how that is supposed to have worked; long gun data was not collected until the beginning of 2014, so except for 'registered assault weapons' and the odd one registered voluntarily, any query on a long gun should return 'not in the data base'.
Transfers this year and after will appear.ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page
Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!Comment
-
Sir,What's off topic about my posts?
Once again, is it worth the risk?
You're quoting the wrong Penal Code section. Section 26500 has no applicability to the OP's situation where he was the buyer of the weapon. If he did violate any law in his purchase of the weapon (and then would depend on when the transaction occurred), it would have been Section 27545. That violation, involving a long gun, is a misdemeanor (as discussed in my previous post) and would be a very difficult for a prosecutor to prove given the circumstances of the OP's posting.If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.Comment
-
"Sir" is simply a salutation and a term of politeness, I don't know your name and "aacx22" sounds kinda awkward. No offense intended.
As to your point about the Penal Code sections. The actions listed in section 26500 all apply to the person who provides the firearm. I agree that "transfer" could go both ways, but the context of the section applies it to the seller (The complimentary term would be "receives" for the buyer). It would be the appropriate section to charge the seller of the firearm. Having said that, Penal Code section 31 defines the principles (folks who can also be charged with the crime even if they didn't directly do the crime) to an offense. You could very well make the argument that the buyer also violated section 26500 on the theory that without him buying the firearm, the seller would not have sold the firearm, originally violating section 26500. IMHO, that's kinda far-fetched. But I should point out, this is exactly the logic used by the DOJ when they claim that it is illegal to purchase a large-capacity magazine (refer to the FAQs on the DOJ website).
A common principle of the penal law is that when one section specifically addresses the charged conduct, and another addresses the conduct in a maybe, sorta, kinda, "we gotta really twist this one" way, preference is given to the specific section. In this case that specific section is 27545. His is the pertinent text:
Penal Code section 27545:With regard to the caution point, I agree that caution is a good thing, but it's also important to keep a check on paranoia. I've never seen a LEO even attempt an enforcement action against a person who seeking assistance in complying with the law.
Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer’s license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).Last edited by RickD427; 03-02-2014, 11:46 PM.If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.Comment
-
Was it made clear that this happened in California?
"I said good day!"Huh?
sigpicComment
-
How about just calling the local PD and let them know he may be buying this shotgun through ppt but first would Like to know that it's all good to go and have them run the serial number over the phone? (payphone if he's paranoid) I had a cop buddy of mine that I grew up with tell me he's heard
of a few calls like this before... Even ppl running vin #'s of vehicles they were planning of purchasing
Sent from my LG-MS910 using Tapatalk 2Comment
-
Just ask an LEO friend to run the number..If the gun is hot have a boating accident.Fish molester also pick shroomsComment
-
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated.
DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292
sigpicComment
-
This is not only wrong, but morally bankrupt. I am certainly glad we are not neighbors. How about trying to get it back to the rightful owner? I know if I had a gun stolen, I would appreciate getting it back. What happened to being honest and helping out a fellow gun owner?
Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching.
Given that the OP's "friend" did nothing wrong, why should he not be forthright in dealing with this issue?
As was stated above long gun registration just started in California 1-1-14.Last edited by 003; 03-03-2014, 6:47 PM.Comment
Tweet
There are currently 27664 users online. 102 members and 27562 guests.
Most users ever online was 239,041 at 10:39 PM on 02-14-2026.
Comment