Intrafamily Interstate gift

[EBR Works]

Help me out here please. Which of these is acceptable?

1: Father pays for firearm with out-of-state dealer without taking physical possession, no NICS, no 4473. That dealer then ships the firearm to a CA dealer with a letter provided by dad stating that it is a gift for his son.

2: Father pays for firearm with out-of-state dealer, passes NICS and a 4473 is done. Father then ships the gun himself or has dealer assist in shipping to a CA dealer with a letter stating that it is a gift for his son.

Option 2 always seemed to be what we were doing when we were in CA. One of our guidelines was that the gun always came with a copy of the seller's driver's license and we logged it into our book from him.

I was told yesterday by another dealer that option 1 is acceptable.

What say you?

[Baboosh]

I'm mobile so I don't have all my notes and bookmarks but I do not believe there is anything that says the gift must have been owned prior to gifting.

With that said how about an option 3?

Father calls CA dealer and purchases off roster gun for son and emails letter of gift.

[kemasa]

It has to be something that the parent has, so it needs to be transferred to the parent, then it can be transferred to the son.

Think about it. If the father did not have to take possession, then a father in CA could buy ANY firearm and say that it is a gift to their child. While it is not likely that CA would catch that it was not transferred to the parent, if you know about it, it is not good.

It is an interfamilial transfer, not just a gift from a parent, the firearm has to go from the parent to the child. It can be shipped from a FFL, but it has to come from the parent and that is not the case if the parent just pays for it.

You need to log it in from who ships it to you. If a person buys a firearm from a private party out of state and it is shipped through a FFL, you log it from the FFL, not the person who sold it.

[Bobshouse]

I looked at the DROS options for California and don't see a "interfamilial transfer" section. What would the receiving FFL DROS the firearm under?

[Baboosh]

Exempt Handgun Sale, in notes put 27870PC intrafamily transfer

[Baboosh]

It has to be something that the parent has, so it needs to be transferred to the parent, then it can be transferred to the son.

I understand the logic but I can't find where it says the gift must be owned. Is it one of those things where we are asked to follow the intent of the law or the law?

Think about it. If the father did not have to take possession, then a father in CA could buy ANY firearm and say that it is a gift to their child. While it is not likely that CA would catch that it was not transferred to the parent, if you know about it, it is not good.

No because a dealer cannot sell an off roster pistol to someone in CA that is not exempt. It does not say we cannot DROS an off roster pistol, it says we cannot offer up for sell. However we can sell them to people from out of state. If a father lives in Texas we can sell him whatever he wants.

Effective January 1, 2001, no handgun may be manufactured within California, imported into California for sale, lent, given, kept for sale, or offered/exposed for sale unless that handgun model has passed firing, safety, and drop tests and is certified for sale in California by the Department of Justice

If the Father is an Arizona
It is an interfamilial transfer, not just a gift from a parent, the firearm has to go from the parent to the child. It can be shipped from a FFL, but it has to come from the parent and that is not the case if the parent just pays for it.

Here is Section 27870.
Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a firearm, other than a handgun, by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another, if both of the following requirements are satisfied:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.

Nowhere does it say that it is for personally owned firearms that I can find
____________________

Just sparking conversation here. I am not saying this is legal, that we do it or that it can be done. Just conversing with some of the greater minds on this forum who are pros at this. Is this something Jason Davis should look into? I'd be willing to split the cost with any other FFL that wants his opinion.

[kemasa]

It is not a transfer between members of the same immediate family member if the the firearm was not transferred to said family member. It would be a transfer between the out of state FFL and the other family member.

[EBR Works]

It is not a transfer between members of the same immediate family member if the the firearm was not transferred to said family member. It would be a transfer between the out of state FFL and the other family member.

That's what I thought. Thanks Kemasa!

[kemasa]

I understand the logic but I can't find where it says the gift must be owned. Is it one of those things where we are asked to follow the intent of the law or the law?

You posted the law. It has to be a transferred between immediate family members. How can that be if the firearm was NEVER transferred to the one family member?

No because a dealer cannot sell an off roster pistol to someone in CA that is not exempt. It does not say we cannot DROS an off roster pistol, it says we cannot offer up for sell. However we can sell them to people from out of state. If a father lives in Texas we can sell him whatever he wants.

Not true. A person can pay for an off roster firearm, but what is actually limited is the ability to do the transfer (DROS). If a person in CA wanted to buy a gift of a firearm and have you send it to someone out of state, that is perfectly legal.

Here is Section 27870.
Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a firearm, other than a handgun, by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another, if both of the following requirements are satisfied:
(a) The transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
(b) The transfer is between members of the same immediate family.
(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2014, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2014, deletes or extends that date.

Nowhere does it say that it is for personally owned firearms that I can find

You put it in bold, I put it in red. The transfer has to be between immediate family members. The ONLY way that can happen is if the firearm is transferred to them, so that they can transfer it to the other family member, unless the family member is a FFL, in which case they would have to have it in inventory AND be a sole proprietor.

Just sparking conversation here. I am not saying this is legal, that we do it or that it can be done. Just conversing with some of the greater minds on this forum who are pros at this. Is this something Jason Davis should look into? I'd be willing to split the cost with any other FFL that wants his opinion.

Answer the question of how the transfer can be between family members if the firearm was never transferred to the one family member prior to being transferred to another family member. You can pay to ask the question, but to me it is pretty simple. Paying for the item is not transferring it.

[Bobshouse]

Exempt Handgun Sale, in notes put 27870PC intrafamily transfer

Thanks for the help!

[SkyHawk]

I have received gifts from family out of state using option 1, and will continue to. It has never been a problem. Remember that in many states, a 4473 is not even required to buy firearms in private transactions. With that in mind, I'm not sure how you could argue that the gifter must always first do a 4473.

[kemasa]

I have received gifts from family out of state using option 1, and will continue to.

That does not mean it was legal. I would not admit that on a public site either.

[mexicangunlover]

This is helpful

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transferring_Firearms_Among_Some_Family_Members

[SkyHawk]

That does not mean it was legal. I would not admit that on a public site either.

I'm not worried - you shouldn't be either. The DOJ approved my transactions, which were done in a completely lawful manner.

You seem to be confusing possession with ownership. This has been discussed before in the legal forum. The gifter can be the OWNER of something without ever taking possession. The gifter only had to do a 4473 to take POSSESSION. There is no law that says the gifter must have been transferred the firearm first.

This is no different than a person who pays for a gun IN STATE for someone else, and then the gift receiver does the 4473. Ducks Unlimited doesn't do a 4473 when you win a firearm from them, nor does the NRA etc.

I have used several FFLs and never was this raised as a problem. It wasn't a problem at the sending FFL, and it wasn't a problem at the receiving FFL - and they do it for many people all the time, I'm not special.


Presumably the OP is referring to roster exempt handgun transactions, since he references a letter from dad being included with the firearm. The PC that allows for a roster exempt transfer between family says the SALE, LOAN OR TRANSFER is exempt under certain conditions.

[kemasa]

I'm not worried - you shouldn't be either. The DOJ approved my transactions, which were done in a completely lawful manner.

You seem to be confusing possession with ownership. This has been discussed before in the legal forum. The gifter can be the OWNER of something without ever taking possession. The gifter only had to do a 4473 to take POSSESSION. There is no law that says the gifter must have been transferred the firearm first.

This is no different than a person who pays for a gun IN STATE and then the gift receiver does the 4473. Ducks Unlimited doesn't do a 4473 when you win a firearm from them, nor does the NRA etc.

The transaction was approved because of what it was claimed to be, which is not the case.

The difference is the limits in the law.