Interstate transfer*Off Roster*Sister to Sister

[Tyke8319]

Well I've done my best to research this situation to no real avail:

Sister in Wash. wants to gift an Off Roster handgun to sister in Cal.
My best guess is "no"!

[ElDub1950]

Nope, Intrafamily transfer is verticle grandfather>father>son not horizontal > sibling>sibling or uncle etc.

[edgerly779]

Sol sisters not intramilial nor brothers , cousins, in laws. op never read the pertinent laws.

[kemasa]

Sister in Wash. wants to gift an Off Roster handgun to sister in Cal.
My best guess is "no"!

Unless the sister in CA is exempt, such as a LEO, the answer is no. There is no exemption for siblings, only parent/child/grandchild/grandparent.

[Tyke8319]

I knew it would not be considered an "Intra-Familial" transfer and probably should have acknowledged that to begin with. I just wasn't sure if there was another avenue that could be pursued.

[kemasa]

Well, it could be transferred to a parent as a gift, then transferred to the other child as a gift. As long as no 4473 has to be filled out, they should be ok. The mother would not be the actual transferee/buyer, which presents a problem with the 4473.

[Quiet]

Well, it could be transferred to a parent as a gift, then transferred to the other child as a gift. As long as no 4473 has to be filled out, they should be ok. The mother would not be the actual transferee/buyer, which presents a problem with the 4473.

This type of "structuring" violates CA laws. [PC 27515 & 27520]



Penal Code 27515
No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.
(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

Penal Code 27520
No person, corporation, or dealer shall acquire a firearm for the purpose of selling, loaning, or transferring the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(a) In the case of a dealer, intent to violate Section 27510 or 27540.
(b) In any other case, intent to avoid either of the following:
(1) The provisions of Section 27545.
(2) The requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27545.

[mwjarz]

One of you could move. Not a expert but I hear neither state is better than the other.

[bhf]

I am very interested in this topic and understand it is complicated. I looked up 27540 and 27545 and didn't see anything about "structuring" that would prohibit the following:

The out-of-state sister sends the handgun to a CA FFL who does a DROS with inter-familial exempt transfer to the CA mother. That meets the Federal and CA state requirements. The CA mother then does a CA DOJ BOF 4544A inter-familial transfer to the CA sister. Am I missing something?

[Librarian]

I am very interested in this topic and understand it is complicated. I looked up 27540 and 27545 and didn't see anything about "structuring" that would prohibit the following:

The out-of-state sister sends the handgun to a CA FFL who does a DROS with inter-familial exempt transfer to the CA mother. That meets the Federal and CA state requirements. The CA mother then does a CA DOJ BOF 4544A inter-familial transfer to the CA sister. Am I missing something?

Already posted by Quiet:

Penal Code 27515
No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the firearm, or to anyone who is not the one actually being loaned the firearm, if the person, corporation, or dealer has either of the following:
(a) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

In your scenario, there is no possible way the mother is unaware that the gun would be further transferred.

Also note:

(c) If any of the following circumstances apply, a violation of this article shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170

(h) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), a felony punishable pursuant to this subdivision where the term is not specified in the underlying offense shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.

, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(1) A violation of Section 27515, 27520, or subdivision (b) of Section 27500.

And, of course, since all this takes planning and co-ordination, PC 182 comes into play

182.

(a) If two or more persons conspire:

(1) To commit any crime.

also punishable according to 1170(h)

[bhf]

Thank you I appreciate the dialog. That is getting to the heart of the matter. As I read it, a simple transfer is not the problem. The problem is a transfer to avoid the provisions of 27540 and 27545. If none of those provisions are being avoided (and in this example I don't think they are) where is the problem?

27540.  
A dealer, whether or not acting pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050), shall not deliver a firearm to a person, as follows:
(a) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after notice by the department pursuant to Section 28220, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to the department of any fee required pursuant to Section 28225, whichever is later.
(b) Unless unloaded and securely wrapped or unloaded and in a locked container.
(c) Unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm presents clear evidence of the person’s identity and age to the dealer.
(d) Whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(e) A handgun shall not be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the handgun presents a handgun safety certificate. Commencing January 1, 2015, any firearm, including a handgun, shall not be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm presents a firearm safety certificate to the dealer, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be presented.
(f) A handgun shall not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and that the previous application to purchase involved none of the entities specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.

27545.  
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).]

[kemasa]

I am very interested in this topic and understand it is complicated. I looked up 27540 and 27545 and didn't see anything about "structuring" that would prohibit the following:

The out-of-state sister sends the handgun to a CA FFL who does a DROS with inter-familial exempt transfer to the CA mother. That meets the Federal and CA state requirements. The CA mother then does a CA DOJ BOF 4544A inter-familial transfer to the CA sister. Am I missing something?

One thing that you are missing is Federal law. When the firearm is shipped from out of state and the CA FFL does the transfer, a 4473 has to be filled out. 11a asks if the buyer is the actual buyer/transferee. In this case the mother would not be the actual buyer/transferee as it is really intended for someone else and the mother would not be getting it as a gift for that person (did not pay for it or anything). This means that it would be a false statement on the 4473, which makes it illegal or the transfer could not be done.

[HardwoodRods]

I am very interested in this topic and understand it is complicated. I looked up 27540 and 27545 and didn't see anything about "structuring" that would prohibit the following:

The out-of-state sister sends the handgun to a CA FFL who does a DROS with inter-familial exempt transfer to the CA mother. That meets the Federal and CA state requirements. The CA mother then does a CA DOJ BOF 4544A inter-familial transfer to the CA sister. Am I missing something?

Yes you are, 11a and the meaning of straw purchase

[Librarian]

Thank you I appreciate the dialog. That is getting to the heart of the matter. As I read it, a simple transfer is not the problem. The problem is a transfer to avoid the provisions of 27540 and 27545. If none of those provisions are being avoided (and in this example I don't think they are) where is the problem?

27540.  
A dealer, whether or not acting pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050), shall not deliver a firearm to a person, as follows:
(a) Within 10 days of the application to purchase, or, after notice by the department pursuant to Section 28220, within 10 days of the submission to the department of any correction to the application, or within 10 days of the submission to the department of any fee required pursuant to Section 28225, whichever is later.
(b) Unless unloaded and securely wrapped or unloaded and in a locked container.
(c) Unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm presents clear evidence of the person’s identity and age to the dealer.
(d) Whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(e) A handgun shall not be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the handgun presents a handgun safety certificate. Commencing January 1, 2015, any firearm, including a handgun, shall not be delivered unless the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm presents a firearm safety certificate to the dealer, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be presented.
(f) A handgun shall not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and that the previous application to purchase involved none of the entities specified in subdivision (b) of Section 27535.

27545.  
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).]

Intrafamilial transfer is an exception to the requirement to use an FFL, and happens to be exempt from the Roster.

The chain of transactions
- out of state daughter to CA mother
- CA mother to CA daughter
would be the use of an exception to the law requiring use of an FFL, to effect a sister-to-sister interstate transfer of an off-Roster handgun.

My error - I left off the rest of 27515; see above and add

(b) Knowledge that the firearm is to be subsequently sold, loaned, or transferred to avoid the requirements of any exemption to the provisions of Section 27540 or 27545.

[bhf]

After re-reading the SCOTUS case of Abramski v. US, I have to agree, this is probably probably a bad idea.