03FFL and COE

[Bobby Ricigliano]

With all due respect to the erudite analysis of arcane penal code sections, one cold hard fact remains: When a CA FFL03 / COE holder tries to buy a C&R long gun from an out of state dealer (such as via auction) that seller will usually require a CFLC number, which the 03/COE holder won't have. The transaction then hits a block wall and forces a middleman 01 into the equation.

Private sellers, CMP, and a few big name C&R retailers have been able to continue direct sales, but by all means try to buy a Mauser or Mosin from a pawn shop or sporting goods store in another state online with your 03/COE and see how far it gets you.

[familyfarm]

With all due respect to the erudite analysis of arcane penal code sections, one cold hard fact remains: When a CA FFL03 / COE holder tries to buy a C&R long gun from an out of state dealer (such as via auction) that seller will usually require a CFLC number, which the 03/COE holder won't have. The transaction then hits a block wall and forces a middleman 01 into the equation.

Private sellers, CMP, and a few big name C&R retailers have been able to continue direct sales, but by all means try to buy a Mauser or Mosin from a pawn shop or sporting goods store in another state online with your 03/COE and see how far it gets you.

What Bobby says is true sadly but it is not right. We all know that C&R recipients are exempt from the CFLC requirement, so while he is correct that this creates a roadblock for unenlightened sellers, it is not due to a valid legal reason.

The fact that we have two PC sections which conflict with each other creates confusion, but does not mean we are asking them to do something illegal. 27966 still exists and sits within a group of PCs which are NOT limited to in-state transactions or PPTs (see above). I assume that's why the more sophisticated sellers like CMP, Empire, AIM, Classic etc follow the practice - because there is no clear law prohibiting it! Just as ill-informed GB sellers think they need a CFLC number to ship a C&R rifle to a FFL03/COE holder- Its all due to confusion wrought by CA and the DOJ. It suits them. Maybe our brilliant legislators intended to close this down but they did not close down the 27966 exemption. For now, only the smarter sellers understand and the DOJ will certainly not help. It is up to us to assert our increasingly limited rights in CA.

I know that some of the best legally informed Calgunners have given up this ship, but I have yet to see a clear reason why we cannot assert 27966 more confidently as CMP and others do. I have never seen Michel or another attorney definitively give up on this. Has anyone else?

[kemasa]

Actually a number of the other sections of Section 6 do cover interstate transfers and non-private parties so why would 27966 not cover them? The title of Section 6 is NOT "Private Party Transfers (PPT)" but rather " Exceptions to the Requirement of Using a Dealer for a Private Party Firearms Transactions."

The CA PC states what is illegal not what is legal, that is important to realize.

CA PC 27585 states that it illegal, so unless you can find some way to be exempt from that specifically, it is not legal.

This (to someone like me of common intelligence) says it is a list of exceptions to the need to use a dealer to transfer firearms from an out of state private party (Gunbroker seller for instance) and me here in CA. Here are a few of the interstate transactions contemplated under Section 6. I think we can agree that many of these are not at all PPT...

27855: " Section 27545 does not apply to the sale, delivery, loan, or transfer of a firearm made by an authorized law enforcement representative of a city, county, city and county, or state, or of the federal government, to any public or private nonprofit historical society..."

And where does this say anything about it coming from out of state? It also does not apply in this case.

27930: "(d) Subdivision (a) of Section 27585 does not apply to a person who imports a firearm into this state, brings a firearm into this state, or transports a firearm into this state if all of the following requirements are met:..."

It was changed in 2016 and no longer says what you say it does.

Where are you looking up the CA PC?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=27930&lawCode=PEN

Penal Code - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370]
( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

TITLE 4. FIREARMS [23500 - 34370]
( Title 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

DIVISION 6. SALE, LEASE, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS [26500 - 28490]
( Division 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

CHAPTER 4. Crimes Relating to Sale, Lease, or Transfer of Firearms [27500 - 28000]
( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


ARTICLE 6. Exceptions to the Requirement of Using a Dealer for a Private Party Firearms Transaction [27850 - 27966]
( Article 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


27930.

Section 27545 does not apply to deliveries, transfers, or returns of firearms made pursuant to any of the following:

(a) Sections 18000 and 18005.

(b) Division 4 (commencing with Section 18250) of Title 2.

(c) Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 33850) of Division 11.

(d) Sections 34005 and 34010.

(e) Section 29810.
(Amended November 8, 2016, by initiative Proposition 63, Sec. 10.2.)

I will add that I am not entrenched in this position and appreciate all the contributions Kemesa makes to our community. I am NOT trying to turn this into the usual CalGuns mud-wrestle. But I am trying to learn what our laws really say and why there is such variation in practice by seemingly sophisticated sellers like the CMP (which is a private party, not an FFL). As my new favorite quote reads:

"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

By logic and reason, there should be no reason why the firearm should not be able to be shipped directly to a C&R FFL holder. There is really not much of a different between having it shipped vs. picking it up from out of state. Unfortunately, that is not how the government works.

What is legal is not about what you can get away with, what people happen to do or anything other that whether it is legal or not since otherwise I could claim that speeding is legal since I see people doing it all the time and not getting caught.

The simple fact is that in order to claim it is legal, you have to find an exemption to 27585 which applies. There are some exceptions, but not from a non-related out of state seller, at least that I see.

There is one additional exemption that I see, but it has limits and you have to be not subject to 27560 and the firearm has to be imported into this country pursuant to provisions of Section 925(a)(4) of Title 18 of the United States Code. I can not find the exemption to 27560 though.

So what is the exemption to 27585? If you can comply with subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 27920, which the only problem is that you have to not subject to the requirements of 27560, then you have your exemption.

[kemasa]

....
I know that some of the best legally informed Calgunners have given up this ship, but I have yet to see a clear reason why we cannot assert 27966 more confidently as CMP and others do. I have never seen Michel or another attorney definitively give up on this. Has anyone else?

27966?

27966. Commencing January 1, 2014, if all of the following requirements are satisfied, Section 27545 shall not apply to the sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm:

a) The sale, loan, or transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.

So do you think that the sale of a firearm from a dealer would ever be considered infrequent? If not, it ends right there. You might have something with a firearm from a non-FFL, but there is still a problem.

But what you are missing is another law which specifically prevents the firearm from being importing into CA, 27585. Inside of CA it is not an issue.

27545 says:

A C&R FFL is not a dealer's license. So you need to get around this as well.

Again, you have to get around this:

27585. (a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that he or she purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless he or she first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

Did you purchase or otherwise obtain the firearm from outside of CA? If so, this applies. The exemption for collectors is 27565, but that requires that you take actual possession outside of CA, did you do that?

[familyfarm]

Kemasa -

Thanks for the energy you are spending to educate us. I really appreciate it. Yet I will persist one more time today. You are saying that 27966 does not protect us from 27545 and I think it does and so do other dealers, collectors and lawyers. As you say, anything the law does not say is illegal is legal.

I am saying that 27966 has equal weight to 27545 since if we comply with 27966 is exempts us from 27545 according to its text. And yes I do think that my acquisition of such out of state long guns is infrequent. So I think when I buy from the CMP (who is not a FFL) and they ship to my door I am covered by 27966. Lets go through it:

27966.
Commencing January 1, 2014, if all of the following requirements are satisfied, Section 27545 shall not apply to the sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm:
(a) The sale, loan, or transfer is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.
>> Check - I only do this a few times a year (what the CMP does is not an issue - not governed by CA law) and Section 16730 says that for long guns infrequent just means "not regular"

(b) The firearm is not a handgun. - Check

(c) The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or its successor. - Check

(d) The person receiving the firearm has a current certificate of eligibility issued pursuant to Section 26710. - Check

(e) The person receiving the firearm is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued thereto. - Check

(f) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm, the person to whom it is transferred shall forward by prepaid mail, or deliver in person to the Department of Justice, a report that includes information concerning the individual taking possession of the firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of the firearm in question. The report forms that individuals complete pursuant to this section shall be provided to them by the department. - Check (and also makes us compliant with 27560 below)

Checking these boxes wipes out 27545. Thats what CMP and the others cite in their policies. If you are saying that a seller cannot check the "infrequent" box I suggest it doesn't matter since the CA regs are governing only the CA portion of the transaction. State law and fed law do not limit the CMP from selling to based on "frequency"

Now lets move on with how we are complying with 27585. I suggest we are doing so as "personal importers" through 27560 which says :
27560.
(a) Within 60 days of bringing a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm, into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following:

(1) Forward by prepaid mail or deliver in person to the Department of Justice, a report prescribed by the department including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question.

(2) Sell or transfer the firearm in accordance with the provisions of Section 27545 or in accordance with the provisions of an exemption from Section 27545.

Could you please explain why I am not complying with 27560 by filling out BOF 4100 or 961 correctly? Alternately, as above, we are exempted from 27545 through 27966 as above, so it seems like we could use either 1 or 2 above to comply with 27560 and thus be exempted from 27585.

Not trying to be difficult. I just think we have confusing and potentially conflicting sections of code and I can see that CMP and others have consulted attorneys and decided this is legal. I am trying to understand their position. What I se is enough conflict/confusion to say that this practice is not at all clearly prohibited in CA. DOJ continues to approve these "imports" for us as well.

[kemasa]

Did you happen to read the definition of what a personal importer is? When did you move here? That is part of the definition of a personal firearm importer. Do you know what CA PC defines what a personal firearm importer is? Do you know what is meant by the term?

As for the rest, you assume the infrequent only applies to you, the buyer. But it really does not matter as the relevant CA PC is 27585 which you have to get past.

27560, why did you not include the first part? Did you bring in the firearm? No, you are having someone else bring it in.

Hint: a personal firearms importer is a person who is moving into CA. If you did not move to CA on or after 01-Jan-2014, it does not apply, it is in the definition in the section in the CA PC.

Again, you need to provide a VALID exemption to 27585. You have not done so yet.

This is what I find funny. People pick and choose what they want and ignore other things, including the definition of what they are trying to use.

[kemasa]

Silence.

BTW, the personal firearms importer is CA PC 17000.

:

(1) The individual is not a person licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4.

(2) The individual is not a licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(3) The individual is not a licensed importer of firearms pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(4) The individual is the owner of a firearm.

(5) The individual acquired that firearm outside of California.

(6) The individual moved into this state on or after January 1, 1998, in the case of a handgun, or in the case of a firearm that is not a handgun, on or after January 1, 2014, as a resident of this state.

(7) The individual intends to possess that handgun within this state on or after January 1, 1998, or in the case of a firearm that is not a handgun, he or she intends to possess that firearm within this state on or after January 1, 2014.

(8) The firearm was not delivered to the individual by a person licensed pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4, who delivered that firearm following the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4.

(9) The individual, while a resident of this state, had not previously reported ownership of that firearm to the Department of Justice in a manner prescribed by the department that included information concerning the individual and a description of the firearm.

(10) The firearm is not a firearm that is prohibited by any provision listed in Section 16590.

(11) The firearm is not an assault weapon.

(12) The firearm is not a machinegun.

(13) The person is 18 years of age or older.

(14) The firearm is not a .50 BMG rifle.

(15) The firearm is not a destructive device.

(b) For purposes of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a):

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), residency shall be determined in the same manner as is the case for establishing residency pursuant to Section 12505 of the Vehicle Code.

(2) In the case of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, residency shall be deemed to be established when the individual was discharged from active service in this state.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 745, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 2012.)

If it was not transferred, you really don't own it.

[wilson_wwsc]

I've also been out of the C&R game for a while and am waiting for my COE renewal to get back to me. Can I get a couple things cleared up?

As an 03FFL and COE holder, I'm allowed to purchase C&R long guns without DROS. Am I able to sell C&R long guns to private parties who don't have an 03FFL without DROS?

[kemasa]

C&R firearms shipped into CA has to go through a dealer.

I believe there are cases that you can personally buy a C&R long gun from a resident in CA. I don't think you can sell it to a person who does not have a C&R FFL without going through a dealer. I don't follow all of that since it does not apply to me.

You can buy any C&R firearm (excluding so-called a-salt weapons) when you are out of state and then fill out the form when you come back to CA.

[Junkie]

I'm pretty sure that sales to non-exempt parties have to go through an 01 or 07, no more cash and carry to normal people (only to other 03/COE).

kemasa, I also thought that C&R long guns to 03/COE could be done cash and carry, and that C&R long guns could be shipped directly to the door of an 03/COE.

[kemasa]

kemasa, I also thought that C&R long guns to 03/COE could be done cash and carry, and that C&R long guns could be shipped directly to the door of an 03/COE.

I think the cash and carry can be done within CA for C&R long guns when the buyer has a C&R FFL, but I don't follow that since it does not affect me, so I can't say for sure that is the case.

There are those who claim that C&R long guns can be shipped directly to a C&R FFL, BUT they seem to ignore the law which says that it can't be done, CA PC 27585, which the exemption for C&R FFL holders would be 27565, but that requires that they take actual possession out of CA. Some claim that they are a personal firearm importer (CA PC 17000), but ignore the requirements for that (moving to CA and where they acquire the firearm). They claim exemptions to other laws, but that is meaningless since you have to follow all the laws and even if you are exempt from one law, that does not mean that you are exempt from all laws.