Is DROS/FFL required on C&R rifles?

[scld1354]

Let me apologize in advance if this is a stupid question, but...

I started with some relatively inexpensive rifles when I first started buying firearms. I purchased a 1945 M44 and a 1943 Enifeld from Big 5 and they had me do the DROS paperwork and wait the 10 days. Since then, I learned that C&R rifles can basically be "cash and carry".

My question is, since the rifles mentioned above are registered in my name, do I need the new owner to do the DROS paperwork? Is there any way of avoiding the FFL transfer and paying the fees?

Thanks in advance
Jon

[CSACANNONEER]

Yes, if buying from an 01 or 07 FFL, both DROS and 10 day wait are required.

Rifles are NOT registered unless, they are AWs, 50BMGs or YOU filled out a voluntary registration form and mailed it to DOJ along with $19.

[brianm767]

As mentioned above, since you bought your C&R's from a dealer, then yes, they had to go through a DROS, but now that you have them, you can sell them to some one and it is cash and carry, no FFL or registration involved. Even though you DROS them when you bought them, the rifles are not actually registered in your name.

When I've sold C&R long guns face to face, I would get a copy of DL and have the buyer write on it, that he/she is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm, I take their money, give them the gun and say see ya later!

And some one correct me if I'm wrong, if you are selling them to another "California" resident, you can mail them directly to the buyer?

[scld1354]

Yes, if buying from an 01 or 07 FFL, both DROS and 10 day wait are required.

Rifles are NOT registered unless, they are AWs, 50BMGs or YOU filled out a voluntary registration form and mailed it to DOJ along with $19.

Im sorry man, but I dont know what an "01 or 07 FFL" is.

As mentioned above, since you bought your C&R's from a dealer, then yes, they had to go through a DROS, but now that you have them, you can sell them to some one and it is cash and carry, no FFL or registration involved. Even though you DROS them when you bought them, the rifles are not actually registered in your name.

When I've sold C&R long guns face to face, I would get a copy of DL and have the buyer write on it, that he/she is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm, I take their money, give them the gun and say see ya later!

And some one correct me if I'm wrong, if you are selling them to another "California" resident, you can mail them directly to the buyer?

That is good news. So the copy of the lisence and the written statement is more to CYA?

[CSACANNONEER]

Im sorry man, but I dont know what an "01 or 07 FFL" is.



That is good news. So the copy of the lisence and the written statement is more to CYA?

01 and 07 are different types of FFLs. They can buy and sell guns as a bussiness (07s can manufacture guns for sale too). If you were buying a +50 year old long gun from an 03FFL (collector's license), you would not have to DROS or wait 10 days. You would be required to provide the 03 with some info (copy of CDL is normally enough) for his bound book though. If you buy a +50 year old long gun from someone who do not have a FFL, you don't need to do any paperwork at all or, just enough to make both parties comfortable with the transaction.

[Librarian]

The 'number' is a shorthand for the things the particular FFL is allowed to do. I believe the chart in this Wikipedia article is accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal..._License_types

[scld1354]

Thanks for all the good info (and the good news!!!)

[kemasa]

A bit of clarification, it is not enough for the long gun to be a C&R, it also has to be over 50 years old.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

14. I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

There can be firearms which are not 50 years old, but which are considered a C&R.

Example, first on the list:

Albanian SKS semiautomatic rifles, caliber 7.62 x 39, manufactured in Albania from 1964 to 1978.

None of those firearms are over 50 years old, but they are a C&R.

[scld1354]

Well, a funny thing happened to me...

A bit of clarification, it is not enough for the long gun to be a C&R, it also has to be over 50 years old.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

There can be firearms which are not 50 years old, but which are considered a C&R.

Example, first on the list:



None of those firearms are over 50 years old, but they are a C&R.

Check this out. I went to a gun store (a large chain store) to meet a Calgunner to transfer a firearm. It is C&R and NOT over 50 years old. So I am waiting for the buyer and the store manager tells me that I don't have to do the DROS for this rifle, as it is on the ATF's C&R list. I tell him that it is not 50 years old and he said that IT DOESNT MATTER, AS LONG AS IT'S ON THE C&R LIST. I think he said as long as the design or the first year of production met the 50 year mark. If I recall correctly, he then said that the ATF governs firearm sales and that the CA DOJ just enforces ATF laws. He showed me an ATF webpage and sure enough, the rifle I was selling was on the C&R list. He even offered to let me conduct a "cash and carry" transactrion in the store and print me out a bill of sale. He also says that he is an avid collector of C&R rifles and has his C&R liscence, and he sounded like he knew what he was talking about. So my question is.... WTF?

The buyer wanted to do the DROS paperwork so we did.

[kemasa]

CA has its own laws and it is COMPLETELY FALSE that the CA DOJ just enforces Federal law. Just based on that, that person does not know what they are talking about.

Then consider PPTs, which does not exist under Federal law. The whole DROS process does not exist under Federal law.

The bottom line is that the guy is wrong and violating CA law (not Federal law other than not following the laws of the State that the transaction is in), the added bonus is that he does not know what he is talking about.

[scld1354]

Like I said, I may have misunderstood the exact reason why. Maybe he didn't say that the DOJ enforces ATF laws, but that's what I thought he said. You have to love CA gun laws. You talk to 5 different people and get 5 different interpretations of the law.

[kemasa]

I suspect that one of the main issues is the lack of understanding between CA and Federal law, as well as differences between the terms used. For example, a firearm transaction is quite different under CA law than it is Federally.

I would also guess that in this case the person has not actually looked at the CA laws and instead was just going on what they knew of the Federal law.