Unworkable (was:Unusual) Interstate transfers

[Librarian]

Doesn't work. Darn. See the later posts.


I'd guess most FFLs on Calguns know about this part of Federal law, 18 USC 922 (b)(3) >Part 1<
So, suppose Nelson from Nevada and his friend Allen from Arizona happen to be hunting in the desert here in California, and Allen really likes Nelson's tricked-out 10/22, and Nelson agrees to sell it to Allen.

They drive into Taft and walk into a convenient FFL, and ask the Friendly Proprietor to do the transfer.

Assume, for this question, this transfer satisfies AZ law.

How does the FFL handle that transfer?
(I'm sure Allen comes back in 10 days...)

>Part 2<
This just popped up in 2nd Amendment.

Suppose, a year later, Charley from California is visiting Allen, his dad in Arizona. Charley, having similar good taste to his father, admires the 10/22 dad got from Nelson, and dad says "Thought you might!".

As above, Feds say the transfer in AZ to the CA resident is OK if
1) it follows AZ law
2) it follows CA law
3) it uses an FFL

Again, assume, for this question, this transfer satisfies AZ law.

Intrafamilial long gun transfers in CA are paperless, per PC 12078 (c) (1), so this transfer DOES follow CA law.

Thinking "ATF Audit", what documentation is likely to make the AZ FFL comfortable that this transfer is OK?

I'm sure that a note from J. Random Librarian at Calguns would not be sufficient.

See also the Calguns Foundation Wiki articles on
Intrafamilial transfer - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...Family_Members

Interstate transfer - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/in...rms_Interstate

[paul0660]

I have no idea, will check back for the conversation, and my head just exploded.

[kemasa]

Residents from different states must go through a FFL in order to do the transfer under Federal law.

This means that while CA allows for intrafamilial transfers do not have to go through a FFL, that ONLY applies IF both are residents of CA.

A resident of another state can not go to a CA FFL to buy a firearm, you have to have a CA ID, DL or military ID, there is the DROS issue here.

You can not just look at one law and ignore others. The law that you quoted relates to buying a firearm, not doing a transfer and really does not work in CA.

From the BATF FAQ, which should give reference to the specific code sections:

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

[socalblue]

OK by Federal regulations. No way to get DROS?PPT to go through as it does NOT comply with CA regulations (CA residency required).

[Librarian]

Residents from different states must go through a FFL in order to do the transfer under Federal law.

Yes, said that.

This means that while CA allows for intrafamilial transfers do not have to go through a FFL, that ONLY applies IF both are residents of CA.

Umm, not the question here.

A resident of another state can not go to a CA FFL to buy a firearm, you have to have a CA ID, DL or military ID, there is the DROS issue here.

So, you would say that despite the Feds thinking it's OK, there is no way in CA to handle the out of state buyer. (The state of the seller is not relevant.)

You can not just look at one law and ignore others. The law that you quoted relates to buying a firearm, not doing a transfer and really does not work in CA.

'buying' is a subset of 'transfer', but in >Part 1< it was a purchase.

In sum, DROS ID requirement scotches the NV-AZ sale conducted in CA, yes?

No thoughts on >part 2< ?

[kemasa]

Yes, a CA FFL can not do a transfer for residents of others states. The FFL would not know what the requirements are as well.

Part 2: Federal law requires that any transfer between residents goes through a FFL. This requires that a DROS be submitted and the AZ FFL can not submit a CA DROS. So, it has to go through a CA FFL and a DROS submitted. If both were in CA, then only the form would have to be filled out, but Federal law prohibits that for residents of two different states.

[Librarian]

Yes, a CA FFL can not do a transfer for residents of others states. The FFL would not know what the requirements are as well.

Part 2: Federal law requires that any transfer between residents goes through a FFL. This requires that a DROS be submitted and the AZ FFL can not submit a CA DROS. So, it has to go through a CA FFL and a DROS submitted. If both were in CA, then only the form would have to be filled out, but Federal law prohibits that for residents of two different states.

I don't think that's right.

Fedlaw requires the FFL for an interstate transfer, but Fedlaw does not require DROS.

Fedlaw requires following CA law.

CA law requires DROS for most transfers to CA residents, but does NOT require DROS for intrafamilial.

CA does not even require the OPLAW form for long guns.

[kemasa]

Correct, the Federal law does not require the DROS, the CA law does when the transfer goes through a FFL. Two residents of CA can do an intrafamilial transfer just by filling out the form, but if they decide to go through a FFL, there is nothing in the law which allows the FFL to not submit the DROS for a firearm transfer and, in fact, the FFL is required to submit the DROS.

The part that you are missing is that things change when it goes through a FFL.

[Librarian]

Correct, the Federal law does not require the DROS, the CA law does when the transfer goes through a FFL. Two residents of CA can do an intrafamilial transfer just by filling out the form, but if they decide to go through a FFL, there is nothing in the law which allows the FFL to not submit the DROS for a firearm transfer and, in fact, the FFL is required to submit the DROS.

The part that you are missing is that things change when it goes through a FFL.

The part you are missing is I'm suggesting in >part 2< a long gun transfer OUTSIDE of CA at a non-CA-FFL, to follow 18 USC 922(b)(3).

[kemasa]

Read it carefully, it says that the FFL has to follow the laws from both states. That means that the FFL has to submit the DROS, to follow CA law.

If you get a FFL involved, then the intrafamilial form does not matter, it does not exist for a FFL.

[Librarian]

Read it carefully, it says that the FFL has to follow the laws from both states. That means that the FFL has to submit the DROS, to follow CA law.

If you get a FFL involved, then the intrafamilial form does not matter, it does not exist for a FFL.

No - it means if it must go through a CA FFL, it has to use DROS.

BUT, CA says the FFL is not required for long -gun intrafamilial, and Feds say a long-gun transfer can go through an FFL in ANY state. Not using a CA FFL IS following CA law.

If this were a handgun, then CA-FFL is required, because the Fed exception is only for long guns.

Please re-read the first post.

ETA - I will say, if it's this difficult to convince a CA FFL, it's gonna be near-impossible convince an out of state FFL.

[Librarian]

jtmkinsd asked ATF the question - no-go

See his post in 2nd Amendment. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...9&postcount=19

[jtmkinsd]

No - it means if it must go through a CA FFL, it has to use DROS.

BUT, CA says the FFL is not required for long -gun intrafamilial, and Feds say a long-gun transfer can go through an FFL in ANY state. Not using a CA FFL IS following CA law.

If this were a handgun, then CA-FFL is required, because the Fed exception is only for long guns.

Please re-read the first post.

ETA - I will say, if it's this difficult to convince a CA FFL, it's gonna be near-impossible convince an out of state FFL.

I will post my letter from ATF on this subject tonight...sometime around 11:30 pm...It should clear up the confusion...as I said in the 2A forum, it's not possible to do a CA intrafamilial transfer in another state...even if you go through an FFL in the other state.

[jtmkinsd]

As promised, here are the letters (the one I sent, and the response from ATF)

[kemasa]

No - it means if it must go through a CA FFL, it has to use DROS.

BUT, CA says the FFL is not required for long -gun intrafamilial, and Feds say a long-gun transfer can go through an FFL in ANY state. Not using a CA FFL IS following CA law.

If this were a handgun, then CA-FFL is required, because the Fed exception is only for long guns.

Please re-read the first post.

ETA - I will say, if it's this difficult to convince a CA FFL, it's gonna be near-impossible convince an out of state FFL.

You are making assumptions which are not correct. If the people involved are residents of different states, then it has to go through a FFL. CA requires that if a FFL does the transaction, a DROS has to be submitted. Non-CA FFLs can't submit the DROS. This means it has to go through a CA FFL (including perhaps a Federal requirement). If it goes through a CA FFL, then a DROS has to be submitted.

The Feds say that it can go through any FFL AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS THE LAW IN BOTH STATES. It HAS to go through a FFL and HAS to follow the law in both states, which means that a CA DROS has to be submitted. Not using a FFL works under CA law, but NOT under Federal law. You can not separate the Federal requirement that it go through a FFL and following the laws of each state into claiming that it does not have to go through a FFL. BTW, the Federal law is actually talking about a FFL in another state selling a firearm, NOT transfers between people.

But let's backup a bit and stay ONLY in CA. You have two CA residents, a mother and daughter (over 18). The mother wants to give her daughter a firearm (it does not matter the type of firearm in this example). The mother COULD just give a long gun to the daughter and the mother could give a handgun to the daughter, if the daughter fills out the intrafamilial transfer form, BUT for some unknown reason the mother wants to have the transfer go through a CA FFL. The CA FFL explains that the transfer does not have to go through a FFL, but the mother insists that is how she wants to do it. In this case, the FFL has to fill out the 4473 AND submit the DROS because it is going through the FFL. It does not matter that it does not have to be done this way, but if it is, then the FFL has to follow the required procedures.

I have read the first post, several times. Please carefully read what I am saying.