Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Odd question for you guys

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    Mssr. Eleganté
    Blue Blaze Irregular
    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
    • Oct 2005
    • 10401

    Originally posted by kemasa
    I don't think that the CA DOJ understands the different definitions of an antique firearm and what applies to which PC section.
    I'm sure you are right about that.
    __________________

    "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin

    Comment

    • #17
      halifax
      Veteran Member
      • Oct 2005
      • 4440

      If you are talking about sales by people who are not California licensed dealers then anything defined as an "antique" by the feds is exempt. It doesn't matter if they are handguns and it doesn't matter if they fire modern ammo. The feds exempt all antiques from having to be transfered through an FFL and California exempts all antiques from having to be transfered through a California licensed dealer.

      If you are talking about sales by California licensed dealers then where are you seeing this exemption to the DROS for any kind of antique? The penal code requires California licensed dealers to DROS any firearms they transfer to non-licensees.
      If it is a hunk of metal when I receive it, I'm not going to enter it into my A/D book, I'm not going to fill out a 4473 when I sell it because it is only a "hunk of metal" and a 4473 is not required for hunks of metal. But you are saying CA says I need to DROS a hunk of metal??

      I would think the "exemption" to the DROS is that it is NOT a firearm by law; hence, doesn't need to be DROSed. It is only a hunk of metal.
      Jim


      sigpic

      Comment

      • #18
        Mssr. Eleganté
        Blue Blaze Irregular
        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
        • Oct 2005
        • 10401

        Originally posted by halifax
        If it is a hunk of metal when I receive it, I'm not going to enter it into my A/D book, I'm not going to fill out a 4473 when I sell it because it is only a "hunk of metal" and a 4473 is not required for hunks of metal. But you are saying CA says I need to DROS a hunk of metal??

        I would think the "exemption" to the DROS is that it is NOT a firearm by law; hence, doesn't need to be DROSed. It is only a hunk of metal.
        See my response to your question up above in post #14.
        __________________

        "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin

        Comment

        • #19
          halifax
          Veteran Member
          • Oct 2005
          • 4440

          ...
          But California law implies that if you are already licensed to sell firearms then you have to DROS them.
          I guess I'm dense. Where does CA PC turn them back into "firearms" and "imply" that I need to DROS them?

          Thanks
          Last edited by halifax; 01-30-2012, 8:41 AM.
          Jim


          sigpic

          Comment

          • #20
            kemasa
            I need a LIFE!!
            • Jun 2005
            • 10706

            There are three different definitions of what an antique firearm is in the CA PC, so it is confusing and the CA DOJ seems to think that there is only one. One aspect is if there is any modern ammo which is available for it.

            I have looked into this and to be quite honest I am not sure of what the answer really is, especially with the changes to the PC sections.
            Kemasa.
            False signature edited by Paul: Banned from the FFL forum due to being rude and insulting. Doing this continues his abuse.

            Don't tell someone to read the rules he wrote or tell him that he is wrong.

            Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein

            Comment

            • #21
              Librarian
              Admin and Poltergeist
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Oct 2005
              • 44689

              See also the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/De..._a_firearm/gun
              ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

              Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

              Comment

              • #22
                kemasa
                I need a LIFE!!
                • Jun 2005
                • 10706

                Part of the problem is not only figuring out what the correct definition for each PC section, but that the CA DOJ seems to have a different view than the actual law, which means that you might win in the end, but suffer until then.

                Also, if a FFL sends you an antique firearm AND also includes a CFLC letter, then what? You can't cancel a CFLC letter and you need to be able to show what happened to the firearm.
                Kemasa.
                False signature edited by Paul: Banned from the FFL forum due to being rude and insulting. Doing this continues his abuse.

                Don't tell someone to read the rules he wrote or tell him that he is wrong.

                Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein

                Comment

                • #23
                  halifax
                  Veteran Member
                  • Oct 2005
                  • 4440

                  Originally posted by Librarian
                  OK, thanks but it's going to take me awhile to digest that especially with the new numbering.
                  Jim


                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Eddy's Shooting Sports
                    Senior Member
                    • Sep 2011
                    • 1329

                    It's all clear as mud now.

                    To DROS or not to DROS, where art thou Kamila Harris?
                    Greg David
                    Eddy's Shooting Sports
                    (650)969-GUNS

                    400 Moffett Blvd., Suite F
                    Mountain View, CA 94043

                    www.eddysguns.com

                    Tue-Fri 12-7, Sat 11-5

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Emdawg
                      Veteran Member
                      • Jan 2012
                      • 4292

                      Originally posted by Eddy's Shooting Sports
                      It's all clear as mud now.

                      To DROS or not to DROS, where art thou Kamila Harris?

                      Humph. She probably has no idea that code even exists.
                      *sniff* *sniff* Commies...

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        animal661
                        Member
                        • Jan 2011
                        • 279

                        Ok I know this is an old thread but it applies to me currently

                        I just sent the info to my FFL

                        He called the DOJ about an antique that I wanted to buy

                        They quoted the "modern ammo " to whitch I disagreed with

                        After some research this is what I found

                        Penal code 16170 has 3 sections
                        (a) applies to 30515 and 30530 (assault weapons and .50 BMG)

                        (b)applies to 16520, Section 16650, subdivision (a) of
                        Section 23630, paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 27505, and
                        subdivision (a) of Section 31615, ---Same as federal definition of antique that only says that replica's cannot accept modern ammo (section 921) ( There is an "or Between a & b)

                        (c) cannot use modern ammo ONLY aplies to section 17700 - exemption to 16590 Gemerally prohibited weapons
                        ( basically I can only buy a cane gun if it is older than 1899 AND uses obsolete ammo)

                        Thought I would share this
                        Last edited by animal661; 10-16-2012, 10:54 PM.
                        Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                        - Benjamin Franklin

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        UA-8071174-1