FAQ: Shipping

[kemasa]

CA PC 27585

ARTICLE 1. Crimes Relating to Sale, Lease, or Transfer of Firearms [27500 - 27590]
( Article 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


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.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to or affect any of the following:

(1) A licensed collector who is subject to and complies with Section 27565.

CA PC 27565

ARTICLE 1. Crimes Relating to Sale, Lease, or Transfer of Firearms [27500 - 27590]
( Article 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )


27565.

(a) This section applies in the following circumstances:

(1) A person is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(2) The licensed premises of that person are within this state.

(3) The licensed collector acquires, outside of this state, a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm.

(4) The licensed collector takes actual possession of that firearm outside of this state pursuant to the provisions of subsection (j) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as amended by Public Law 104-208, and transports the firearm into this state.

(5) The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(b) Within five days of transporting a firearm into this state under the circumstances described in subdivision (a), the licensed collector shall report the acquisition of that firearm to the department in a format prescribed by the department.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 745, Sec. 28. Effective January 1, 2012.)

This means that a CA resident with a C&R FFL can acquire a C&R firearm from outside of CA and bring it in, but can NOT have any C&R firearm directly shipped to them without violating CA PC 27585.

[kemasa]

FYI, the laws regarding shipping C&R long guns into CA to a C&R FFL holder have changed and now it appears that all C&R firearms have to be shipped to a CA dealer.

[CifaldiPrecision]

Thanks.

[kemasa]

http://www.atf.gov/faq-page/321#t321n12421

Is a licensed gunsmith's return of repaired or customized firearms to their owners subject to the Brady law, including the provision for making background checks on transferees?

No, but it is unlawful to transfer a firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a felon or is within any other category of person prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. (See also question “A firearm is delivered to a licensee by an unlicensed individual for the purpose of repair. Is the return of the repaired firearm subject to the requirements of the Brady law? Would the transfer of a replacement firearm from the licensee to the owner of the damaged firearm be subject to the requirements of the Brady law?”)

[18 U.S.C. 922(d), 27 CFR 478.32(d)]

[CifaldiPrecision]

In some cases, yes, such as a return of a firearm for gun smithing work.

I am not arguing that you are correct, I know you are I am just trying to find this stated by the ATF for proof. I am poor in my googlefu can you provide a link showing proof please?

Thanks

[MudCamper]

Yes.

To verify a C&R FFL you have to call the EZ Check phone number...

1-877-560-2435

Thanks.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Can a Californian non-FFL ship a C&R long gun to an 03 FFL in another state?

Yes.

If so, how can you verify that a person is an 03 FFL? The ATF eZCheck does not work for 03 FFLs.

To verify a C&R FFL you have to call the EZ Check phone number...

1-877-560-2435

[MudCamper]

Can a Californian non-FFL ship a C&R long gun to an 03 FFL in another state?

If so, how can you verify that a person is an 03 FFL? The ATF eZCheck does not work for 03 FFLs.

[kemasa]

FYI, I called the CA DOJ and they said that C&R long guns, not just those over 50 years old, can go directly to a CA C&R FFL holder.

[kemasa]

27545 seems to apply to PPTs.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

...This all leads me to believe that 27545 does not apply in the case of a person shipping a firearm to a FFL and if it does not apply to a person shipping a firearm to a FFL, it might not also apply to a C&R long gun being shipped.

So, can you show me that 27545 applies to a firearm which is being shipped?

Do you agree that if 27545 doesn't apply to a C&R long gun being shipped then it also doesn't apply to a C&R handgun being shipped?

[kemasa]

The first thing that you need to show is that 27545 applies, not that they are exempt from it. If 27545 applies to a firearm being shipped to a FFL from private party, then the max fee is $10, which almost all FFLs are violating. But this is not the only problem since there is a process that must be followed with regards to 28050, which means that a FFL can not accept a firearm from a private party since they can not swipe the ID, nor see the ID or anything else. If this were actually the case, then don't you think that someone at the DOJ would do something about it?

This all leads me to believe that 27545 does not apply in the case of a person shipping a firearm to a FFL and if it does not apply to a person shipping a firearm to a FFL, it might not also apply to a C&R long gun being shipped.

So, can you show me that 27545 applies to a firearm which is being shipped?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Incorrect. I am saying that the CA PC is such a mess it is hard to tell if it is there or not, whether it is banned or not.

28050, which deals with such transfers, is a PPT, which does not apply when the seller is out of state or not a CA resident. Or are you saying that a sale of a firearm from a private seller from out of state is limited to a FFL fee of $10?


Is that what you are saying?

According to the CPC, yes. According to the DROS software, no.

What I don't understand is, if you think that C&R FFLs are exempt from 27545 for C&R firearms, why do you think it only applies to C&R long guns? There is no section of the penal code that says only handguns have to go through a California dealer. Can you show the CPC that says only C&R long guns are exempt from 27545? I'm talking about before 2014.

[kemasa]

You seem to be claiming that there are so many exemptions to CPC 27545 that one of them must support your argument, but you don't know which one it is, so you can't post it, but it's probably there, so I'm probably wrong.

Incorrect. I am saying that the CA PC is such a mess it is hard to tell if it is there or not, whether it is banned or not.

28050, which deals with such transfers, is a PPT, which does not apply when the seller is out of state or not a CA resident. Or are you saying that a sale of a firearm from a private seller from out of state is limited to a FFL fee of $10?

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).

28050. (a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a
firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to
26915, inclusive, in accordance with this chapter in order to comply
with Section 27545.
(b) The seller or transferor or the person loaning the firearm
shall deliver the firearm to the dealer who shall retain possession
of that firearm.
(c) The dealer shall then deliver the firearm to the purchaser or
transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, if it is not
prohibited, in accordance with Section 27540.
(d) If the dealer cannot legally deliver the firearm to the
purchaser or transferee or the person being loaned the firearm, the
dealer shall forthwith, without waiting for the conclusion of the
waiting period described in Sections 26815 and 27540, return the
firearm to the transferor or seller or the person loaning the
firearm. The dealer shall not return the firearm to the seller or
transferor or the person loaning the firearm when to do so would
constitute a violation of Section 27500, 27505, 27515, 27520, 27525,
27530, or 27535. If the dealer cannot legally return the firearm to
the transferor or seller or the person loaning the firearm, then the
dealer shall forthwith deliver the firearm to the sheriff of the
county or the chief of police or other head of a municipal police
department of any city or city and county, who shall then dispose of
the firearm in the manner provided by Sections 18000, 18005, and
34000.


28055. (a) For a sale, loan, or transfer conducted pursuant to this
chapter, the purchaser or transferee or person being loaned the
firearm may be required by the dealer to pay a fee not to exceed ten
dollars ($10) per firearm.
(b) No other fee may be charged by the dealer for a sale, loan, or
transfer of a firearm conducted pursuant to this chapter, except for
the applicable fees that may be charged pursuant to Sections 23690
and 28300 and Article 3 (commencing with Section 28200) of Chapter 6
and forwarded to the Department of Justice, and the fees set forth in
Section 31650.
(c) The dealer may not charge any additional fees.
(d) Nothing in these provisions shall prevent a dealer from
charging a smaller fee.

Is that what you are saying?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

...Have you looked at all of the exemptions throughout the CA PC?

Yes. Several of us here have scoured the CPC for years, trying to find an exemption to CPC 27545 for California C&R FFLs. The only one is the exemption for 50+ year old C&R long guns that everybody already knows about. There are exemptions for C&R FFLs who reside outside of California, but not for California C&R FFLs. We would have loved to find another exemption. We looked really, really hard.

Really? 27565(3) specifically says a handgun and there is no wording which says that changes in 2014.

Really? I posted the actual text of 27565(3) in my previous response. Do you see the part where it says it changes in 2014 to include any firearm? Here it is again...

27565(3) The licensed collector acquires, outside of this state, a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm.

Did you read 27966?

Yes. It says that starting in 2014 the 50+ year restriction goes away, but to take advantage of the C&R long gun exemption you will need to have a C&R FFL and a COE. I already explained that a few posts up in this thread. You even quoted part of that post.

No exemption is needed if it is not prohibited.

But it is prohibited by 27545. So an exemption is needed. Right now 50+ year old C&R long guns are exempted. There is no exemption for handguns or newer C&R long guns. Starting next year all C&R long guns are exempted, but only if the receiving party has a C&R FFL and a COE.

27545? Interesting as there are many exemptions for that. C&R handguns are specifically mentioned, which is why.

Yes, there are many exemptions to 27545. But none of them exempt C&R handguns or newer C&R long guns acquired in California by California C&R FFLs.

I never said it did, did I? The question is whether you have gone through all of the CA PC to see what you are claiming is true. It is difficult, to say the least, to follow everything and looking at one CA PC section is not good enough. Perhaps what you saying is correct, but perhaps not.

I have posted it, but you are not listening. There are numerous exemptions, written different ways, which makes it hard to tell what the actual case is. You can't just look at one section and ignore all the exemptions.



Exactly. You are pointing to one CA PC section and ignoring all others. A search of "27545" which also has exemptions in the same line (if it is on the next line I did not find it and include it) in the CA PC results in:



So, have you gone through all of the spaghetti of the CA PC to ensure that it is not legal? Remember, if it is not prohibited, it is not illegal.

You have not posted the exemption. You just posted a huge wall of text and said the exemption might be in there somewhere. And I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not posting all the other exemptions in this thread because they are not relevant to this thread. You seem to be claiming that there are so many exemptions to CPC 27545 that one of them must support your argument, but you don't know which one it is, so you can't post it, but it's probably there, so I'm probably wrong.