HELP - legal for son giving ar to father?

alesix · October 4, 2011, 08:10 AM

my son wants to give me a complete cali legal lower ar 15 for my birthday. i am not sure if in california i can take it or if i have to register it first with ffl. can anyone familiar with california gun laws advise me.

Stressfire · October 4, 2011, 08:51 AM

Not sure on Cali laws, but an ffl is the safest way to go - no muss no fuss no jail time

natman · October 4, 2011, 01:34 PM

Normally, private party transfers of modern guns have to go through an FFL in CA. Just to put it into perspective a private party transfer is $35.

However, there is an exemption for interfamily transfers if both are CA residents:

Quote:

Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?

Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category PDF logo [PDF 10 kb / 1 pg] and the firearm is a legal firearm to possess, the transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. However, if the firearm is a handgun, you must submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction PDF logo [PDF 481 kb / 2 pg] and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days. Assault weapons may not be transferred in this fashion. See Penal Code section 12285, subdivision (b).

(PC section 12078(c))

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#20

I would advise making SURE that the lower is not considered an AW or a handgun.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I am especially not your lawyer, take all legal advice on the internet with a grain of salt, including mine. Contact the ATF / your state DOJ directly and get their advice in writing. Then follow it.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/contact.php

**Frank Ettin** · October 5, 2011, 09:50 AM

And the OP doesn't say if both he and his son are residents of the same State. If not, under federal law the transfer will have to go through an FFL. Federal law makes no exception for intrafamilial transfers.

hermannr · October 5, 2011, 12:07 PM

He is talking about a long gun, not a pistol. whole different ball game...Other than a possible California mag capacity problem this should not be any different than any other long gun.

What is "An Assault Weapon" in California legal terms? Does this particular AR fit that discription? To me an AR is not an "Assault weapon", but then California may think so.

AR does not stand for Assault Rifle...it originally stood for ArmaLite Rifle, and became the designation of a particular style of semiautomatic receiver.

Just because it is an AR does not automatically make it an Asssult weapon, if it did, you would find manufacturers changing the name designation of their rifles

**Frank Ettin** · October 5, 2011, 12:51 PM

California law is fairly complex regarding certain semi-automatic rifles. Some are heavily regulated, and some are prohibited. The OP and his son do indeed need to be cautious.

natman · October 5, 2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

What is "An Assault Weapon" in California legal terms? Does this particular AR fit that discription? To me an AR is not an "Assault weapon", but then California may think so.

Just follow the chart:
http://www.calguns.net/caawid/flowchart.pdf

MLeake · October 5, 2011, 07:44 PM

hermannr, it's not a totally different ball game for out of state, although it is slightly different.

IIRC, for interstate long gun transfer, an FFL is still required, but the FFL can be in either the originating or receiving state.

For a handgun, the FFL must be in the receiving state, although an FFL can also be used (in addition to, not instead of the receiving state FFL) in the originating state.

**Frank Ettin** · October 5, 2011, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MLeake

...IIRC, for interstate long gun transfer, an FFL is still required, but the FFL can be in either the originating or receiving state...

But not, I'm afraid, if the transferee is a resident of California.

Under 18 USC 922(b)(3) the transfer of a long gun must, among other things, comply with the laws of both the State in which the transferee resides and the State in which the transfer takes place (if not the State in which the transferee resides). But California law would require, if the transferee is a California resident, that the transfer be done by an FFL in California. A transfer to a California resident requires a particular state form to be filed with the California Department of Justice and a ten day waiting period.

MLeake · October 5, 2011, 08:58 PM

You're a very good resource for the forum, fiddletown. Thanks for the correction/amplification.

October 4, 2011, 08:10 AM	#1
alesix Junior Member Join Date: September 29, 2011 Posts: 9	HELP - legal for son giving ar to father? my son wants to give me a complete cali legal lower ar 15 for my birthday. i am not sure if in california i can take it or if i have to register it first with ffl. can anyone familiar with california gun laws advise me. Last edited by alesix; October 4, 2011 at 08:47 AM.

October 5, 2011, 12:51 PM	#6
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	California law is fairly complex regarding certain semi-automatic rifles. Some are heavily regulated, and some are prohibited. The OP and his son do indeed need to be cautious. __________________ "It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

October 4, 2011, 08:51 AM	#2
Stressfire Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2011 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,497	Not sure on Cali laws, but an ffl is the safest way to go - no muss no fuss no jail time __________________ "The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott

October 5, 2011, 09:50 AM	#4
Frank Ettin Staff Join Date: November 23, 2005 Location: California - San Francisco Posts: 9,471	And the OP doesn't say if both he and his son are residents of the same State. If not, under federal law the transfer will have to go through an FFL. Federal law makes no exception for intrafamilial transfers.

October 5, 2011, 12:07 PM	#5
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	He is talking about a long gun, not a pistol. whole different ball game...Other than a possible California mag capacity problem this should not be any different than any other long gun. What is "An Assault Weapon" in California legal terms? Does this particular AR fit that discription? To me an AR is not an "Assault weapon", but then California may think so. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle...it originally stood for ArmaLite Rifle, and became the designation of a particular style of semiautomatic receiver. Just because it is an AR does not automatically make it an Asssult weapon, if it did, you would find manufacturers changing the name designation of their rifles

October 5, 2011, 07:44 PM	#8
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	hermannr, it's not a totally different ball game for out of state, although it is slightly different. IIRC, for interstate long gun transfer, an FFL is still required, but the FFL can be in either the originating or receiving state. For a handgun, the FFL must be in the receiving state, although an FFL can also be used (in addition to, not instead of the receiving state FFL) in the originating state.

October 5, 2011, 08:58 PM	#10
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	You're a very good resource for the forum, fiddletown. Thanks for the correction/amplification.