September 5, 2014, 08:43 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Firearms Transfer?
CA Assembly has just passed a few new Anti-Gun bills waiting for Gov Browns signature. Seen here.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...?s&st=10469&ps One Bill, Assembly Bill 1609 makes it a state crime to transport or otherwise import firearms into California that were acquired from out of state, unless the firearms are sent to and transferred through a licensed California firearms dealer. I have read that this is no big deal, as it is already required by Federal law. Is true? If I purchase a firearm in another State must I have the firearm sent to an FFL in my home State? According to Federal law, If I move from one State to another, must I have my firearms transferred by an FFL? |
September 5, 2014, 09:02 AM | #2 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
My caveat: I'm not licensed to practice law in California, so take my words as being worth what you paid for them.
For any sale or purchase of handguns across state lines, an FFL in the purchaser's state of residence must already be involved under federal law. So that's nothing new. My first question was whether someone moving to CA must ship his or her firearms to an FFL and transfer them to himself. Based on an exemption for a "personal firearm importer," and the definition I found at s 17000 of the Penal Code, I don't think so. That said, let me reiterate that I'm not licensed in CA. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
September 5, 2014, 09:18 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
So, if I purchase a Long gun in another State, there is no Federal law stating that I must do an FFL transfer when return to my home state with long gun in hand?
|
September 5, 2014, 09:37 AM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
No. An FFL in State A may transfer a long gun to a resident of State B (if the transferee is physically present at the FFL's shop). Handguns, however, must go through an FFL in one's state of residence. See 18 USC 922(b)(3).
ETA: Actual statutory language: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
September 5, 2014, 09:52 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Thank, can you post up a link to that?
Edit: Never mind, found it, thanks. |
September 5, 2014, 09:54 AM | #6 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 5, 2014, 10:22 AM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
I've had to delete a couple of posts. Let's stick to the question at hand, shall we?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 5, 2014, 11:10 AM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Basically the interstate transfer provisions of AB1609 prohibit nothing that is not already prohibited by federal law. Essentially, a resident of California would not under California law, if AB1609 is enacted, acquire a gun in another State and bring it back to his home in California without having it transferred to him in California by an FFL. But that would already be required under federal law.
And neither federal law nor AB1609 would require a resident of another State who moves to California to process through an FFL the guns he brings with him (but existing California law would require him to file a form and pay a fee to register them).
__________________
"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 |
September 5, 2014, 11:18 AM | #9 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Quote:
Unless I am reading your guys wrong, it appears that you and Spats disagree. Quote:
|
||
September 5, 2014, 11:33 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
Quote:
|
|
September 5, 2014, 11:33 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
|
Quote:
However California law requires that CA residents have their background checked only by DROS, which is CA's version of NICS. No other state uses DROS, so an out of state sale to a CA resident would be illegal under Federal law. Since Federal law already prohibits CA residents from making out of state purchases, the only purpose I can see to the proposed law would be to give CA law enforcement jurisdiction and allow out of state purchases to be prosecuted under CA law. Perhaps there is some loophole in existing law that this bill seeks to cover. |
|
September 5, 2014, 11:34 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Under federal law, an FFL in any State may transfer a gun to a resident of another State if the transfer complies with the laws of both the State in which the transfer takes place and the laws of the transferee's State of residence. But if the transferee is a resident of California, the existing laws of California (e. g., electronic filing of a special form in addition to a 4473, a ten day waiting period, etc.) would effectively make it impossible for a non-California FFL to do a transfer in compliance with California law. And since a non-California FFL could not transfer a gun to a California resident in a manner complying with California law, any such transfer would not satisfy the federal law requirement cited by Spats McGee, above, i. e., 18 USC 922(b)(3).
__________________
"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 |
|
September 5, 2014, 11:36 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
See Natman's explanation in post 11 and mine in post 12.
__________________
"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 |
|
September 5, 2014, 11:53 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Gottcha, I think.
Federal Law allows the transfer/purchase of a long gun from state to state, as long as the transfer is legal in home/both States. If home state law does not allow out of state purchases without an in state FFL transfer, then the federal requirements of "legal in both States" cannot be met. Am I close? WOW, that is some kinda confusing to a laymen half wit like myself. |
September 5, 2014, 12:04 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
Quote:
Does this mean the firearm is legal, the buyer is legal and possession is legal, or does it mean all of the above and the State laws regarding FFL transfers. |
|
September 5, 2014, 12:06 PM | #16 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also... Quote:
Perhaps the issue is dual residency; IOW maybe the law clarifies that if a person is a dual resident of both CA and State B, and he/she purchases a rifle in State B, the rifle cannot be brought to CA unless a CA FFL transfer is done, even if the rifle is otherwise lawful to possess in CA. According to my quick reading of the bill, the purpose is to ensure that such a rifle goes into the CA state databases. Maybe?
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak Last edited by carguychris; September 5, 2014 at 12:20 PM. Reason: clarification, minor reword |
|||
September 5, 2014, 12:11 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Rainbow City, Alabama
Posts: 7,167
|
Frank, thanks. I see now. The out of state purchase would have ALREADY been illegal due to prior strict CA law. I tend to forget how bad CA really is.
|
September 5, 2014, 12:13 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
I have not read the Bill, sorry, but the NRA site says this.
Quote:
This could mean firearms brought into the State for any reason, hunting trip, shooting competition, or even move into CA from another State? |
|
September 5, 2014, 12:18 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
^^^ As I read it, the law only applies to CA residents; however, the language is very dense, and I'm not very familiar with existing CA law, so I would welcome some additional opinions.
BTW this is the basis for my theory that the impetus for the bill may be dual residency.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
September 5, 2014, 01:41 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 631
|
I do not know if this is relevant or not, but I just thought that I would point it out. I used to work for a company that handled hunting and fishing license sales and support for about half of the states. Over the 6 years I spent there I learned a lot about regulations. One thing that a lot of people asked about was dual residency and as far as hunting and fishing licenses are concerned dual residency does not exist at least in the 25 or so states that we covered. This does not mean that they consider gun purchases the same way but I would not be surprised if they do.
|
September 5, 2014, 01:47 PM | #21 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
It is helpful to see the entire bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01320140AB1609
The 'meat' is at section 4 Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|