The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 30, 2009, 05:26 PM   #1
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,086
Private party transfer through CA FFL

Quote:
Can my buddy in CA buy a used XD or M&P online,
provided, of course, that that magazines are no more than ten rounds and that he uses a local FFL?

Quote:

maestro pistolero, yes... with caveats.

1 - The specific XD or M&P model must be on this list. There are exceptions for large-ish single-action revolvers, (I believe) single-shots, and C&R guns, but the XD and M&P doesn't fall under any of those.

2 - The sending FFL (I don't believe regular people can do this) must fill out a little paperwork with the California DOJ and get permission to send the gun into California. It's a little bit obnoxious. There are a number of middle-man FFLs who will do the paperwork if the sending one doesn't want to, but that costs another $70+. Freakshow Manufacturing does some, but he's severely backlogged - I have a rifle waiting for six weeks and counting in his shop right now - so... there you go.
Quote:
Thanks, I saw this on that link http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/:
Quote:
Private party transfers, curio/relic handguns, certain single-action revolvers, and pawn/consignment returns are exempt from this requirement.
Quote:
This would be a private party transfer through a CA FFL. Someone on a gun blog in, say, georgia, has a used gun that my friend is interested in purchasing. It has only ten round magazines. It may or may not be on the list, but it definitely is not a assault weapon. Legal?

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 30, 2009 at 05:33 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 06:35 PM   #2
Adrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2007
Location: Free of California!
Posts: 255
"Private party transfer" has a special meaning in California. There's a special bit of $35 paperwork you have to fill out for it, and it requires that both people be present and have CA government-issued ID.

Since the gun is coming from out of California, it's still subject to the List. :barf:
__________________
NRA Life Member since January 2009
Matt.25:40
Adrian is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 06:55 PM   #3
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,086
Quote:
it's still subject to the List.
Even though it's used? If so, that certainly disqualifies a lot of guns.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 07:20 PM   #4
Adrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2007
Location: Free of California!
Posts: 255
Yeah, tell us about it. It's backdoor ban. You can buy anything on the list... and then the conditions for the list get tighter and tighter. For example, you can't add a new gun unless it has a loaded chamber indicator and a magazine disconnect, and the DOJ is very persnickety about what counts as a "loaded chamber indicator". Next year they're hoping to add microstamping to the list of requirements.

As older models get discontinued or dropped from the list (manufacturers have to pay a fee every year to stay on the list) and newer models don't make the cut (or don't even get submitted), Californians have fewer and fewer options. Eventually, well, they didn't outright ban handguns, did they? It's not their fault nobody makes guns that meet their "safety" requirements.
__________________
NRA Life Member since January 2009
Matt.25:40
Adrian is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 09:53 AM   #5
NavyLT
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
"Private party transfer" has a special meaning in California. There's a special bit of $35 paperwork you have to fill out for it, and it requires that both people be present and have CA government-issued ID.

Since the gun is coming from out of California, it's still subject to the List.
Adrian,

That information is incorrect.
NavyLT is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 10:04 AM   #6
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
The private party transfer exemption to the list is for in-state private party transfers only. State to state private party sales are still subject to the list. Note that the list is more specific than it appears because it's SKU number specific even though the DOJ doesn't publish those SKU numbers.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 10:56 AM   #7
NavyLT
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
Quote:
The private party transfer exemption to the list is for in-state private party transfers only. State to state private party sales are still subject to the list. Note that the list is more specific than it appears because it's SKU number specific even though the DOJ doesn't publish those SKU numbers.
Would you please post a citation to the law that is the basis for your statement?
NavyLT is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 11:59 AM   #8
Adrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2007
Location: Free of California!
Posts: 255
NavyLT, see the answer from one of the DOJ analysts in an older thread.

Whether this is a strict legal interpretation or not, it's the DOJ's stance on the matter right now, and behaving otherwise is a good way to end up on the wrong end of a prosecution.

The Calguns Foundation believes they've found a workaround (involving transferring the bare frame, which is not a "handgun", then sending the other parts separately direct to the new owner), but that is still waiting on the Office of Adminstrative Law's stamp of approval.
__________________
NRA Life Member since January 2009
Matt.25:40
Adrian is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 03:39 PM   #9
NavyLT
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2006
Location: Oak Harbor, WA
Posts: 1,719
Thanks! I appreciate the extra info, appears as if you are correct. They should define private party transaction in the statutes.
NavyLT is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08534 seconds with 7 queries