Firearms Transfer?

S

steve4102

New member
CA Assembly has just passed a few new Anti-Gun bills waiting for Gov Browns signature. Seen here.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s...age-of-more-anti-gun-bills.aspx?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?
 
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.

According to Federal law, If I move from one State to another, must I have my firearms transferred by an FFL?
Click to expand...
No. Moving isn't a transfer of the firearm. It's a change in your state of residence.
 
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?
 
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:
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver-- . . . [edited for brevity] . . . .

(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)
Click to expand...
 
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).
 
Frank Ettin said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, if I purchase a long gun in neighboring Wisconsin through a Licensed Dealer, under Federal law, the firearm would have to be shipped to a MN FFL and the transfer made here in my home state?

Unless I am reading your guys wrong, it appears that you and Spats disagree.

Spats McGee said:
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)
Click to expand...
 
But that would already be required under federal law.
Click to expand...

Frank, I think you are missing something here. Under FEDERAL law, a CA resident could go across to Nevada and legally buy and return with a long gun without having to go through a CA FFL. Under AB1609, he could no longer do that.
 
So, if I purchase a long gun in neighboring Wisconsin through a Licensed Dealer, under Federal law, the firearm would have to be shipped to a MN FFL and the transfer made here in my home state?
Click to expand...

No, as long as the purchase were legal under BOTH MN and WI law. Federal law allows out of state purchases of long guns as long as it's legal in both states.

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.
 
steve4102 said:
So, if I purchase a long gun in neighboring Wisconsin through a Licensed Dealer, under Federal law, the firearm would have to be shipped to a MN FFL and the transfer made here in my home state?
Click to expand...
I don't know. It would depend on Minnesota law.

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).
 
Doyle said:
Frank, I think you are missing something here. Under FEDERAL law, a CA resident could go across to Nevada and legally buy and return with a long gun without having to go through a CA FFL. Under AB1609, he could no longer do that.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

See Natman's explanation in post 11 and mine in post 12.
 
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.
 
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
Click to expand...

I guess it boils down to "legal conditions of sale in both such States".

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.
 
steve4102 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You got it. :cool:
steve4102 said:
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.
Click to expand...
All of the above.

Also...
natman said:
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.
Click to expand...
+1; I'm confused as well.

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? :confused:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I have not read the Bill, sorry, but the NRA site says this.

Assembly Bill 1609 makes it a state crime to transport or otherwise import firearms into California
Click to expand...

If this language is in the Bill, then I would think this is more than just a "Transfer" requirement.

This could mean firearms brought into the State for any reason, hunting trip, shooting competition, or even move into CA from another State?
 
^^^ 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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top