Is there anything different I have to do to ship a Garand to an 01 FFL in California versus other states?
Thanks!! AL in MN
Printable View
Is there anything different I have to do to ship a Garand to an 01 FFL in California versus other states?
Thanks!! AL in MN
I would normally say no but with Calif. anything is possible. I would just call the Calif. FFL and ask him about it. He is the person that will have to make the transfer to the buyer. I shipped a C&R handgun to a Calif. 01 FFL. There was nothing different I had to do but the buyer had to get all kinds of paperwork before he could get the gun from the FFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by AL in MN
A private party can ship a Garand to a CA FFL without any problems. The confusion and complication arises when it's FFL to FFL. CA now requires the non-CA FFL to have a pin code to ship firearms to CA. It's just another way the CA liberals can line their pockets with $.
Some CA FFL holders will not accept C&R firearms from private parties. They will only receive them from another FFL. So check with the CA FFL to see exactly what he requires. If he will accept C&Rs from private parties, you will most likely have to include a copy of your State driver's license with the firearm shipment.
I just don't know about this, dealing with Kollifornia. It's sad but the gun haters there make it so hard that we have to think hard about it.
About a year ago I answered a WTB ad on the Shopper for a C&R rifle. The guy said he was in Kal. After several emails where we got the price and details down, he said he was having problems with his FFL guy. He claimed he had sent in for his C&R but in the meantime he asked me if I would ship it to a friend in El Paso and it would be brought to him. YO-Bundy!!!!!
I just came out and said that I could NOT do that. Something was starting to smell bad. Can you say BATFE?
He finally said he would contact me again when his C&R came in. Never heard back from him, and I was glad.
You have to listen to that little voice in the back of your head sometimes.
The thing is, if you were to sell it to the guy in El Paso, and then he and the CA guy worked out something between them, you would not have broken any laws.
Non-Californians get all haired out about the CA laws. But if a Californian imports a gun or magazine illegally, the Californian is on the hook; not the non-Californian. Furthermore, the state of CA does not have jurisdiction over the non-Californian; only over the Californian.
See, this is what the anti-gunners in CA want. They want to instill unfounded fear in non-Californians so that business just flat-out dries up.
I am a CA lawyer, and I specialize in gun laws. Over the last few years, I have encountered numerous situations where the CA DOJ actively misrepresented the state of the law to the private individuals (and guns shops and distributors) in order to further the CA anti-gun agenda. It is thoroughly disgusting. And it has created a situation where non-Californians don't even want to do business with Californains, even if that business involves a perfectly legal transaction.
An example is the following: When I was in Vegas a couple years ago, I walked into a gun shop and tried to buy some high-cap Glock mags. Legally speaking, once I leave the borders of CA, I can buy all the high cap mags I want. I just cannot bring them back into the state with me. Well, the gun shop refused to sell to me on the ground that I was a CA resident. They told me that the CA DOJ had contacted them and told them that they could not sell high-cap mags to CA residents. This was a blatant misrepresentation of the law by the DOJ.
Another example: I like to shoot Saiga AKs (the variants imported by RAA). These are perfectly legal in CA and I have bought several in a local gun shop here that pushes the envelope on what we can legally own (thank God for their courage). A couple years ago, I contacted Gilbert's Guns back east and wanted to buy several Saigas. They told me that they could not do this because the CA DOJ told them that these Saigas were "assault weapons" and were banned in the state of CA. Another blatant lie by the DOJ, with the ultimate result being that an otherwise legal transaction has just come to a screeching halt.
The CA DOJ is reaching out to non-Californians (over whom the DOJ has no authority and/or jurisdiction), leaning on them, and misrepresenting CA law in order to further the anti-gun agenda. The DOJ is meddling with interstate commerce, even when that commerce involves a perfectly legal transaction. Talk about gestapo.
I see all the time on Gunbroker: "No Sales to CA." Guess what. When this kind of attitude takes hold, the anti-gunners have won. It is exactly what they want.
PLEASE, if the transaction is legal, send the guns to CA. Make a stand and shove it down the anti-gunners' throats. Push the envelope.
As stated above, this is true, but you have to be real careful that a transaction like this does not fall within the category of "straw purchases".Quote:
Originally Posted by steel
All I am saying is be careful and know the laws. That said, I couldn't agree more with what "Steel" has said but after having sold a C&R handgun (a S&W pre Model 14) to a Calif. resident, through a FFL, I too decided that this would be the LAST transaction I would make with a Calif. resident. Just to much aggrevation for me. I feel sorry for the Calif. collectors and gun owners, but they need to address these problems.
If you're an 01 FFL and you're shipping to another 01 FFL, you're going to have to sign up for the CFLC. You could put 1 or 1,000 guns in a single shipment and all you need is one shipment number for the shipment. Basically, if the DESTINATION is a California dealer who has an 01 FFL, and the sender is an 01 FFL (from anywhere), the shipment number is required. If you're an 03 FFL and you're sending to an 01 FFL, you do NOT need a CFLC number for that shipment. Basically, both parties (sender and receiver) must be 01 FFL's to fall into being required to have a CFLC shipment number. Any other legal shipper/destination license holder combination doesn't fall under the purview of the CFLC.
The fun part, if you're not an 01 FFL, is finding a California 01 FFL dealer that is willing to accept out of state transfers from non-01 licensees. Furthermore, you should be fully aware that certain makes/models of rifles are illegal as are certain combinations of "features", and out of state transfers of pistols will generally be considered a sale by the California FFL, so pistols will have to be on the "Not Unsafe" list or fall into an exemption to it.
Yesterday, some CA residents filed suit to challenge the handgun ban scheme: SAF, CGF Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme - Calguns.net
Now, hopefully, after Heller and Nordike (the latter is intentional mispelled because it would not allow me to insert the correct spelling :)), we can begin to abolish CA's unconstitutional laws. It's been a long time coming. The next step will be to attack the so-called "assault weapons" ban.
I apologize if this is all veering a bit off topic. I was 23 years old in 1989 when CA enacted the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Act. Now I'm 43, and our fight to abolish CA's unconstitutional laws is just beginning. I hope, by the end of my days, I will have seen it revert back to the pre-1989 days.
Thanks to all who replied to my question.
OK Steel, let's play this out.
In their publications, ATF says that FEDERAL law requires us to obey the firearms laws of states other than our own. (I can't believe that a federal agency would lie to us.) If that is so, then CA DOJ could, theoretically, ask the US DOJ to prosecute any violation of CA law by a resident of another state. It's never happened, but couldn't it?
Well, theoretically, you might have a point. I'd have to research it.
But the Penal Code in CA is explicit about asserting jurisdiction only over a person "within" the state of CA.
Specifically, Penal Code Section 12280(a)(1) states, among other things:
"Any person who, within this state, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, distributes, transports, or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives or lends any assault weapon or any .50 BMG rifle, except as provided by this chapter, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for four, six, or eight years."
I'll look into it further. But I think that the bottom line is that the CA Penal Code only affects persons within the state of CA. If the person within the state of CA has an FFL who will accept the firearm, then the non-Californian should not worry about it one iota. If there are any laws being broken, it's the CA resident and/or his FFL who will face the music; not the non-Californian.
I know it's all a confusing mess, and I threw these issues back and forth with an FFL friend of mine (who is not your usual FFL; this guy really knows the laws inside and out) and he came to the same conclusion as me.
The people who face the music in all this confusion are the Californians. Non-Californains get a little too wound up about the whole issue. If the non-Californian ships the rifle to a bona fide FFL, then he (the non-Californian) should not worry any further about it.
I should probably add that, if you were within the boundaries of CA, say visiting a relative, you would be bound by CA law. For example, you cannot drive into CA with an "assault" rifle. (There may be a few exceptions to this, such as driving to a competition and the like, but I am not 100% sure about this at this point).
I think this is wha the ATF is referrring to when they advise you to respect the laws of other states. But I'd have to research this a little further.
And concerning whether or not a federal agancy can lie to us, of course it can. I've caught the IRS in a few lies propagated against my clients to further the IRS's agenda. The CA DOJ lies. It happens, more often that you think. And it's total BS.