CA law regarding non-family or roommate

Does a roommate with access to a handgun in CA need a Handgun Safety Certificate?

  • Yes always

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, unless the are an exempt person

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Better check with an attorney

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

pj_england

Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
1
. California laws often cite exemptions for loaning guns to immediate family members. Does anyone have insight regarding a roommate or unregistered partner? Assumption the roommate or partner is not prohibited by law to own a firearm.

. I own registered handguns in the state and as a veteran am exempted from needing a Handgun Safety Certificate to purchase a handgun. If my roommate has access to a handgun in the dwelling, do they also need to have a certificate or be an exempt person?
 
Welcome to THR.

Be advised that I've closed the poll. Legal questions in general are not the sorts of questions for which a poll can be helpful. The number of people thinking something is true won't make it true if it is not.
 
pj_england said:
California laws often cite exemptions for loaning guns to immediate family members. Does anyone have insight regarding a roommate or unregistered partner? Assumption the roommate or partner is not prohibited by law to own a firearm....
First, the analysis set out in this post is based on the premise that all parties are residents of California as residency is define for the purposes of federal law, i. e., the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Remember that in California almost any transfer of possession of a gun must go through an FFL (Penal Code 27545). The issue with the loan of a gun is whether the loan (which is a temporary transfer of possession) need not go through an FFL. The circumstances under which a loan of a gun in California need not go through an FFL are set out in Penal Code 27880 (see post 6 for the text of 27880 as amended effective 1 January 2017) and 27885 as follows:
27880. Section 27545 does not apply to the loan of a firearm between persons who are personally known to each other, if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(a) The loan is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.

(b) The loan is for any lawful purpose.

(c) The loan does not exceed 30 days in duration.

(d) Until January 1, 2015, if the firearm is a handgun, the individual being loaned the firearm shall have a valid handgun safety certificate. Commencing January 1, 2015, for any firearm, the individual being loaned the firearm shall have a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.​

27885. Section 27545 does not apply to the loan of a firearm if all of the following conditions exist:

(a) The person loaning the firearm is at all times within the presence of the person being loaned the firearm.

(b) The loan is for a lawful purpose.

(c) The loan does not exceed three days in duration.

(d) The individual receiving the firearm is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.

(e) The person loaning the firearm is 18 years of age or older.

(f) The person being loaned the firearm is 18 years of age or older.​

pj_england said:
...If my roommate has access to a handgun in the dwelling, do they also need to have a certificate or be an exempt person?...
The issues presented here aren't really about loaning someone a gun. They are about possible criminal or civil liability from allowing someone to have access to your gun.

I. Criminal Liability

Possible criminal liability can arise if a roommate is prohibited under federal or state law from possession of a gun. So, for example, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania) let stand an indictment for aiding and abetting the unlawful possession of a gun by a prohibited persons in a situation in which a gun owner had a cohabitant who was a prohibited person. The point in that case, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), was that the gun the prohibited person was charged with possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):
...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.

Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....

II. Civil Liability

  1. Issues of civil liability can come up if a roommate gets access to your gun and hurts someone or hurts himself.

  2. In general, everyone has a legal duty to exercise due care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to others. If one is found not to have done so and thus caused damage to another, he could be required to compensate the injured person for that damage.

  3. A gun is a potentially dangerous instrumentality. If someone stores his gun in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it can be accessed by an unauthorized person, and such person gets the gun and hurts someone, under some circumstances a jury might decide that the gun owner failed to exercise appropriate care and may be held financially liable.

  4. The standard of care which would apply to the storage of firearms was discussed in this Montana case, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):
    ...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

    Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

    As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

    Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

    Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

  5. These sorts of results are highly circumstance dependent. Whether there can be liability will be a matter of exactly what happened and how.

  6. And if the gun owner's conduct was so careless as to be considered reckless, he could also face criminal charges.

  7. In general someone who keeps his gun either on his person under his control or locked up (there are lock boxes with key touch combinations offering ready access to a loaded gun) will go a long way towards avoiding such risks.

  8. These issues were recently discussed here.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
....The circumstances under which a loan of a gun in California need not go through an FFL are set out in Penal Code 27880...
Note that 27880 was amendment. The statute as amended effective 1 January 2017 reads as follows:
27880. Section 27545 does not apply to the loan of a firearm if all of the following requirements are satisfied:

(a) The loan is to a spouse, registered domestic partner, or any of the following relations, whether by consanguinity, adoption, or steprelation:

(1) Parent.

(2) Child.

(3) Sibling.

(4) Grandparent.

(5) Grandchild.
(b) The loan is infrequent, as defined in Section 16730.

(c) The loan is for any lawful purpose.

(d) The loan does not exceed 30 days in duration.

(e) Until January 1, 2015, if the firearm is a handgun, the individual being loaned the firearm shall have a valid handgun safety certificate. Commencing January 1, 2015, for any firearm, the individual being loaned the firearm shall have a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.

(f) If the firearm being loaned is a handgun, the handgun is registered to the person making the loan pursuant to Section 11106.​
 
You're correct. I'll address the changes.



Thanks for addressing those changes Frank.


What you posted was all true and correct as of today.

I just felt with AB1511 having just passed, which makes the rules so close to changing, that it should be included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top