CA laws and Fed laws

[4thHorseman]

I've been curious about something for a while and I'd like to ask for some info.
Before I ask, I want it to be made clear I am not living in CA or do I ever have any intention to. I am not advocating breaking any laws either, just wondering what is legal and what is NOT legal.
I often read about people in CA and how they can not have a particular gun because it is not legally sold there.
I live in VA and I must buy a gun here if it is from a FFL dealer. However I can buy privately from anyone any where, (I think anyway.)
Is it the same in CA? Can a guy that wants a gun in CA that cannot be sold by a FFL dealer get one that is legal in other states?
The main reason I ask, on the Sig boards there is the new SIG 1911 coming out. Alot of the guys are asking if they are legal in CA and MASS. Can they get one at all and still be legal?
Thanks
PS I really feel for you guys in those states.

 

[Jim March]

Here's the deal:

1) All private-party sales in California must go through an FFL and do all the paperwork, 10-day wait (dealer sits on it), etc.

2) All people moving into the state must register their handguns within 60 days. They CAN register a gun not on the "tested/approved list".

3) When selling private-party via an FFL, the gun CAN be of a type NOT on the "approved for dealer sale" list.

So, to score one of these SIGs if it's not approved, you'd have to wait for somebody to move in with one, then buy from them.

Obviously, on a new, high-dollar, low-production gun...good luck.

Even prices of fairly common yet out-of-production used stuff like S&W Model 19s and 27s and such are climbing rapidly, due to the limited new supply. When the new "junk gun law" went in a few years back, dealers had to unload their used stock on other states, radically limiting supplies. Prices on some pieces, such as Keltec P32s/380s, have gone through the roof.

Worst of all: when manufacturers come out with new models (66-6 versus 66-5, etc.) they have an incentive to stop paying the $100 per gun "listing fee" so that the previously declared-safe gun somehow magically "becomes unsafe" . At which point, dealers have to unload old stock out of state. So it's an ongoing drain and problem .

 

[4thHorseman]

Hey Jim #2 is UNREAL. "2) All people moving into the state must register their handguns within 60 days. They CAN register a gun not on the "tested/approved list"."

Unbelievable in a free country you have to register guns like that! The state has gone out of control. Or the people have lost control.
Jim, the state now know where to go when they go to confiscate your guns. They have taken the first step.

God bless you out there. You've are gotta be going through some tough times!

 

[Jim March]

Yup. It's bad. But I really think it's not as hosed as Illinois, New Jersey or NYC.

It's still possible to turn Calif around.

 

[4thHorseman]

Jim, why are those states worse?

 

[bountyhunter]

2) All people moving into the state must register their handguns within 60 days. They CAN register a gun not on the "tested/approved list".

Not sure that's true. Somebody posted the text from the actual law in effect here and it said you can bring in a gun which "would be otherwise legal" into the state. I am not at all sure you can legally bring in non-approved guns legally, in fact I was told you can not. Some of the Beretta factory people were griping they couldn't even bring in guns for a show (even though they were not staying) under kali law.

 

[Jim March]

What you cannot bring in are high-cap mags; that's what the Beretta folks would be complaining about.

It's still legal to own a "non-tested/approved handgun" in California, and it's legal to BUY AND SELL one so long as it's private-party-via-FFL versus straight off the FFL.

So whoever is telling you you can't personally import, say, a Pinned&Recessed S&W or whatever, doesn't know what they're talking about.

4thHorseman: In IL, every gun owner is registered, incl. long guns, shotguns, whatever. Plus Chicago has a total ban on handguns.

NJ: gun laws are in general far worse, and far fewer CCWs available despite "theoretical availability".

NYC: it's not really possible to connect the Sullivan law to racism. It IS possible to connect California Penal Codes 12050-12054 to racism at the time of their initial passage - see also the last page of:

http://www.equalccw.com/AB462.PDF

That racist link will allow repairs here faster than there.

 

[Carnitas]

Jim,

Whats the scoop on the transfer of used, not listed, guns from close family members that are out of state.

For instance if my uncle in Oregon had a gun that was not on the DOJ list that I wanted to aquire (gift or purchase). Since close family members can transfer guns first and do the paperwork later could he just hand the thing to me and thenI register it at my leisure?

Also, to avoid the appearance of a straw purchase, how long would my uncle have to be in possession of the gun before the Ca. paperwork shows up.

 

[Jim March]

First problem: I don't think "uncle" is close enough. Sigh. Parents/kids, or grandparents/kids I *think*. Not sure. Heck, I don't think brothers/sisters is "close enough" - they were basically trying to cover inheritence guns.

But second, assuming it IS close enough, there'd be no problems unless it was an "assault weapon" (note the quotes, I fully realize how BS the definition is).

Now, if it's a long-gun that predates 1991, then they can't prove squat as that's the point where they required such paper transfers.

If it's a handgun, ditto. But there's a problem with having an unregistered handgun even if you bought it legally off-paper back in 1990 or prior: if you pack it illegally on the street and get caught with an unregistered piece, the hit jumps from misdemeanor to felony. That's why there's a voluntary registration program for those older off-paper guns.

You can do anything ELSE that's otherwise completely legal with an off-paper gun - transport it locked'n'unloaded to a range (and shoot it), or a gunsmith, dealer for a sale, competition, hunting, whatever. Just don't pack illegally it without a permit.

 

[EOD Guy]

For instance if my uncle in Oregon had a gun that was not on the DOJ list that I wanted to aquire (gift or purchase). Since close family members can transfer guns first and do the paperwork later could he just hand the thing to me and thenI register it at my leisure?

That would be illegal under Federal law. There is no Federal exception for transfers between family members who are residents of different states, unless it is a bequest from an estate.

 

[twoblink]

I was just going to say, I do'nt think just because they are your uncle makes a difference...

All paperwork must go through FFL..

Also, Jim's right.. Hi-Cap's are even listed as ILLEGAL to will to someone after you die!! I don't know how they can constitutionally do that... but it's the PRK.. I'm half expecting them to say to me "Get into the showers!!" like they did in Warsaw...

 

[bountyhunter]

It's still legal to own a "non-tested/approved handgun" in California, and it's legal to BUY AND SELL one so long as it's private-party-via-FFL versus straight off the FFL.

No dispute on that point, as long as you were the legal owner of the "non-list" gun and a resident in kali before the law was enacted. I was pointing out it is illegal to try to haul them in from out of state now, even if you are a non-resident. If that was possible, people would be hauling them in by the truckloads and making $$$$$.

So whoever is telling you you can't personally import, say, a Pinned&Recessed S&W or whatever, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Well, the whoever was the people who work at the California department of justice, firearm division. You may think they don't know what they are talking about, but I tend to listen to their opinions on the law because they are the people who will be directing the DOJ on who to prosecute for violations. Their take on the law is that you can not legally import a non-list gun from out of state unless it falls under the father/grandfather exception already listed.

Here is their number in Sacramento if you want to give them a call:

916-227-3703

 

[Carnitas]

No dispute on that point, as long as you were the legal owner of the "non-list" gun and a resident in kali before the law was enacted. I was pointing out it is illegal to try to haul them in from out of state now, even if you are a non-resident. If that was possible, people would be hauling them in by the truckloads and making $$$$$.

Dang! this is just too confusing.

Perhaps its easier to look at it in terms of how (the routes) a non-listed gun (NLG) might be aquired in the state. I'll start the list and you'all tell me when I go wrong.

1) Party to Party transfer between 2 Ca. residents of a NLG that was purchased in the state prior to the ban, transfer via FFL.

2) Inheritance between parent, child, grand parent of a NLG. The NLG giver may be in state or out of state. No FFL for transfer. Person aquiring gun files paper w/DOJ.

3) Person living out of state moves to Ca. with NLG's. Establishes residence then transfers via Method 1.

Here's where I'm not to sure.

4) Non-Ca.-Resident traveling in state w/ NLG in possession, sells NLG to Ca. resident via FFL.

5) Non-Ca. Resident w/ NLG sends NLG to FFL for transfer to Ca. Resident

6) Ca. Resident traveling in another state purchases NLG from FFL. FFL transferes NLG to CA. FFL where paperwork is completed and waiting period is completed.

7) Ca. resident traveling in another state purchases NLG from private party. Out of state FFL transfers NLG to in state FFL for paperwork and waiting period.

 

[Jim March]

Damn. I *think* Cal-DOJ has screwed up here...not at ALL the first time, either.

I'll get on this Monday, too much going on right now.

 

[Ned Ludd]

It IS possible to connect California Penal Codes 12050-12054 to racism at the time of their initial passage - see also the last page of:

Jim:

What a well-done report. A bit off-topic, but do you have any background on the change in CA open carry laws. My recollection is that the change in open carry was in response to the Black Panthers carrying M-1's all over Oakalnd and scaring the c*** out of the cops, but I am having a hard time finding any history on this. I'm looking to write a serious law review-type article on this.

-NL

 

[Jim March]

Ned Ludd:

Clayton's "Racist Roots of Gun Control" has a good bit in it you need:

http://www.law.ukans.edu/jrnl/cramer.htm

If you read THEIR own histories, they claim that right after the Watts riots, some black activists in LA tried following the police around with cameras (unarmed) to record brutality, etc...and were simply stomped on, falsely arrested, etc.

When the Panthers decided to replicate that earlier effort in Oakland, they did so armed to prevent the same thing.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/BPP-Serving-The-People1998.htm - search for the word "cameras".

 

[Carnitas]

BTT

 

[Ned Ludd]

Jim:

Thanks for the excellent information. The stats are exactly what everyone who any background would expect. Do you have any more links on the open carry issue?

Has anyone tried to do a FOIA request of LAPD to show demographics of their denials?

-NL

 

[Jim March]

Nedd:

FOIA is for Federal records. The California state equivelent is a "PRAR" - Public Records Act Request.

LA city and county both have been squirrelly with releasing these records. Basically, there's no penalty for jerking people around and forcing them into court. And with an enormous number of agencies playing such games, trying to get statewide CCW data all in one swallow has proven impossible.

(Worse, some agencies told the attorney's office who tried that they would retaliate against the current permitholders if said attorneys pursued statewide data...literally holding the permitholders hostage.)

PRAR access in GENERAL sucks so badly, the legislature has approved a constitutional amendment to strengthen public records access. Next step is a public vote in November, where it's considered a shoe-in. See also:

http://www.cfac.org/sca1.html

This was spurred in large part by well-documented PRAR abuses:

http://cfac.org/Audit Cover.html

That's why we're going after the state archives at the California DOJ rather than piddle around with each agency, in a lawsuit funded by SAF.

 

[gunsmith]

a few states are worse then CA

I know NY has a permit system to even have a long gun in your house! and another permit for pistol
plus while it is generally impossible to score a permit to carry in LA/SF
if you get a permit from a friendly county generally you can carry in SF/LA.
If I was in NY State I am reasonably sure I could score a ccw cause of family connections,but I still wouldn't be able to carry in NYC.
Also illegal ccw in NYC is a felony with a mandatory year in jail (unless you're
Jade Barrymore,Drew Barrymore's mom) in SF it's a misdemeanor taking into account all the stuff on jim march's website...

 

[Carnitas]

Jim,

What about the DOJ screw-up?

Damn. I *think* Cal-DOJ has screwed up here...not at ALL the first time, either.

 

[Jim March]

Working on it today.

 

[inventory0297]

While it is generally impossible to score a permit to carry in LA/SF
if you get a permit from a friendly county generally you can carry in SF/LA.

Thats right buddy, and aint it sweet . LA county has a NO carry ordinance I think, so CCW is absolutely forbidden there. I try not to make it down to "where the air stinks and you can't drink the water" much. Seriously though, I feel bad for all you Bay and lower folks who have it so rough. Up here in Shasta County its MUCH easier.

When I asked the Sheriff if he'd issue he only had one question: "You're not a criminal, are you?"

"No"

"Well, that'll be fine then."

Keep in mind I'm a young guy, wear those loose jeans some of ya'll hate, etc. My family has known Sheriff Pope for a good number of years, that couldn't hurt I guess. His position is pretty clear in a statement he put out recently, a real stand up guy:

http://www.im-news.com/SOGunPermits.html

Nice to know someone with some authority in this state supports the RKBA

 

[Jim March]

Quoting from Sheriff Pope's letter above:

In recent years, there have been several court decisions which have made the Sheriff vicariously liable in civil cases where the holder of a Concealed Weapon Permit used a weapon when not appropriately trained or in an unlawful or unreasonable manner.

Problem: this is a lie.

You can't sue cops for doing their jobs. There are NO court decisions otherwise, and piles of 'em that go the other way. See for example:

http://members.aol.com/copcrimes/brophy.html

...for extensive court citations by a lawyer.

Must be a United States citizen.

This particular type of discrimination used to be part of the CCW laws as of 1923 (original law) but was struck down by the courts as racist in 1972 (People vs. Rappard, http://www.equalccw.com/rappard.txt).

So it's doubly illegal: it's an illegal discrimination on the basis of national origins, and it's an addition to the state CCW laws (Penal Codes 12050-12054) which cops don't have the legislative power to make. Sheriff Pope is allowed to judge the "good cause" and "good character" of each applicant (in line with equal protection and due process rights) but he can't legislate as he's trying to do here.

Must be a permanent resident of Shasta County for at least one full year prior to making application.

Yet more "legislation by cop"...he doesn't have the right to define what "residency" is.

Granted, this is by far one of the BETTER agencies. And he still can't get it right. Per this letter, every resident of Shasta County lives in a literal police state, where the cops are allowed to make up whatever rules they want regardless of either courts or the legislature.

And if it's this bad in Shasta, wanna guess what it's like in the Bay Area?



Yes, you COULD sue him over any one of these policies. And you'd win in state court. But then he can still discriminate against you, and would in retaliation for daring to sue.

 

[inventory0297]

I agree with you in theory, but in practice its hard to do much better in CA. Shasta county ranks 2nd or 3rd in CCW issuances statewide.

As far as I can tell he'll issue CCW's to responsible adults without requiring some kind of ridiculous "just cause". Mine was no problem. It is a shame we have to put up with the rules as they stand, but it could be a LOT worse.