If someone buys ammo for, say, a 9mm pistol, and the records don't show a 9mm pistol registered to the buyer, might this be used to obtain a search warrant? I don't want to sound paranoid, but..
Perhaps, especially if you take into account the age of the individual, when all handguns began being registered, the date state law began requiring all handgun transfers go through an FFL, and what the minimum age to own a pistol was at that time.
People born before X date will not legally own an unregistered handgun, so any unregistered handgun they possess was obviously obtained in violation of the law at some point if they came of legal handgun owning age after the legal requirement of all transfers going through an FFL, and all private owners moving into the state having to register their handguns.
The latest of all of the above dates is the one requiring out of state residents who move into California to register their guns. That was in 1998.
This means the absolute youngest someone living in California could be while legally owning an unregistered handgun is someone who was of legal handgun owning age in 1998 (and they would have to be even older if they were only a resident of California before 1998.)
Anyone who came of age later than 1998 can be presumed to be in violation of California law and prosecuted just for owning an unregistered handgun.
All transfers have had to go through an FFL since 1991 in California, so if you were only a California resident prior to 1998 and not of legal age to own a handgun before 1991, then any unregistered handgun is clearly illegal.
Someone 18 in 1991 would be about 37 today. Anyone 18 in 1998 and previously over 18 while a resident of another state would be a minimum age of 30 today.
So by simple logical deduction anyone under 37 or 30 respectively who owns an unregistered handgun who is a California resident is obviously in violation of the law, and enough evidence exists to obtain a conviction.
Of course people are free to legally buy ammo for guns they do not own, including those they are borrowing. So just the purchase of ammo itself is not proof of ownership.
Nope. It's perfectly legal in California to own an unregistered handgun.
It is a crime to import an unregistered handgun without registering it within 60 days.
All handguns transferred through an FFL in California are automatically registered with the CADOJ in a database.
Almost all transfers in California require an FFL, and the one that does not requires mailing the firearm information to CADOJ.
The crime is typically a misdemeanor but can be a felony under certain circumstances (one of which is a repeat offense) PC12027(g)
So as I explained above anyone under 37 or 30 respectively (or who talks too much without a lawyer even if older) who becomes known to own an unregistered handgun can be prosecuted as all the evidence necessary to show it is illegal exists based on the dates of enacted legislation and birth date of the individual.
Most people are simply unaware that all handguns purchased or transferred in California through an FFL are automatically registered, and so never know their firearm is registered.
That did not pass...
