Guns to California

J

JMP

New member
Need some insight into California laws.

My brother recently moved to California from Wyoming and because he was unsure of the gun laws out there, he left everything with me. He wants them now (don't blame him) and asked me about shipping them to him. I told him I don't want to do anything illegal so he should talk to an FFL there to see what we would need to do. They are all bolt action rifles or pump shotguns and one semi auto shotgun. No pistols. I don't know what he can and can't have out there because of the strict gun laws there.

He texted me earlier and said he talked to an FFL that told him if I shipped them in pieces it would be fine. I told him that makes absolutely no sense and to find a different FFL pretty quick.

Any idea on how we can get his guns from Wyoming to California legally?
 
6

62coltnavy

New member
Really, he does need to go to a new ffl. The laws are simple. For long guns, he can bring anything and everything EXCEPT "assault weapons" (unless modified to comply with California law by eliminating "evil" features). No worries with bolt guns or shot guns. He is NOT required to register any of them--although there is a theoretical issue for guns brought here after January 1, 2014 that I am not clear on (new guns purchased will have to be registered after that date, not sure if the law applies to transfers). As to handguns, again not much of an issue--the only thing prohibited is mags of greater than 10 rounds capacity. Handguns DO have to be registered, via a form you fill out and file with the DOJ along with a $19 fee.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
JMP said:
...My brother recently moved to California from Wyoming and because he was unsure of the gun laws out there, he left everything with me. He wants them now (don't blame him) and asked me about shipping them to him....
Click to expand...
This would be an interstate transfer under federal law. The federal law is about possession, not ownership. You now have possession, and you want to transfer possession to a resident of another State.

The legal way to effect the transfer would be for you to ship the guns to an FFL in California who would complete the transfer to your brother (complying with all the usual formalities). It's a hassle and an expense, but violation of the federal interstate transfer laws can get the transferor and transferee up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine (plus a bonus of a lifetime loss of gun rights). I can't imagine any shipping or FFL fees being more expensive than that.

Possession means:
1 a : the act of having or taking into control...
Click to expand...

Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):


Let's look at the statutes:

  1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    ...

    (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...
    Click to expand...

  2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    ...

    (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;
    Click to expand...
 
J

JMP

New member
Thanks guys, exactly what I was looking for. I'm not going to risk getting myself or him in trouble and I figured this is what would need to happen.

So if he came and got them and brought them himself to his new home, he'd be fine?

I don't think shipping them is going to be an option right now because of the expense but he may want to ship a couple for the time being.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
JMP said:
...So if he came and got them and brought them himself to his new home, he'd be fine?...
Click to expand...
Not really. It's still a transfer from a resident of one State to a resident of another.
 
J

JMP

New member
So just to be completely clear, for him to get his guns we need to ship all of them through an FFL in California, correct?
 
J

JimmyR

New member
So just to be completely clear, for him to get his guns we need to ship all of them through an FFL in California, correct?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am misreading, but another option would be if YOU drove the guns to CA, and transferred them to him via an FFL. Again, there is the expense of transferring each gun to him, which could mount up.

What he might want to consider, if the guns are fairly typical, would be to have you sell the guns (if private sales are legal in Wisconsin, and then send him the money.
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
I've deleted a couple of posts. Frank Ettin, who is an attorney and knows the law in this area very well, has explained that under federal law, the transfer must go through a licensed dealer at one end or the other.

If you don't understand why, re-read the thread. Any more "advice" to break the law will have consequences.
 
S

speedrrracer

New member
Frank, can you tell me a bit about the boundaries of "possession"?

For a hypothetical example, what if the brother in Wyoming had a safe at the California brother's home, to which the CA bro had no access? If the Wyoming bro left his guns in that safe, then could it be said that the CA bro was never able to take possession, since they were never under his control?

Another example: What if the CA bro never knew the guns were in his home? Can the CA bro be said to have ever had possession since he never knew they were in the home?

To be clear, I'm not questioning the recommendation to go through an FFL, just curious about the laws mentioned and how they might apply to some hypothetical edge cases. Thanks for any insights.
 
M

maestro pistolero

New member
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Quote:
So if he came and got them and brought them himself to his new home, he'd be fine?
Yes. He needs to drive them. He could also fly with
them in checked, declared luggage.
Click to expand...
How do you figure, based on the statutes I cited?
Click to expand...
If he is not yet a resident of CA, and is merely storing his own firearms in WY, he can legally take POSSESSION of those firearms in WY, and then transport them to California, IMO.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc516.htm

516. "Resident" means any person who manifests an intent to live or be located in this state on more than a temporary or transient basis. Presence in the state for six months or more in any 12-month period gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of residency.
Click to expand...

For tax purposes:
California Residency: Intent Not Enough to Change a Taxpayer's Residence
http://www.mofo.com/pubs/xpqPublicationDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=6792
Click to expand...

For the purposes of college registration:

Who Is a Resident?

If you are an adult student (at least 18 years of age), you may establish residence in California if

(1) You are a U.S. citizen.

(2) You are a permanent resident or other immigrant.

(3) You are a nonimmigrant who is not precluded from establishing a domicile in the U.S. This includes nonimmigrants who hold valid visas of the following types: A, E, G, H-1B, H-4, I, K, L, N, O-1, O-3, R, T, U, or V.

To establish residence you must be physically present in California for more than one year, and you must come here with the intent to make California your home as opposed to coming to this state to go to school. Physical presence within the state solely for educational purposes does not constitute the establishment of California residency, regardless of the length of stay. You must demonstrate your intention to make California your home by severing your residential ties with your former state of residence and establishing those ties with California. If your parents are not California residents, you are required to be financially independent in order to be a resident for tuition purposes. Your residence cannot be derived from your spouse, a registered domestic partner or a parent.
Click to expand...

As it relates to firearms ownership per CAL DOJ:
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/resprf

It is highly unlikely that retaking possession of own's own firearms, stored short-term with immediate family members, and later transporting them into one's new state of (pending?) residency would constitute an illegal interstate transfer.

I have never heard of such a case being brought. Have you?
 
J

JMP

New member
What he might want to consider, if the guns are fairly typical, would be to have you sell the guns (if private sales are legal in Wisconsin (actually Wyoming), and then send him the money.
Click to expand...

I think right now this is probably the best option.

Thank you everybody for answers to my questions. Right now I don't care how it should be or what we could probably get away with. I'm am not going to risk getting in trouble in any way, so thank you Vanya for clearing that up.

maestro, that last comment wasn't directed at you. I hadn't even thought about him not being a resident yet since he's only been there for a month and a half and he does still own a house here that is for sale, but I don't think right now he could afford to come get them.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
Vanya, thanks for jumping in while I've been otherwise engaged.

speedrrracer said:
Frank, can you tell me a bit about the boundaries of "possession"?
Click to expand...
I'm really not going to start speculating and addressing issues outside the scope of the OP's question.

maestro pistolero said:
If he is not yet a resident of CA, and is merely storing his own firearms in WY, he can legally take POSSESSION of those firearms in WY, and then transport them to California, IMO...
Click to expand...
The problem with your analysis is that you're relying on California law to determine residence. That's not appropriate here.

For the purposes of federal firearms transfer law, one's State of residence will be determined by federal law. And for such purposes "State of Residence" will be determined as follows (27 CFR 478.11):
State of residence. The State in which an individual resides. An individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a State with the intention of making a home in that State. If an individual is on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces, the individual's State of residence is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located. An alien who is legally in the United States shall be considered to be a resident of a State only if the alien is residing in the State and has resided in the State for a period of at least 90 days prior to the date of sale or delivery of a firearm. The following are examples that illustrate this definition:

Example 1.

A maintains a home in State X. A travels to State Y on a hunting, fishing, business, or other type of trip. A does not become a resident of State Y by reason of such trip.

Example 2.

A is a U.S. citizen and maintains a home in State X and a home in State Y. A resides in State X except for weekends or the summer months of the year and in State Y for the weekends or the summer months of the year. During the time that A actually resides in State X, A is a resident of State X, and during the time that A actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y.

Example 3.

A, an alien, travels on vacation or on a business trip to State X. Regardless of the length of time A spends in State X, A does not have a State of residence in State X. This is because A does not have a home in State X at which he has resided for at least 90 days.
Click to expand...

The OP said the the brother moved to California. That sure sounds like he moved there with the intention of making it his home, at least for a time. So for the purposes of federal firearms transfer law he became a California resident once he arrived in California.
 
G

g.willikers

New member
Am I missing something here?
Why are these guns considered to have been transferred from brother #1, the guy who moved to Cali, to brother #2, who still lives in Wyoming?
Aren't they just being temporarily stored there and still owned by brother #1?
Is this any different than if brother #1 had put them in a Wyoming storage facility, instead of with his brother?
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
If the OP's brother had put them in a storage unit to which he alone had the key, they would still be in his possession. But the OP now has possession of them, because his brother "left everything with [him]."

There are two key points here: first, under federal law, the issue is who is in possession of the firearms, not who owns them. The OP is in possession of them. Second, his brother is now a resident of California, and that means that transferring them back to him is an interstate transfer, and must go through an FFL.

Federal law makes no distinction between this situation and buying a gun from a private party: if both parties are residents of the same state, no problem: you can make the sale directly, and no FFL has to be involved. But if you reside in different states, you must do the transfer through an FFL, regardless of whether the firearms are shipped or one of you travels to the other's state.

Frank's post #3 spells this out in detail.
 
M

maestro pistolero

New member
I know. It seems ridiculous. I don't question Frank's cites of the law and they do point to possession as the relevant factor rather than ownership.

Yet, I have never heard of a single instance, nor could I imagine a person relinquishing ownership (or rights to possess) his/her own firearms merely because they were temporarily and lawfully stored at another location. It just can't be. Certainly the intent of the law cannot be to deprive someone of the rights to their lawfully owned property without due process.
 
G

g.willikers

New member
So, if brother 1 had put his stuff in a foot locker, locked it and kept the key, and written his name on the outside, even if the locker was in his brother's house, he would still have retained possession?
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
Revoltella said:
Does the brother still have his Wyoming driver's license? He still owns a home there.
Click to expand...
His driver's license is irrelevant, as is the fact that he owns a home in Wyoming. He's not living in it, even part-time, therefore he's not a resident of Wyoming. Frank Ettin quoted the relevant federal law:
(27 CFR 478.11) said:
State of residence. The State in which an individual resides. An individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a State with the intention of making a home in that State.
<snip>
A is a U.S. citizen and maintains a home in State X and a home in State Y. A resides in State X except for weekends or the summer months of the year and in State Y for the weekends or the summer months of the year. During the time that A actually resides in State X, A is a resident of State X, and during the time that A actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y. (Emphasis mine.)
Click to expand...
Owning a home doesn't count unless one is actually living in it at least some of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top