Is this legal?

[carlosa]

I think that it's natural that people would be shy about the process (which is not very well known) specialy sence no one wants to go to jail over enjoying their hobby. Either way I hope you get your frame and that you build a sweet blaster

Keep us posted.

Cheers,

Los

[818-DVC]

Yeah. I don't want anything to do with even a grey area. It's either legal or it's not. I will seek legal council, personally discuss my matter with the Attourney general and do what is lawful. Thank you all for your contributions.

JL

[818-DVC]

Here is the link for the report of inrtra famialial transactions I was informed to download by the DOJ. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf

[twodownzero]

But, a straw purchase is a federal felony. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) & 924(a)(2).

(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

I can't tell you what a straw purchase is for reasons I won't go into here, but I will say that you're wrong, and neither of the statutes you quote define it, either.

I'd highly doubt that your experience with those statutes is as extensive as mine is.

Knowingly making false statements in the acquisition of a firearms is prohibited by 922(a)(6); 924(a)(2) tells you it's a felony. ATF Form 4473, Question 11.a. asks: "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.)"

The Instructions state: "Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer 'NO' to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer 'YES' to question 11.a."

If you get on an ATF agent's radar and he decides to characterize the events so as to fit them within a violation of that section (i.e. saying you gave your parents the money to make the purchase for you), you've got problems. And, yes, ATF agents do lie, both in and out of court.

§ 922(a)(5)

It shall be unlawful— . . . for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B ) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes

The following is not legal advice.

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(5) makes it clear that interstate transfers (including those between family members) must go through an FFL (as 2down0 said).

Cal. Penal Code § 12078(c )(2) says that transfers between immediate family members (defined as parent and child or grandparent and grandchild; spouses are allowed to transfer by another subsection) are legal without the firearm (frame, etc.) being on the CA Handgun Roster.

An FFL might have a way of pushing through the DROS under 12078(c )(2) (it may be an option, along with "sale", "private party transfer", etc.), but that seems unlikely since 12078(c )(2)(A) requires the person who obtains the handgun to provide CA DOJ with the necessary form (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf).

However, 922(a)(6) also penalizes "straw purchases", which are described by the acts in the Instructions to Question 11.a. in ATF Form 4473. "Intent" is what's important here; that's where prosecutors and defense attorneys make their money.

Buying a firearm to gift it is not a straw purchase. You are the actual "purchaser" of the firearm in that instance. The later "gift" is a separate act.

Even the Wikipedia page on "straw purchase" has this answer:

"However, purchase of a firearm as a bona fide gift for someone who can legally own such a firearm is permitted"

Which cites to this government publication on the issue:

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf - specifically, page 166

"Where a person purchases a firearm

with the intent of making a gift of the

firearm to another person, the person

making the purchase is indeed the true

purchaser. There is no straw purchaser

in these instances. In the above example,

if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm

with his own money to give to Mr. Smith

as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could

lawfully have completed Form 4473.

The use of gift certificates would also

not fall within the category of straw purchases.

The person redeeming the gift

certificate would be the actual purchaser

of the firearm and would be properly

reflected as such in the dealer's records."

[njl]

Here is the link for the report of inrtra famialial transactions I was informed to download by the DOJ. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf

That looks like a CA state handgun registration form. The transfer still has to be executed by a CA FFL who will execute a form 4473, and I would expect any FFL operating in CA would then also help you with or simply do the paperwork for whatever the state requires as far as registration and fees for handgun ownership.

[gose]

Here is the link for the report of inrtra famialial transactions I was informed to download by the DOJ. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf

That looks like a CA state handgun registration form. The transfer still has to be executed by a CA FFL who will execute a form 4473, and I would expect any FFL operating in CA would then also help you with or simply do the paperwork for whatever the state requires as far as registration and fees for handgun ownership.

Actually, even though it's a perfectly legal transaction, quite a few FFLs will not do it.

[818-DVC]

Here's another link I was directed to by my FFL, and the attourney general..

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

no 4473. No FFL. Straight to the DOJ..

[twodownzero]

Here's another link I was directed to by my FFL, and the attourney general..

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/volreg.pdf

no 4473. No FFL. Straight to the DOJ..

I wouldn't expect your state attorney general to give you advice on federal law.

[818-DVC]

And what federal law are you speaking of that is being violated? What state law?

[diehli]

18 USC 922(a)(5).

[818-DVC]

"(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

( the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;"

[njl]

Actually, even though it's a perfectly legal transaction, quite a few FFLs will not do it.

Not for legal reasons, but for personal/business reasons. Not all FFLs are willing to do things other than sell firearms. The first time I went looking around for a local FFL to do the transfer paperwork for out of state purchased guns, I got some angry responses along the lines of "if you want a _____, buy it from us. Why should we help you undercut our pricing?" Refusing to help with an intra-family transfer where the gun is being gifted is kind of lame...but there's nothing forcing an FFL to do transfers for guns they didn't sell.

[diehli]

Buying a firearm to gift it is not a straw purchase. You are the actual "purchaser" of the firearm in that instance. The later "gift" is a separate act.

Everyone seems to have (intentionally?) completely missed the point. Just saying the transaction was for the purpose of making it a gift doesn't make it one. The way this whole thing is characterized here is as a way around the laws of California and, perhaps, the US. I don't know many parents of adults willing to spend $400+ on a gift for an adult child that's not something for that child's child or a wedding or graduation gift. And there's the start of your probable cause to open an investigation.

"(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B ) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;"

Quoting law you don't understand the meaning of does not support your position, it just indicates you're looking for some way around the law and are hoping that you might hit on something. A bequest and intestate succession are not the same as the inter-vivos gift that you're talking about.

And "temporary" is defined as 30 days under CA law. I'd guess fed law isn't much different.

[818-DVC]

My mother is ready to buy me a frame for Christmas for gunsmithng school in a legal state. She has agreed to buy 3 frames/ parts for school. when I live in Co or AZ, I don't think this is violating any federal or state laws. When your daily driver is a v-12 awd red bentley covnertible. The price of education & Materials is pocket change.

[twodownzero]

Buying a firearm to gift it is not a straw purchase. You are the actual "purchaser" of the firearm in that instance. The later "gift" is a separate act.

Everyone seems to have (intentionally?) completely missed the point. Just saying the transaction was for the purpose of making it a gift doesn't make it one. The way this whole thing is characterized here is as a way around the laws of California and, perhaps, the US. I don't know many parents of adults willing to spend $400+ on a gift for an adult child that's not something for that child's child or a wedding or graduation gift. And there's the start of your probable cause to open an investigation.

"(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B ) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;"

Quoting law you don't understand the meaning of does not support your position, it just indicates you're looking for some way around the law and are hoping that you might hit on something. A bequest and intestate succession are not the same as the inter-vivos gift that you're talking about.

And "temporary" is defined as 30 days under CA law. I'd guess fed law isn't much different.

I already posted the language straight out of the ATF's manual for FFLs on that exact topic.

You are correct that a gift inter vivos or transfer via will or sucession aren't the same. The provision of the gun control act that prevents interstate transfers without a 4473 doesn't apply to transfers that occur by death.

It's kinda shocking to me that this has gone for 2 pages when the entire purpose of acquiring and maintaining any type of FFL is that it is the only lawful way to engage in the interstate commerce of firearms. The "privilege" of transferring firearms between states is, absent some exception, restricted to licensees.

California has such restrictive laws that even C&Rs can't engage in interstate commerce of curio and relic handguns to my knowledge (which might have constitutional issues but not until someone actually brings suit).

My mother is ready to buy me a frame for Christmas for gunsmithng school in a legal state. She has agreed to buy 3 frames/ parts for school. when I live in Co or AZ, I don't think this is violating any federal or state laws. When your daily driver is a v-12 awd red bentley covnertible. The price of education & Materials is pocket change.

Several people have warned you thus far that an interstate transfer of firearms without an FFL is illegal.

The penalties for getting caught engaging in interstate commerce of firearms without a license are sufficiently severe that, if convicted, you'd never be able to own any type of firearm again for the rest of your life. The system for regaining one's gun rights after a felony conviction is not funded presently, so even people convicted of tax evasion who want to apply to have their gun rights restored, can't. And no court, to my knowledge, would hear such a case until the administrative process is/was exhausted, meaning those people will have to wait years, maybe decades, or maybe forever, just to petition to have their gun rights restored.

The best advice to someone who lives in California is to move away. California has very restrictive gun laws that appear to have combined with the Gun Control Act to make your transfer illegal.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that what you're basically asking to do here is to figure out a way to circumvent the clear legislative intent of the law when they made a list of the "handguns" that can be imported into the state. Perhaps they didn't seriously consider that a frame is a "handgun" under the law, but the point is, they made a list, the frame isn't on it, importing something that isn't on that list isn't legal, and the fact that your parents happen to live in another state doesn't negate the paperwork that must accompany any interstate transfer of firearms among non-licensees.

Without expressing any opinion on whether these are good laws or bad laws, or whether you should try to do it or not, from one honest guy to another, it doesn't seem like a good idea to try to circumvent the express purpose a legislature had when drafting a criminal statute. Granted, they didn't have a gunsmith in mind when they drafted the statute, but they wrote broadly enough to include the transaction you're talking about. If they didn't, I'm sure a local gun shop or gunsmith would have a pile of frames on the shelf ready to sell you.

Edited November 14, 2010 by twodownzero

[carlosa]

Dang you guys need to smoke a joint..

But wait! That would be illegal! Unless you're in California

[818-DVC]

Honestly, I'm sorry I even asked. I have talked to so many people who have legally transfered 2011 frames this week, I learned where to buy a CA reg frame if I want to spend enough. I also bought an uncut frame today for $500. It's in my FFL's safe until next next wednesday. Thanks for trying. I'm not going to commit a felony over paper work. Funny State we live in. Glad I'm going to school out of state..

Co. Where we can own assault rifles and smoke a J legally!

[Seth]

Why be sorry? There are a lot of folks here trying hard to give you the best possible information so you can make an informed and legal decision.

Meanwhile, your intention IS to skirt the law, as you are actively seeking a loophole. STI frames aren't on the DOJ list in CA, right?

[carlosa]

If this was illegal then all 3 gunners in ca would be in jail for bullet buttons, and monster man grips, and building AR's from offlist recivers. Or people building single shot pistols on wide body frames.

There's nothing wrong with exploiting wholes in poorly written laws that infringe in our rights.

The op has the information he needs in order to make an informed decision and is now up to him to do so.

If you don't know of any one who's been charge from engaging in very common practice here in CA then your just helping spread FUD.

I know all you here have the best intentions in mind but the reality here in CA is much simpler than than you make it out to be.

Good luck to the OP.

[carlosa]

California has such restrictive laws that even C&Rs can't engage in interstate commerce of curio and relic handguns to my knowledge (which might have constitutional issues but not until someone actually brings suit).

Where you get this from??

Im preaty sure you're miss informed about this..

Are you guys from Cali? Or from another state?

Everytime I go shoot out of state I meet people who swear, CA is so strict. They think that we're shooting 10 round open guns like Canada our Australia, or are amazed when I tell them how great 3 gun is down here.

They're also unaware that some of the best GM's including our current president live in CA.

Seriously guys gun owners in ca (specialy the good folks at cal guns)put allot of work into figuring how to legally exercise our rights. So there's no need to keep spreading miss information.

Take care and good shooting

[Mbauer67]

Buying a firearm to gift it is not a straw purchase. You are the actual "purchaser" of the firearm in that instance. The later "gift" is a separate act.

Everyone seems to have (intentionally?) completely missed the point. Just saying the transaction was for the purpose of making it a gift doesn't make it one. The way this whole thing is characterized here is as a way around the laws of California and, perhaps, the US. I don't know many parents of adults willing to spend $400+ on a gift for an adult child that's not something for that child's child or a wedding or graduation gift. And there's the start of your probable cause to open an investigation.

"(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B ) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;"

Quoting law you don't understand the meaning of does not support your position, it just indicates you're looking for some way around the law and are hoping that you might hit on something. A bequest and intestate succession are not the same as the inter-vivos gift that you're talking about.

And "temporary" is defined as 30 days under CA law. I'd guess fed law isn't much different.

I already posted the language straight out of the ATF's manual for FFLs on that exact topic.

You are correct that a gift inter vivos or transfer via will or sucession aren't the same. The provision of the gun control act that prevents interstate transfers without a 4473 doesn't apply to transfers that occur by death.

It's kinda shocking to me that this has gone for 2 pages when the entire purpose of acquiring and maintaining any type of FFL is that it is the only lawful way to engage in the interstate commerce of firearms. The "privilege" of transferring firearms between states is, absent some exception, restricted to licensees.

California has such restrictive laws that even C&Rs can't engage in interstate commerce of curio and relic handguns to my knowledge (which might have constitutional issues but not until someone actually brings suit).

My mother is ready to buy me a frame for Christmas for gunsmithng school in a legal state. She has agreed to buy 3 frames/ parts for school. when I live in Co or AZ, I don't think this is violating any federal or state laws. When your daily driver is a v-12 awd red bentley covnertible. The price of education & Materials is pocket change.

Several people have warned you thus far that an interstate transfer of firearms without an FFL is illegal.

The penalties for getting caught engaging in interstate commerce of firearms without a license are sufficiently severe that, if convicted, you'd never be able to own any type of firearm again for the rest of your life. The system for regaining one's gun rights after a felony conviction is not funded presently, so even people convicted of tax evasion who want to apply to have their gun rights restored, can't. And no court, to my knowledge, would hear such a case until the administrative process is/was exhausted, meaning those people will have to wait years, maybe decades, or maybe forever, just to petition to have their gun rights restored.

The best advice to someone who lives in California is to move away. California has very restrictive gun laws that appear to have combined with the Gun Control Act to make your transfer illegal.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that what you're basically asking to do here is to figure out a way to circumvent the clear legislative intent of the law when they made a list of the "handguns" that can be imported into the state. Perhaps they didn't seriously consider that a frame is a "handgun" under the law, but the point is, they made a list, the frame isn't on it, importing something that isn't on that list isn't legal, and the fact that your parents happen to live in another state doesn't negate the paperwork that must accompany any interstate transfer of firearms among non-licensees.

Without expressing any opinion on whether these are good laws or bad laws, or whether you should try to do it or not, from one honest guy to another, it doesn't seem like a good idea to try to circumvent the express purpose a legislature had when drafting a criminal statute. Granted, they didn't have a gunsmith in mind when they drafted the statute, but they wrote broadly enough to include the transaction you're talking about. If they didn't, I'm sure a local gun shop or gunsmith would have a pile of frames on the shelf ready to sell you.

Ok buddy, check the ego. I bet your position would be very different if you lived in California

What DVC is trying to do is legal and has been done many times over, and kudos for him for trying to understand the legal process which us non lawyers sometimes struggle with all the mumbo jumbo.

[twodownzero]

California has such restrictive laws that even C&Rs can't engage in interstate commerce of curio and relic handguns to my knowledge (which might have constitutional issues but not until someone actually brings suit).

Where you get this from??

Im preaty sure you're miss informed about this..

Are you guys from Cali? Or from another state?

Everytime I go shoot out of state I meet people who swear, CA is so strict. They think that we're shooting 10 round open guns like Canada our Australia, or are amazed when I tell them how great 3 gun is down here.

They're also unaware that some of the best GM's including our current president live in CA.

Seriously guys gun owners in ca (specialy the good folks at cal guns)put allot of work into figuring how to legally exercise our rights. So there's no need to keep spreading miss information.

Take care and good shooting

Can C&Rs have handguns shipped to their door? Are they treated as licensees as they would be in any other state? No. This is the law in California, as far as I know. If I'm wrong, feel free to bring evidence to the contrary.

I lived in Illinois for the overwhelming majority of my life, so I know that the perception of terrible gun laws is often worse for outsiders than the actual law is. That doesn't change the fact that both states have very restrictive laws in some areas, and not so strict in others. The DOJ's "approved" list, the illegality of transfers to licensed collectors, the magazine restrictions, bullet buttons, off list lower builds, etc., reinforce this argument rather than refute it. The fact that most Californians have no lawful way to own high capacity magazines, certain complete firearms, and even frames on which to build what would be a lawful firearm is honestly a shame. The fact that other Californians are grandfathered in, find and exploit loopholes, etc., is admirable but doesn't refute the fact that what is perfectly permissible and "not a big deal" in some states is a felony in California. It's not like Illinois doesn't have similar problems either. CCW is lawful in every state that borders Illinois except Wisconsin, yet CCW is a felony in Illinois and there is no way around that.

Ok buddy, check the ego. I bet your position would be very different if you lived in California

What DVC is trying to do is legal and has been done many times over, and kudos for him for trying to understand the legal process which us non lawyers sometimes struggle with all the mumbo jumbo.

My perception of the Gun Control Act wouldn't be any different if I were a resident or domiciled in California. And I wouldn't be trying to transfer a firearm from another state in violation of federal law even if the state authorities would "approve" such a transaction.

It is, personally and from a perspective of scholarship, fascinating to me that a state could write laws that so substantially interfere with interstate commerce of firearms without violating the Constitution of the United States. I presume that California would claim some health or safety aspect of interfering with firearms transfers negates these concerns, but I'd also find it hard to believe that a court would conclude that buying an STI Eagle or Edge would be any different than building a similar firearm from a frame. This is an area of law that I know very little about, but considering the broad regulation of firearms on a federal level, a state imposing restrictions that wouldn't have any effect at all on health or safety (making it illegal to build a gun from a frame, if built outside of Cali would be on the list) seems to me burdens interstate commerce in a way that has been struck down by courts before. I'd even go as far to say that the California legislature erred in failing to exempt firearm parts, even frames, from the DOJ list, because their intent was quite obviously to limit the importation of certain types of complete firearms. I also wonder what would happen if a frame were destroyed and had to be replaced by a professional gunsmith. Would it be illegal for him to provide those services or procure that frame? A Glock, Kimber, Springfield, etc., frames aren't on the list. Could a licensed gunsmith import the parts to make a firearm repair? Perhaps this is a topic for a future law review article that could shed some light on this.

What he is trying to do may not violate California law, but I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that making an interstate transfer of a firearm without a 4473 is a violation of the Gun Control Act. Whether the local DOJ blesses the transaction is irrelevant to that FFL's obligations under the act.

I'm not a lawyer. I am a licensed collector and I get a bunch of books in the mail from the ATF every year. I tried to make an honest reading of them and draw an honest conclusion. Additionally, this isn't a transaction in which I would engage, personally. What others do is their business.

That nobody has ever been charged does not mean that they did not violate the law. 922® comes to mind. Nearly any gun forum has the 922® discussion eventually, and the factual question of whether one has violated the statute isn't determined by the fact that nobody, to my knowledge, has ever been prosecuted for a violation of 922® alone.

Edited November 15, 2010 by twodownzero

[carlosa]

C&R holders can receive any firearm to door step a's long as the given firearm meats the criteria of curio/relic.

No 10 day period, no ffl, no 1 per 30 day limit.

That's the whole point of the lic.

Anyway thanks for the input, and your opinion, it sounds like your state is much more uptight than ours.

I hope that changes in the future.

I think this thread has run it's course.

Peace,

Los

[818-DVC]

While I appreciate everyones response, I'm only going to listen to CA residents. Yesterday I was turned down for a gun deal for a CA legal SPringer .45, because the seller wouldn't ship to CA!!! All this banter back n forth and section codes. Unless you practice CA firearms law, or am shooting an STI in CA, this thread doesn't need out of staters to post ecxerpts from the same website with their Intrerpretation of what it means. Thank you. I'm off to buy some endmills, collets, etc to cut my slide this week. You all have a wonderful day

[twodownzero]

While I appreciate everyones response, I'm only going to listen to CA residents. Yesterday I was turned down for a gun deal for a CA legal SPringer .45, because the seller wouldn't ship to CA!!! All this banter back n forth and section codes. Unless you practice CA firearms law, or am shooting an STI in CA, this thread doesn't need out of staters to post ecxerpts from the same website with their Intrerpretation of what it means. Thank you. I'm off to buy some endmills, collets, etc to cut my slide this week. You all have a wonderful day

If you need an FFL to play the middleman, Pete @ Evil Black Rifles will do it for you.