Selling an Open gun to a California buyer

[Foxbat]

Are there any issues with selling an open gun to a buyer in CA? Of course through an FFL, with no magazines.

[OperationHitFactor]

Yes and no. When I was selling an open gun, I had a lot of people from Cali make offers. I made a few phone calls to FFL's and the California DOJ. Seems like it is not allowed, however, there is this one shot exemption thing a few people informed me of. Apparently, there is some grey area and a work around of the California law. Personally, I decided it wasn't worth the risk of being a prosecution's test case. Most likely you will be fine, but you could also end up the victim of a socialized state government. Best of luck, I'd love to get an official answer on this so we can do business with our California friends.

[diehli]

There's a lot of info on all the laws surrounding it. The easiest way to get all of that info is to read this thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=383692

Now, how this is divided up in terms of who does the labor and whatnot is up to the parties involved.

Here's the short version of what physically needs to be done to the gun:

In order to get the gun into the CA buyer's hands, it has to be converted to a "single-shot" (a legal term of art), which means it has to have a 6" or longer barrel length, a 10.5" or longer overall length, and it cannot be able to accept any more than 1 round at a time in the firearm. It can be shipped into the state in a non-single-shot state and the receiving FFL would do the work on it.

Examples of how it's done are here: http://www.tablerockarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=60

The video from the above link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RAPst-148

Now, as to the logistics of doing it on an S_I-based gun, how easy it is will depend on the gun.

If the slide's been cut down such that there is no longer a channel for the lobes on a bushing to fit into, it's going to be a PITA. Easiest way to do it with that setup is to get a cheap new slide and have it fit so it's sloppy on a new frame. Get a 7" barrel (that's the longest that's readily available and will get you just over the 10.5" OAL requirement, assuming a regular grip safety, like a Brown or STI) and put it in with a bushing, link pin, and link and install the firing pin, extractor, firing pin spring, and firing pin stop. I'd want the barrel (hood and upper and lower lugs), bushing, and link fit VERY sloppily, so as to allow them to be easily installed, without any files needed.

If the slide still has a slot for a bushing (it's built on a true Commander slide or a 5" slide with the bushing lobe channel still in tact) and it's built for .40 or a .355 round, here's a .38 Super 7" barrel: http://e-sarcoinc.com/381911barrel7roto.aspx

In .40 slides, dropping the barrel in with a bushing will allow .38 Super to be shot, hypothetically. If it's a .38 Super slide, then one would use a .38 Super dummy round to do the "Safe Handling Demonstration". If 9/SuperComp/etc., then it would be a .38 SuperComp dummy round (although I'm not sure if the official kit from the CA DOJ has those calibers).

I say "hypothetically" as most people don't shoot them, they simply do some "gunsmithing" on them to turn them back into semi-autos that accept mags. The issue with "gunsmithing" is adding "assault weapon" features, most notably "[a] threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer." There's ambiguity in what "capable of accepting" means (i.e. if a comp is Loctited, is that good enough, or must it be pinned, too, or must it be a Trubor?). That's the subject of another thread.

As far as limiting the ability to accept magazines goes, you can see how it's done on several models of firearms at the Table Rock link above.

On an STI, I would pull out the bottom decorative grip screws, get longer screws, and insert a CRTC dummy mag.

I would mark the grip screw holes on the dummy mag and drill holes in the mag to allow screws to be inserted through the grip and into the mag, locking the mag in place.

As to whose responsibility it is to get the conversion done, I'd say it's up to the buyer. If your buyer doesn't know his shit, I'd tell him to pound sand. Fact is that it's California law and Californians (and visitors to California, although not those simply doing business with Californians [because federal law governs interstate commerce]) have to abide by it.

The way I'd arrange it as the buyer in California is I would offer a couple bucks more (up to $50, which is what I was just charged to have the single-shot conversion done on an XDm 5.25 by Valkyrie Arms in Santa Clara, CA) to have the seller do the conversion.

I'd send the modified CRTC mag and longer lower grip screws to the seller and have the seller install them. If this is all the seller's doing, I'd offer $10 (max) to do it. If the seller's willing to do the work without extra money, he or she is a nice person and earns extra karma points and a couple alcoholic beverages purchased by the buyer for him or her if the buyer and seller ever meet, say at a major match.

There are two ways to do the barrel. If the seller's willing to install the long barrel, I would have the seller remove the comped barrel and send it to me outside of the firearm sale (the part with the FFL/s involved). The seller would then install the longer barrel with link, link pin, and bushing.

I'd then have the seller send it to one of the CA FFLs listed in the Calguns link I posted above that knows how the SSE works. The seller would, of course, have to get the FFL's documentation (or check it online). The buyer would arrange the sending of the transferring FFL's documentation.

If the seller is unwilling to do the conversion, but the buyer's FFL (one of those in the Calguns list) can do it, then the seller simply has to send the gun out and not worry about it. Caveat emptor.

As far as I can tell, as long as the seller abides by the federal laws governing interstate money transfers (I don't even know if there are any) and, importantly, shipping restrictions on firearms (which may be up to the seller's FFL, depending on who is shipping it), then the seller has complied with all laws he is subject to. What goes on on the buyer's end is the buyer's—and the buyer's FFL's—responsibility.

BTW, none of the above is a legal opinion. It's just a hypothetical and how I would personally proceed in such a transaction.

[dr2e]

OMG! really??? (read above post).

[old506]

I think that there were a couple of California LEO's that were arrested this last week playing fast and loose with the laws. I would be careful.

[diehli]

I think that there were a couple of California LEO's that were arrested this last week playing fast and loose with the laws. I would be careful.

Source?

[warpspeed]

OMG! really??? (read above post).

Yep. it is not as bad as it sounds.

I think that there were a couple of California LEO's that were arrested this last week playing fast and loose with the laws. I would be careful.

They are being charged in Federal Court of engaging in a firearms business without a license.

[warpspeed]

I think that there were a couple of California LEO's that were arrested this last week playing fast and loose with the laws. I would be careful.

Source?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=578935

[Religious Shooter]

Different situation than an out of state sale.

http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/national/apnewsbreak-calif-deputies-face-weapons-charges/article_7797b2dd-b7ce-5235-b5d9-02caebdc5cab.html

[diehli]

Read the linked stories, 'though not the thread. Whole lot of non-information in there. In CA, if they did more than 6 transactions in a calendar year, they would be going beyond the definition of "infrequent". Sounds like the federal standard is less of a bright line.

And the CA DOJ would have approved the sales after a 10-day wait to the people that weren't supposed to have them. Funny how that's not mentioned.

[old506]

I wasn't trying to say its right or wrong or do this or that. I was just suggesting a friendly, be careful.

Edited June 4, 2012 by old506

[diehli]

10-4.

SSE (single-shot exemption) conversions are happening relatively frequently. Only thing that can be done by LE there is hassling dealers about the conversions &, ultimately, changing the law.

The dealing sans license charge is a completely different beast. It looks like the issue here is what it means to be a dealer under federal law. If you make money on it, you're a dealer? So, the law of supply & demand condemns you, even if, under CA law, you "infrequently" (that is, less than 6 transactions per year) sell what you've legally bought? So legal purchase + legal sale = illegal if the prosecutors don't like how much money you made?

Speaking of money, mine's on the prosecutors expecting the cases to plead out, like 90+% do. Now there's a racket.

[Foxbat]

Are there other states with similar, albeit lesser, issues?

[Foxbat]

Are there other states with similar, albeit lesser, issues?

[JaeOne3345]

Send it to Rafael Esqueda at Get a Gun (Bakersfield, CA).

He specialized in STI single shot conversions. He is also an active competitor.

I got a used Brazos gun here on the forum and he handled everything without issue.

That issue above with the police is totally different. Single Shot Exemption method is totally legit.

[DoubleL]

Let me get this straight, you send the gun, FFL converts to single shot then you convert it back to compete??? Has gun related crime gone down with these incredibly strange gun laws?? That is the single weirdest law I have ever heard of

Remind me to never live in Cali. You would figure that these laws could be changed by law abiding citizens. I will cry a little for all having to put up with such nonsensery. I thought waiting for a gun coming brown truck to my local shop was bad. I would lose my mind having to deal with that

[titandriver]

JaeOne -- so how much does all this cost you for the initial conversion and then converting it back?

[Glk21C]

Let me get this straight, you send the gun, FFL converts to single shot then you convert it back to compete??? Has gun related crime gone down with these incredibly strange gun laws?? That is the single weirdest law I have ever heard of

You mean you weren't aware that crime has drastically been reduced in places like Australia and Great Britain where they have outlawed owning firearms......

you're correct, stupid law that the law abiding citizens of California have to abide by

[leas327]

Seems like a nice market for those like Rafael Esqueda. The man can take in your gun and deal with all the required work/forms. get the gun to you and then "convert it" for you. He probably makes a decent offer to purchase the single shot parts back. I am glad that there are people like him that are willing to take the time and do the work when it is just so easy to put in "no CA sales."

[JaeOne3345]

JaeOne -- so how much does all this cost you for the initial conversion and then converting it back?

Diehli already explained the matter well but here is some more background information:

Basically we have a stupid "safe handgun roster" that is really just all about California trying to take away our rights. Supposedly, safe handguns have magazine disconnects, drop safeties, loaded chamber indicators, etc. Why is this stupid? You could have a 1911 model from a mfg that was produced before any such "roster" was introduced and it is totally legal to go into a store and buy, no conversion necessary. BUT, another company comes along and introduced their own 1911 pistol. California considers this a NEW MODEL even though it is the same functionally as what is already on the roster. It therefore is subject to having all of the "safety features." What's even more stupid? If you introduce a handgun that is already on the roster, BUT YOU MAKE IT A DIFFERENT COLOR, it then is considered a new model as well. It is really just a way to stamp out any new handguns from being sold in California. Even if the company does manage to include all of the "safe" devices, they must submit the pistol with thousands of dollars to 'officals' in California for testing. Keep in mind a peace officer is exempt from any such list. Wait, we are allowing our LEO to carry unsafe weapons? Hmm. Or are they saying that LEO are more qualified to handle these pistols? I used to help out at an indoor range and saw many LEO come in and take their qualification tests (keep in mind I said take, not pass).

Where does the single shot exemption come into play?

Per 12133PC, certain handguns are Roster-exempt.

These include:

1. Single-action Revolvers, capable of holding 5 or more rounds, with 3” minimum barrel length and 7.5”

minimum overall length when assembled.

2. Single-shot Pistols, with 6” minimum barrel length, and a minimum overall length of 10.5” when assembled.

Rafael has the parts like the long barrel, etc. You have to pay your DROS/paperwork as well. I can't remember the exact cost, but it is something like 125? 150? for the entire process, including the DROS, out of state dealer transfer fee, and the single shot parts rental.

It is really easy to do. I have seen tons of people in the classifieds who probably could have sold their guns quicker but they just refuse to deal with CA, even though it is perfectly legal. Luckily the seller/member here on the forum I dealt with was understanding and didn't mind reading for 10 minutes. Thanks, xsniper!

I dunno about you, but I wouldn't mind spending maybe 30 minutes tops reading on the legality of such transactions if I was trying to sell something worth a few thousand dollars. I could understand if we were talking about a measly 50 bucks, but it just seems hilarious that so many people just totally won't even read into it when I have offered to buy guns, and even provided them with links to the penal codes that make this legal. Fine, I will take my 2000-4000 elsewhere.

Do any of you guys remember the Pachmayr Dominator kits?

If you have one of those, just choose whatever STI gun/frame you want. Slap that Dominator kit on the frame. The frame takes care of the long barrel, and also blocks off the magazine well simultaneously. The gun/frame kit sits in the 10 day background check as a single shot pistol. 10 day wait ends. You go pick it up. Convert back it back to semi auto. Done. You can also use those blue training mags to block off the mag well.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6542649&postcount=1

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6550020&postcount=1

These two threads above explain how this is done.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to task. I and many of my friends have been through this process before.

This is not "skating" around the law. It follows the law, perfectly.

If the moderators will make it a sticky, I will do a write up for the classifieds. California has one of the LARGEST gun cultures in the USA, regardless of the foolery you see in the media.

Edited June 11, 2012 by JaeOne3345

[JaeOne3345]

Are there any issues with selling an open gun to a buyer in CA? Of course through an FFL, with no magazines.

Keep in mind you could totally disassemble the magazines and ship them directly to the buyer.

When you take them apart, they are just parts. You have not committed any crimes. Break them down, labeled, and keep all the bodies in one bag, springs in another bag, etc.

If the buyer assembles the magazine while in California, that would be breaking the law. But keeping them as parts until he goes to an out of state match is perfectly legal. He could also use a magazine block to make block them off into 10 round mags. Many California shooters disassemble their magazines when crossing back into CA state line territory.

You are not allowed to keep for sale, sale, lend, manufacture or import.

NOWHERE in the writing does it say you cannot possess the magazine. Nowhere does it say you cannot use a magazine.

What if you found a magazine? Totally legal to keep it and use it.

The Calguns lawyers explain this stuff very easily.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387409

California restricts certain things about magazines greater than 10 rounds; it has created a silly legal name for them - "large-capacity magazines" - and says we 'regular people' cannot import, sell or manufacture them. ("Dealer" FFLs may get licenses from DOJ for these activities; curio and relic licensees cannot.) The restriction applies to both centerfire and rimfire weapons.

It is perfectly legal - no restrictions at all in the Penal Code - to own and possess and use those "large-capacity magazines" in any gun*(see footnote), at any time, under any circumstances where it is legal to use a gun. Ownership, possession and use of "large-capacity magazines" are not crimes in PC; there is no section under which you could be charged.

Those who own "large-capacity magazines" are not required to keep records or receipts, and not required to explain how they got them.

The age of the magazine and the age of the gun mean nothing. The critical item is possession of the magazine(s) in California before January 1, 2000.

Yes, you can go out of state and buy magazines of any capacity - but you may not bring "large-capacity magazines" back to CA as complete magazines - that would be importing and that can be charged as a felony. 'Importing' ALSO applies to moving here or visiting here.

Yes, you can buy part kits to repair your existing magazines - but you cannot assemble them into complete "large-capacity magazines" inside CA - that would be manufacturing and that can be charged as a felony.

Yes, you can take one of those kits and create a 10-round magazine from the parts and some method of blocking the capacity; one example here.

You can have "large-capacity magazines"; no one may give them or sell them to you in California, and you may not give or sell them to anyone else in California. This includes sales from LEO and intrafamilial transfers - that would be included in selling and that can be charged as a felony.

Simply possessing them and using them IS NOT AN ISSUE.

How you get them or acquire them may be an issue, but it is up to "them" to prove you acquired them/assembled them illegally. Even if you did acquire them illegally, the statute of limitations is THREE YEARS.

Don't get me started on the armored truck loop hole.

I shoot side by side with tons of LEO who compete each and every weekend. They are informed. They know usage and possession is not illegal. Sure, some dishonest people may acquire them in ways that are less than honest, but the fact remains, you cannot be charged for possession and/or usage.

You may get detained by an ignorant cop, but I guarantee if you call the Calguns foundation, that cop will find himself in the wrong, and forced to let you go, with no charge.

From the DOJ site itself....

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#9

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of

it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to

accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before

January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,

2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,

expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in

California except by law enforcement agencies, California

peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 ((19-29))

Basically, it is law that is unenforceable. I have gone to indoor ranges where ignorant range staff has told I cannot have my "high capacity" magazines. I always challenge them to show me where it says so in writing. I have not lost such a contest yet.

Edited June 11, 2012 by JaeOne3345

[lumpygravy]

If the moderators will make it a sticky, I will do a write up for the classifieds. California has one of the LARGEST gun cultures in the USA, regardless of the foolery you see in the media.

+1 to JaeOne3345's suggestion to make this a Sticky but maybe in the Miscellaneous, Legal or Classified sub-forums as this applies not only to Open guns any pistol not on the CA DOJ approved list.

Similarly, as has been mentioned earlier for private party transactions, not all 'smith's or manufacturers will sell/send an off list pistol to a CA FFL for the SSE even though the process is all above board. Of course, there's no harm in asking, but if they decline, realise that is a policy decision of that particular 'smith or manufacturer and one should respect that policy.

[BostonBullit]

Basically we have a stupid "safe handgun roster" that is really just all about California trying to take away our rights. Supposedly, safe handguns have magazine disconnects, drop safeties, loaded chamber indicators, etc. Why is this stupid? You could have a 1911 model from a mfg that was produced before any such "roster" was introduced and it is totally legal to go into a store and buy, no conversion necessary. BUT, another company comes along and introduced their own 1911 pistol. California considers this a NEW MODEL even though it is the same functionally as what is already on the roster. It therefore is subject to having all of the "safety features." What's even more stupid? If you introduce a handgun that is already on the roster, BUT YOU MAKE IT A DIFFERENT COLOR, it then is considered a new model as well. It is really just a way to stamp out any new handguns from being sold in California. Even if the company does manage to include all of the "safe" devices, they must submit the pistol with thousands of dollars to 'officals' in California for testing. Keep in mind a peace officer is exempt from any such list. Wait, we are allowing our LEO to carry unsafe weapons? Hmm. Or are they saying that LEO are more qualified to handle these pistols? I used to help out at an indoor range and saw many LEO come in and take their qualification tests (keep in mind I said take, not pass).

we have a very similar setup here in the Peoples Republik of Massachusetts. We don't have exemptions like the single shot one in CA but we do have a concept of an "approved target" roster which is separate from the main roster and is meant for competition guns. Thankfully SV has a couple of Infinity models on that list. Where MA seeks to take it to a different level is in the area of "consumer safety". I guess they figured after they passed the original set of regulations that some manufacturers will be willing to jump through the hoops to get on the approved roster so the AG had the awesome idea to place additional regulations on the sale of handguns for consumer safety. they passed it off as an effort to get rid of "saturday night specials" and the like but the real goal is the same - make it damn hard to buy a handgun.

The AG next leveled it by not publishing an actual roster of firearms approved for sale. If you're a manufacturer and you call asking for approval they point you to the guidelines and say "if you think you meet these guidelines go ahead and sell your product". Then you set everything into the display cases through your distribution system and the next day the AG sends a cease and desist to you, all the dealers, and the distributors threatening fines and lawsuits if they disagree. That's exactly what happened with Glock back around 2004, we could buy a new Glock for like 5 days before the AG starting making calls and *poof*, no more new glock for you!

The saving grace of the AG thing here in MA is that it kicks in at the dealer level, not the owner level. This means that it's on the FFL not the purchaser so using the same example if you purchased a new glock in that window that they were for sale you're free and clear (provided you have no post-ban "hi capacity" mags that is). So if you can track down an FFL that isn't afraid of the AG then you can pretty much get whatever you want if it's on the EOPS roster. Private sales are exempt from all the AG garbage but that of course only applies to in-state transfers that don't need an FFL.

[JaeOne3345]

Yea, it appears MA and CA have very similar laws. I have seen quite a few MA shooters who visit our CA forums.

[Sandro]

I never sell anything to anyone in California. In fact more than once cops try to talk me into sell them guns online to CA, I think they were undercover. Short answer is why bother selling to anyone in Cali. Beutifull State but their legislation... Oh well!