18+ Content Warning

By clicking Enter, you confirm you are 18 years of age or older and agree to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws.

Notice: Any content or member activity - including anything you may buy, sell, transfer, or discuss - must comply with current and upcoming laws.

Members are encouraged to stay informed: California Firearm Laws: 2026 Outlook & 2025 Recap . Responsibility for compliance rests solely with the individual member.

What's new
caguns.net

Welcome to CAguns.net!
Join our growing community where you can ask questions, share knowledge, or browse our classifieds section.

Sign up for a free account today and unlock full access! Once registered, you can search, post, and take advantage of exclusive features unavailable to guests.

A note on why more of the site now requires an account: automated scrapers and AI systems have been crawling our forums and classifieds at a scale. Requiring sign-in for those sections is the most effective tool we have. It takes a minute to register, it's free, and it keeps what happens here between actual members.

New to California gun ownership or trying to keep up with the changing laws? Check out our sister site CA2A.com — free courses, plain-English legal updates, and step-by-step guides built for California owners.

Advanced features are available only to registered members. Register today!

Rost Martin R1MF comes to Califnoria

Do guns have to be registered?

Registration = government confiscation

But yes by CA law you need to have your firearms registered even if its a C&R rifle or handgun everything is drosed here
 
Home builds are also also a grey area.

Home builds do not require Serial Numbers and subsequently do not need to be registered but can never leave your dwelling. This is giving you the out to build a gun for self defense, intruders etc.

*others more in the know about this caveat, please confirm/deny*

-dale
 
DBilleb said:
Home builds are also also a grey area.

Home builds do not require Serial Numbers and subsequently do not need to be registered but can never leave your dwelling. This is giving you the out to build a gun for self defense, intruders etc.

*others more in the know about this caveat, please confirm/deny*

-dale
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
 
tacticalb said:
Registration = government confiscation

But yes by CA law you need to have your firearms registered even if its a C&R rifle or handgun everything is drosed here
Click to expand...
'Registration' is an artifact of paperwork. DROS during transfers is the big one, followed by reports by new residents, C&R acquisitions, intrafamilial transfers, and a couple others.

Guns that have not been transferred/reported since 1991 (for handguns) or 2014 (for long guns) won't have the paperwork that gets them entered into the CA Automated Firearms System (AFS). That's legally fine in 2026 and before - registration is not a requirement to own, possess, use or transfer a gun in CA.

Somewhere around 2091 the State may conclude that any guns in CA that are not in AFS probably missed the required transfer process/paperwork and begin penalizing. But folks are plausibly innocent of knowing that interstate transfer of most guns without an FFL has been illegal since 1968, or knowing CA requires new residents to report guns they bring here. There's just no way to know about those things unless you hang around with scolds like me!
 
Ok SO.. my father passed away and his guns are in a safe at my brother’s house. My brother passed away without “taking possession” of them and registering them. If I am going to take possession of these firearms.. most of which are long guns all purchased prior to 2014. I do not need to register them because as far as CA is concerned, they have never been registered. Is that accurate? Or am I obligated to register them because they move from his ownership to mine naturally.
 
There's a strictly correct legal answer that is difficult and a pain in the butt, and there's the thing that most people do.
 
chiroken007 said:
Ok SO.. my father passed away and his guns are in a safe at my brother’s house. My brother passed away without “taking possession” of them and registering them. If I am going to take possession of these firearms.. most of which are long guns all purchased prior to 2014. I do not need to register them because as far as CA is concerned, they have never been registered. Is that accurate? Or am I obligated to register them because they move from his ownership to mine naturally.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're forgetting that your father told you and your brother that he wanted you to have all of his guns.
 
chiroken007 said:
Ok SO.. my father passed away and his guns are in a safe at my brother’s house. My brother passed away without “taking possession” of them and registering them.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Your brother had possession of them, since they were in a safe at his house. The term "possession" roughly means being able to control what happens with them, and that is clearly the case when he has them in a safe.

chiroken007 said:
If I am going to take possession of these firearms.. most of which are long guns all purchased prior to 2014. I do not need to register them because as far as CA is concerned, they have never been registered. Is that accurate? Or am I obligated to register them because they move from his ownership to mine naturally.
Click to expand...
You are legally required to register them. Since this is a transfer by inheritance, that is very easy: Go to the DoJ web site, find the OpLaw form, fill it out (for one or many guns), and pay a fee of $19. I'm assuming that everything else is easy (you have an FSC card, the guns are already in California, none of them are illegal such as assault weapons, you are not prohibited, and so on).

H. Bowman said:
There's a strictly correct legal answer that is difficult and a pain in the butt, and there's the thing that most people do.
Click to expand...
I disagree with "most people". My educated guess is that a large fraction of transfers in this state are done legally and correctly.

But even if we don't want to argue about exact statistics, encouraging breaking the law (which is what your post is de-facto doing) is not something that should happen on a gun forum. As gun owners, we should be better than that.
 
treelogger said:
Incorrect. Your brother had possession of them, since they were in a safe at his house. The term "possession" roughly means being able to control what happens with them, and that is clearly the case when he has them in a safe.


You are legally required to register them. Since this is a transfer by inheritance, that is very easy: Go to the DoJ web site, find the OpLaw form, fill it out (for one or many guns), and pay a fee of $19. I'm assuming that everything else is easy (you have an FSC card, the guns are already in California, none of them are illegal such as assault weapons, you are not prohibited, and so on).


I disagree with "most people". My educated guess is that a large fraction of transfers in this state are done legally and correctly.

But even if we don't want to argue about exact statistics, encouraging breaking the law (which is what your post is de-facto doing) is not something that should happen on a gun forum. As gun owners, we should be better than that.
Click to expand...
Unless the law is unconstitutional.
 
Incorrect. Even if the law is unconstitutional, you are required to follow it. Example: 1000 people violate an unconstitutional law. The first 999 are convicted and sent to jail. The 1000th one challenges it on constitution grounds, and gets it removed by the courts. The first 999 are still convicted with a record. The jailhouse doors don't magically open for them.

Plus, no court has ever found that California's gun transfer paperwork requirements are unconstitutional. And no court anywhere in the US has gotten close to ruling that they are. So no, the law is probably NOT unconstitutional.
 
treelogger said:
Incorrect. Even if the law is unconstitutional, you are required to follow it. Example: 1000 people violate an unconstitutional law. The first 999 are convicted and sent to jail. The 1000th one challenges it on constitution grounds, and gets it removed by the courts. The first 999 are still convicted with a record. The jailhouse doors don't magically open for them.

Plus, no court has ever found that California's gun transfer paperwork requirements are unconstitutional. And no court anywhere in the US has gotten close to ruling that they are. So no, the law is probably NOT unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
If suddenly CA passed a law saying we must turn in all guns, I'm not following that law.
 
Dvrjon said:
The problem with this is that individuals don’t decide the constitutionality of a statute. That is reserved to the judiciary. If you’re not wearing a black robe and sitting on a bench, your opinion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
True, but without enforcement any statute is meaningless. In these extreme examples, I don't think the average LEO is willing to lay down his/her life for the state.
 
Dvrjon said:
The problem with this is that individuals don’t decide the constitutionality of a statute. That is reserved to the judiciary. If you’re not wearing a black robe and sitting on a bench, your opinion is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
And if you are wearing a black robe and sitting on a bench, your opinion is only relevant until and unless and appeals court changes your opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom