Familial transfer question

[kemasa]

So to summarize, if you have a qualifying immediate family member residing out of state, they can gift you a firearm after they purchase and take ownership of it as their own, provided that they send it to your FFL within the state with a something like a letter indicating their relation to you and that it is a gift.

You would then go through the same process with your FFL as you would buying a gun (FSC, valid proofs of ID and residency, DROS, 10 day wait, etc).

Hopefully I got that right, it would be nice to settle this all this back and forth debate before our parents pass away from old age

Yes, except that there are additional boxes to check for the DROS submission to indicate that it is an intrafamilial transfer, aka operation of law. It is also an exempt transfer, which means it has to be submitted as that since otherwise the firearm will not be able to be found on the certified list DROS entry. In other words make sure that the FFL that you are using to do the transfer knows how to do the transfer or is willing to be educated in how to do it. If it requires an education, that really needs to be done prior to the firearm being shipped to that FFL, just in case.

 

[Skilly]

The step child is NO relation to the step-parent, so it doesn't qualify for the exemption.

In terms of the law, the step-parent isn't responsible for the child, the actual parents are.

Look at the wording of the law, go ask the CA DOJ, a step-child isn't the person's child. It is simple as that. You are also looking at it incorrectly, I don't have to provide anything to show that the step-child is excluded, the reality is that you have to show that a step-child is INCLUDED in the wording of the law, which it doesn't.

Part of the family isn't relevant, only the law is. If one of your siblings had issues and their children came to live with you, they are part of your family, you might treat them like your children, but in terms of the law they are NOT your children and therefore doesn't qualify for the exemption.

Your attempted personal attack is unacceptable. As well, you should speak to a family court judge is regarding your "rights" as a step parent. From the stories I have heard that would be a very interesting lecture towards you by claiming that you had any rights other than what the judge told you to do.

I looked at the law it didn't state what you are saying - I posted what it did say in an earlier thread. Still kinda waiting on if you will point to the area that describes what you are saying. We are 8 pages into this thread - just havent seen the reference.

Also your example of a relative staying for a period of time to shelter with you during an issue is kind of weird to compare to that being an interpretation of a step parent/child relationship. Ill try not to offend again, but you understand how not the same that is right?

 

[Skilly]

Literally the unabridged version of this law from the CADOJ website - with ZERO modifiers. Biological, adoptive, step — none are addressed:

"Pursuant to Penal Code sections 16720 and 27875, a person that is at least 18 years of age and who has a valid Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) may take title or possession of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession or by other means from an immediate family member, in-lieu of completing the transfer through a licensed firearms dealer provided that the transfer is infrequent and that the Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction is submitted within thirty (30) days of the transfer.

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 16720 an 'immediate family member' means either of the following relationships: Parent and child, or grandparent and grandchild.

Use the Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction if:

• You are at least 18 years of age or older
• You have either a California identification, driver license or military identification
• You have a California residential (street) address
• You are not prohibited from owning/possessing firearms
• The firearm being reported was acquired in-state as a gift from an immediate family member (as defined by Penal Code section 16720)
• You currently possess a valid FSC, or in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC), or a FSC exemption, pursuant to Penal Code section 31700
• The firearm is not an assault weapon as defined in Penal Code sections 30210 through 30530
• You acquired the firearm from an immediate family member and have submitted an Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction Report, pursuant to Penal Code sections 16720 and 27875"

 

[kemasa]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

A step child isn't an immediate family member. The law doesn't include step at all. I included a link from an attorney and the CA DOJ. That doesn't seem to make the slightest impression on you.

You have provided nothing and ignored everything. To be blunt, there is nothing I can provide to convince you to come to reality. It is easier to talk to a brick wall as the wall doesn't come back with meaningless responses.

 

[kemasa]

To repeat, although it is insanity to expect different results:

No, because there is no legal relationship and it doesn't specifically include such relationship, it isn't included in the exemption. You are correct, it isn't difficult, at least it shouldn't be.

You want legal advice? Here is a response from an attorney:


https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/intrafamilial-transfer-of-firearm-in-california--4895872.html

The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.

But wait, there's more, how about directly from the CA DOJ?

​

Public Where do I find laws regarding the possession of firearms? I'm not sure whether I have a California record that would prevent me from owning/possessing a firearm. Is there a way to find out before I attempt to purchase one? What is the process for purchasing a firearm in California? How...

oag.ca.gov




Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?

• 
  Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category, pdf and the firearm is legal to possess (e.g., not an assault weapon). The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.
  
  If the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate prior to taking possession and must also submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days after taking possession.
  
  The same rules apply to the return of the firearm at a later date.
  
  (Pen. Code, §§ 27870-27875, 30910-30915.)

So please tell me your basis for claiming that step anything is included in the exemption. A simple search would find what I presented. Asking the CA DOJ would find this result as well. Assumptions are generally a bad way to conduct business when legal aspects are involved.

I suspect that the attorney just copied the response from the CA DOJ, but since it is presented by an attorney, it is still legal advice

 

[AR15barrels]

A step child isn't an immediate family member. The law doesn't include step at all.

This is probably why I have heard it explained as "direct bloodline".
That wording is not in the law, but it's the best simple description of what the law intends when it says "immediate family".
The state even clarifies their use of "immediate family" to be "grandparent-parent-child" which is exactly what direct bloodline is.

 

[Skilly]

To repeat, although it is insanity to expect different results:

No, because there is no legal relationship and it doesn't specifically include such relationship, it isn't included in the exemption. You are correct, it isn't difficult, at least it shouldn't be.

You want legal advice? Here is a response from an attorney:


https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/intrafamilial-transfer-of-firearm-in-california--4895872.html

The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.

But wait, there's more, how about directly from the CA DOJ?

​

Public Where do I find laws regarding the possession of firearms? I'm not sure whether I have a California record that would prevent me from owning/possessing a firearm. Is there a way to find out before I attempt to purchase one? What is the process for purchasing a firearm in California? How...

oag.ca.gov




Can I give a firearm to my adult child? Can he/she give it back to me later?

• 
  Yes, as long as the adult child receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category, pdf and the firearm is legal to possess (e.g., not an assault weapon). The transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. The exemption does not apply to step-children/step-parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, or cousins.
  
  If the firearm is a handgun, the recipient must obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate prior to taking possession and must also submit a Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction and $19 fee to the DOJ within 30 days after taking possession.
  
  The same rules apply to the return of the firearm at a later date.
  
  (Pen. Code, §§ 27870-27875, 30910-30915.)

So please tell me your basis for claiming that step anything is included in the exemption. A simple search would find what I presented. Asking the CA DOJ would find this result as well. Assumptions are generally a bad way to conduct business when legal aspects are involved.

I suspect that the attorney just copied the response from the CA DOJ, but since it is presented by an attorney, it is still legal advice

I see what you are doing - its just that you are the link between different definitions of the family be it, family, state, federal vs a clear legal link. Family Law definitions are not inferred or explicit in the CADOJ text. I would suspect, if it were to be the case we would have:

• A court ruling linking them for a more detailed definition
• A CADOJ formal opinion
• An explicit cross-reference in the written text of the Penal Code itself

None of that is there. I can tell you want it to be but its not as far as I can see, and I am certain if you had that smoking gun it would be in your response and we'd all be smarter for it. A lot of these laws are written with gaping holes and patchwork; thats the challenge.

My point in all of this is that at best it's messy and not as clean as you are convinced it is.

 

[Skilly]

This is probably why I have heard it explained as "direct bloodline".
That wording is not in the law, but it's the best simple description of what the law intends when it says "immediate family".
The state even clarifies their use of "immediate family" to be "grandparent-parent-child" which is exactly what direct bloodline is.

Family Law has a much clearer definition, as they should, given its at the center of their reason for being. My point is that aren't linked.

Family Law and the CADOJ are completely separate branches of law within the state and operate entirely different functions. So, the definitions are completely separate and unless there is a ruling or a CADOJ bulletin, one would interpret the definitions separately, not as one.

 

[kemasa]

I see what you are doing - its just that you are the link between different definitions of the family be it, family, state, federal vs a clear legal link. Family Law definitions are not inferred or explicit in the CADOJ text. I would suspect, if it were to be the case we would have:

• A court ruling linking them for a more detailed definition
• A CADOJ formal opinion
• An explicit cross-reference in the written text of the Penal Code itself

None of that is there. I can tell you want it to be but its not as far as I can see, and I am certain if you had that smoking gun it would be in your response and we'd all be smarter for it. A lot of these laws are written with gaping holes and patchwork; thats the challenge.

My point in all of this is that at best it's messy and not as clean as you are convinced it is.

You are just being a TROLL. The link to the CA DOJ FAQ IS THEIR FORMAL OPINION. You are completely ignoring this. Why?

None of that is there? That is a LIE.

THE CA DOJ STATED THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STEP CHILDREN.

Quite clearly your words are just your projection. You WANT it to include step children, perhaps because you illegally transferred a firearm as an intrafamilial transfer when it really wasn't, so you don't want to admit that you violated the law.

It is you who keeps going on about what you want it to be. If they wanted to include step children, then they would have added that, they didn't. The CA DOJ specifically states that it doesn't include step children.

I included a link from an attorney AND from the CA DOJ. You have provided NOTHING.

How much clearer does it need to be when the CA DOJ directly says that step children are not part of the exemption????

 

[kemasa]

This is probably why I have heard it explained as "direct bloodline".
That wording is not in the law, but it's the best simple description of what the law intends when it says "immediate family".
The state even clarifies their use of "immediate family" to be "grandparent-parent-child" which is exactly what direct bloodline is.

The CA DOJ FAQ states that it doesn't include step children, the law doesn't include step children, who actually have no legal basis to the step parent. As well, it doesn't even include siblings, which I think it should, but what I think doesn't matter.

 

[Mil-Dot]

No, that is false. The CFARS or the form ISN'T optional, it is required as the exemption as for going through a dealer, which means that the law must be followed and that means reporting.

You obviously didn't read thoroughly. I said if you want to. I know plenty of ppl who have not reported all their guns CA can F- off. Registration leads to confiscation. Whatever the states doesn't know doesn't hurt. Buuuuutttt if you want to be one of those ppl who follow every law blindly be everyone guest. You do you at the end of the day.

 

[Mil-Dot]

You are just being a TROLL. The link to the CA DOJ FAQ IS THEIR FORMAL OPINION. You are completely ignoring this. Why?

None of that is there? That is a LIE.

THE CA DOJ STATED THAT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STEP CHILDREN.

Quite clearly your words are just your projection. You WANT it to include step children, perhaps because you illegally transferred a firearm as an intrafamilial transfer when it really wasn't, so you don't want to admit that you violated the law.

It is you who keeps going on about what you want it to be. If they wanted to include step children, then they would have added that, they didn't. The CA DOJ specifically states that it doesn't include step children.

I included a link from an attorney AND from the CA DOJ. You have provided NOTHING.

How much clearer does it need to be when the CA DOJ directly says that step children are not part of the exemption????

Because I could guve 3 F-s what unconstitutional laws are perpetrated on ppl in CA. If a person doesnt feel like following it don't. If you want to register every gun you legally possess do it or don't. Dont get your panties in a wad because not everyone shares you're opinion.

 

[treelogger]

There is a whole lot of fine lines in your post.

Because I could guve 3 F-s what unconstitutional laws are perpetrated on ppl in CA.

How do you know these laws are unconstitutional? In our society, we have a system for determining whether something is unconstitutional or not: the courts. Given that many of these laws have been challenged in lawsuits and found to not violate the constitution, or have not been challenged because gun rights groups know it is hopeless, they are presumably constitutional.

Now, you might just not accept our society's systems for passing laws, and for checking laws for constitutionality. That crosses a fine line, by putting yourself outside our legal consensus.

If you want to register every gun you legally possess do it or don't. Dont get your panties in a wad because not everyone shares your opinion.

The next set of fine lines is that you are publicly announcing that you are wishing to break the law. That might be a little dumb. In the old days we knew that the DoJ monitors Calguns; whether they still do stuff like that, and use it for criminal prosecution is an open question. Not my problem, you do you.

But implicit in that is also advising others to do as you do. And that is a not so fine line to cross.

 

[lactoast]

The next set of fine lines is that you are publicly announcing that you are wishing to break the law. That might be a little dumb. In the old days we knew that the DoJ monitors Calguns; whether they still do stuff like that, and use it for criminal prosecution is an open question. Not my problem, you do you.

But implicit in that is also advising others to do as you do. And that is a not so fine line to cross.

A lot of us had a laugh at that one guy posting about wanting to buy off roster guns as if he was poorly disguised DOJ, but turns out maybe they don't even need to go that far

 

[kemasa]

Because I could guve 3 F-s what unconstitutional laws are perpetrated on ppl in CA. If a person doesnt feel like following it don't. If you want to register every gun you legally possess do it or don't. Dont get your panties in a wad because not everyone shares you're opinion.

You are free to do what you want and while the laws should be ruled that they are unconstitutional, that is just not the case right now. Promoting people to violate the current law is unacceptable, as well as really stupid. I am trying to ensure that people don't have legal problems, which it seems that you don't care about in the least. Also, it isn't my "opinion", it is fact, as documented with references, so that makes your response rather foolish.

I do find your downvote rather funny, it shows that you prefer to reject reality and want people to have problems.

 

[kemasa]

You obviously didn't read thoroughly. I said if you want to. I know plenty of ppl who have not reported all their guns CA can F- off. Registration leads to confiscation. Whatever the states doesn't know doesn't hurt. Buuuuutttt if you want to be one of those ppl who follow every law blindly be everyone guest. You do you at the end of the day.

Wow, so very foolish. While I don't agree with the laws, and I do agree that the laws SHOULD be found to be unconstitutional, that just isn't the case today. It is really stupid to admit in public that you choose to violate the law. You do you as well, but don't promote false information.

 

[dvoncock]

Some of these posts read like the internal monologues of Sovereign Citizens I represented in rural NorCal …

… as I used to tell them: just because you chose to not “recognize” a law you disagree with doesn’t mean the Gub’ment will chose to not enforce it on you.

My hat of to all you the 2A outlaws, but I’m too fragile for prison. If that makes me a beta soy boy, so be it. I’d rather be a that than someone’s prison Lois.