Familial transfer question

[Constitutional Armory]

It is a state law, so guess which you think would apply? But also the feds don't consider you owning it just by paying for it, but that isn't really relevant in this case.

But wait, there's more, go look at LEOs who have been charged with crimes due to doing CA PPT transfers for non-roster firearms which was never actually been transferred into their name, as well dealers have been charged, which makes it clear that paying for it isn't actually enough.

Quite clearly your view isn't going to change, so you do you and take the risk and if you get caught, you will pay the penalty. As the saying going, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, but the horse can be drowned if it doesn't.

And you can't really use the LEO ppt as an example they didn't gift it or linear family members transfer

 

[kemasa]

The law treats a firearm exactly like a car, a house, or a share of stock: ownership is a legal status (title), while possession is a physical act (custody). You can acquire legal title to something the instant you pay for it, long before it ever touches your hands.When a parent purchases a handgun online using their own money, the online invoice serves as the receipt of sale. Under standard contract and property law, that receipt establishes that legal title has transferred from the vendor to the parent. The parent owns it immediately, even though the vendor is shipping it directly to a California FFL.

California Statutory Definitions (Civil Code § 654 & § 679)
California’s own legal definition of "ownership" explicitly states that you do not need to physically hold something to own it.

This is all California laws on possession and ownership

Quite true, as with a house and car, you don't actually own it until it is transferred into your name.

Yes, you could transfer ownership by doing the paperwork and never having touched the item, in this case a firearm, but what you are trying to claim is that you can own something by NOT transferring the title or doing paperwork and NOT touching the item, that just paying is enough, but that just isn't the case.

Please provide proof that anyone, besides yourself, thinks that a person owns a firearm just because they paid for it and prior to doing ANY paperwork.

 

[kemasa]

I'm not saying I'm right but I'm just trying to interpret what the law says but if it doesn't say that then it's what it is

You are ignoring what the law says as it is a transfer FROM one person to another, but you claim that just paying somehow makes the transfer FROM the person, it is instead just a gift from the person, not a transfer from the person.

 

[kemasa]

And you can't really use the LEO ppt as an example they didn't gift it or linear family members transfer

Yes, it is a valid example. You are completely missing the connection. It has been found that an officer paying for a firearm, never transferring it into their name, then doing a CA PPT to TRANSFER the firearm is ILLEGAL. It is deemed that they never owned it, so it wasn't a valid transfer. The same as a parent just paying for a firearm and claiming to do a transfer. It wasn't and isn't viewed as the LEO owning it just by paying. Perhaps they need to retain you in order to get their cases overturned.

 

[kemasa]

AI response:

The firearm must already be owned/possessed by the parent (or other qualifying family member) for it to qualify as an intrafamilial transfer under California law. You cannot simply have the parent "pay for" a new firearm (e.g., from a dealer or third party) and treat that as a direct intrafamilial transfer to the child without the parent first taking ownership/possession.⁠Leginfo.legislature.ca

Primary Source: California Penal Code § 27875(a)​

“Section 27545 does not apply to the transfer of a firearm by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means from one individual to another...” if the conditions are met (infrequent, immediate family, etc.).⁠Leginfo.legislature.ca

This describes a transfer of an existing firearm from one individual (the transferor/parent, who must possess it) to another (the recipient/child). The language assumes the transferor has the firearm to transfer. “How title was obtained and from whom” must be reported.⁠Leginfo.legislature.ca

DOJ Guidance​

Official FAQs and instructions treat intrafamilial transfers as the parent (who already owns/possesses the firearm) handing it over to the adult child, followed by the child reporting it. There is no provision for using the exemption when the parent is merely facilitating a purchase without taking ownership.⁠Oag.ca

Additional:

The intrafamilial exemption itself does not allow skipping the dealer's purchase process by having the parent "just pay" and magically transfer without the parent taking ownership first. Always verify current statutes (Pen. Code § 27875), the BOF 4544A form/instructions, and consult official sources or legal counsel, as enforcement can turn on specific facts.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

AI response:

The firearm must already be owned/possessed by the parent (or other qualifying family member) for it to qualify as an intrafamilial transfer under California law. You cannot simply have the parent "pay for" a new firearm (e.g., from a dealer or third party) and treat that as a direct intrafamilial transfer to the child without the parent first taking ownership/possession.⁠Leginfo.legislature.ca

Primary Source: California Penal Code § 27875(a)​

This describes a transfer of an existing firearm from one individual (the transferor/parent, who must possess it) to another (the recipient/child). The language assumes the transferor has the firearm to transfer. “How title was obtained and from whom” must be reported.⁠Leginfo.legislature.ca

DOJ Guidance​

Official FAQs and instructions treat intrafamilial transfers as the parent (who already owns/possesses the firearm) handing it over to the adult child, followed by the child reporting it. There is no provision for using the exemption when the parent is merely facilitating a purchase without taking ownership.⁠Oag.ca

Additional:

The intrafamilial exemption itself does not allow skipping the dealer's purchase process by having the parent "just pay" and magically transfer without the parent taking ownership first. Always verify current statutes (Pen. Code § 27875), the BOF 4544A form/instructions, and consult official sources or legal counsel, as enforcement can turn on specific facts.

So look im not saying your wrong im right in any way. But I can guarantee you 100 percent that there are many many FFL that have done it this way and never got got and I'm sure many of them been through many audits without issue. Because I think we would heard about it on here if they did get busted for this exact reason

 

[Skilly]

The law treats a firearm exactly like a car, a house, or a share of stock: ownership is a legal status (title), while possession is a physical act (custody). You can acquire legal title to something the instant you pay for it, long before it ever touches your hands.When a parent purchases a handgun online using their own money, the online invoice serves as the receipt of sale. Under standard contract and property law, that receipt establishes that legal title has transferred from the vendor to the parent. The parent owns it immediately, even though the vendor is shipping it directly to a California FFL.

California Statutory Definitions (Civil Code § 654 & § 679)
California’s own legal definition of "ownership" explicitly states that you do not need to physically hold something to own it.

This is all California laws on possession and ownership

youre just wrong. Your scenario is breaking 2 Federal Laws; Straw Purchasing and Filing a False 4473.

Close family willing to listen to your interpretation and risk 15 years + in jail.

 

[1911-CV]

youre just wrong. Your scenario is breaking 2 Federal Laws; Straw Purchasing and Filing a False 4473.

Close family willing to listen to your interpretation and risk 15 years + in jail.

If OP filled out the 4473 stating the firearm is a gift (it's an option, go look), then he broke no federal laws. Kemasa and CA have been going back and forth for days as to whether paying for the firearm is enough to form the basis of a 'transfer' to satisfy California's interfamilial transfer laws.

 

[Skilly]

If OP filled out the 4473 stating the firearm is a gift (it's an option, go look), then he broke no federal laws. Kemasa and CA have been going back and forth for days as to whether paying for the firearm is enough to form the basis of a 'transfer' to satisfy California's interfamilial transfer laws.

correct, he doesn't. His relative initiating the purchase & transfer did though, with a Straw Purchase (a Federal Law, not state).

 

[AR15barrels]

Please provide proof that anyone, besides yourself, thinks that a person owns a firearm just because they paid for it and prior to doing ANY paperwork.

I own the firearms that I paid for and were lost/stolen in shipping.
They are my property.
A police report was made concerning my stolen property.
I likely won't ever be able to take possession of them unless they get found though.

 

[treelogger]

Quite true, as with a house and car, you don't actually own it until it is transferred into your name.

I own the firearms that I paid for and were lost/stolen in shipping.

Both of you are over-simplifying too, although Constitutional Armory takes the cake with his buffoonish view. The term "own" is not a single thing that turns on and off like a light switch. "Ownership" is a bundle of rights, which can be separated, and come into effect at different times.

If you enter into a contract to buy something (house, car, gun, loaf of bread), you have certain rights. For example if the other side is unable to fulfill the contract, there are laws about how to unroll the contract, and who can get what.

If you pay for the the good, that gives you additional rights. Undoing the contract and the payment gets more interesting now. Interest may start accruing.

And for goods that require registration or title (house, car, gun, ship, airplane): until that paperwork is done, some of the ownership rights don't actually transfer, but others do.

One of the examples I remember from civil law class is this: A shipping magnate M buys a used oil tanker from shipping company C, tonight at dinner while having after-dinner drinks. They agree that it will cost two million, 50% down payment. Inspection and transfer of the ownership to occur next time it is in port, but no later than July 1st, and seller to meet buyer at the Nassau (Bahamas) "DMV for ships" within 48 hours afterwards to file the papers. Second half of payment due at the DMV office, with a bond posted in the meantime. They shake hands, and have another drink. Tomorrow, M wire transfers the first million to C. Now let's look at a few cases: (a) the ship had already sunk last night, (b) the ship sinks next Wednesday, after the contract was entered and the down payment sent, (c) the ship sinks right after inspection/transfer on the way out of the harbor, (d) the ship is OK, but the big engine just seized and it is stuck in Rotterdam for the duration. Turns out that at no point from the meeting of the two gentlemen to the DMV appointment either of them fully "owns" it, but the various parts of ownership have to be separated into bits and pieces, and all unrolled according to the rules. Discussing this case takes a whole 2-hour lecture, since this stuff is complicated.

So in these edge cases like what we're discussing in this thread, you can't just say "I own" because "I paid for", it's more complicated. To figure out the detail, you have to consult a lawyer (which is NOT me). On the other hand, civil law and ownership transfer is one of the most fundamental parts of the law, so anyone who practices law will know the answer in simple cases.

 

[chiroken007]

I think this horse has been sufficiently beaten.

 

[1911-CV]

correct, he doesn't. His relative initiating the purchase & transfer did though, with a Straw Purchase (a Federal Law, not state).

No, no, no. If the relative filled out the 4473 stating the firearm was a gift for OP there is no straw purchase and the federal form was being used as intended.

Again, there is significant debate above as to whether this satisfies state requirements for intrafamilial transfer, but filling out the federal form correctly and in the manner intended is not going to cause anyone a federal law problem.

From the back of the 4473:

"Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm."

 

[kemasa]

So look im not saying your wrong im right in any way. But I can guarantee you 100 percent that there are many many FFL that have done it this way and never got got and I'm sure many of them been through many audits without issue. Because I think we would heard about it on here if they did get busted for this exact reason

So you are saying it isn't about the law, but what can be gotten away with? Really?

An audit won't catch this unless they think to research it further, but that doesn't mean it is something that you should be willing to risk.

Not all FFLs are on this Forum, nor are on any forum.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

So you are saying it isn't about the law, but what can be gotten away with? Really?

An audit won't catch this unless they think to research it further, but that doesn't mean it is something that you should be willing to risk.

Not all FFLs are on this Forum, nor are on any forum.

Ya it is about the law but the law can go beyond our knowledge unless someone has went over this with an actual firearm lawyer to confirm it 100 percent

 

[kemasa]

Both of you are over-simplifying too, although Constitutional Armory takes the cake with his buffoonish view. The term "own" is not a single thing that turns on and off like a light switch. "Ownership" is a bundle of rights, which can be separated, and come into effect at different times.

If you enter into a contract to buy something (house, car, gun, loaf of bread), you have certain rights. For example if the other side is unable to fulfill the contract, there are laws about how to unroll the contract, and who can get what.

If you pay for the the good, that gives you additional rights. Undoing the contract and the payment gets more interesting now. Interest may start accruing.

And for goods that require registration or title (house, car, gun, ship, airplane): until that paperwork is done, some of the ownership rights don't actually transfer, but others do.

One of the examples I remember from civil law class is this: A shipping magnate M buys a used oil tanker from shipping company C, tonight at dinner while having after-dinner drinks. They agree that it will cost two million, 50% down payment. Inspection and transfer of the ownership to occur next time it is in port, but no later than July 1st, and seller to meet buyer at the Nassau (Bahamas) "DMV for ships" within 48 hours afterwards to file the papers. Second half of payment due at the DMV office, with a bond posted in the meantime. They shake hands, and have another drink. Tomorrow, M wire transfers the first million to C. Now let's look at a few cases: (a) the ship had already sunk last night, (b) the ship sinks next Wednesday, after the contract was entered and the down payment sent, (c) the ship sinks right after inspection/transfer on the way out of the harbor, (d) the ship is OK, but the big engine just seized and it is stuck in Rotterdam for the duration. Turns out that at no point from the meeting of the two gentlemen to the DMV appointment either of them fully "owns" it, but the various parts of ownership have to be separated into bits and pieces, and all unrolled according to the rules. Discussing this case takes a whole 2-hour lecture, since this stuff is complicated.

So in these edge cases like what we're discussing in this thread, you can't just say "I own" because "I paid for", it's more complicated. To figure out the detail, you have to consult a lawyer (which is NOT me). On the other hand, civil law and ownership transfer is one of the most fundamental parts of the law, so anyone who practices law will know the answer in simple cases.

You are conflating ownership with having a financial interest in the item. In the case of the ship that you mentioned, the ownership wasn't transferred, as well there were conditions on the sale. That means that the previous owner owns it still, but due to the pending sale, that owner can't just sell it to someone else.

But how about a firearm example. Two customers come to a FFL, each pay the FFL for a firearm which needs to be ordered, the same model, they pay in full.

Who owns the firearms? What if the firearms have not been built yet? Are you trying to claim that the customer who paid somehow have an ownership interest in a firearm that the manufacturer hasn't yet built or hasn't shipped? The manufacturer knows nothing about the customer.

Now, then the firearms are shipped, one of them was damaged, which customer's gun was damaged?

At what point do you claim that each customer has an ownership claim on a specific firearm? The FFL may owe each customer money should the firearm not be able to be transferred, but until each customer comes in and does the paperwork for a specific firearm, they don't own anything.

 

[kemasa]

I own the firearms that I paid for and were lost/stolen in shipping.
They are my property.
A police report was made concerning my stolen property.
I likely won't ever be able to take possession of them unless they get found though.

You are owed money, but unless the title is transferred, you are not really the owner. As a dealer, it is also a bit different. Also, only the shipper can make a claim on the property.

 

[kemasa]

correct, he doesn't. His relative initiating the purchase & transfer did though, with a Straw Purchase (a Federal Law, not state).

Nope. You can buy a firearm intended as a gift for someone and fill out the paperwork and it isn't a straw purchase. Read the instructions on the 4473.

 

[kemasa]

Ya it is about the law but the law can go beyond our knowledge unless someone has went over this with an actual firearm lawyer to confirm it 100 percent

Nope. A lawyer can state their opinion, but the true test is the CA DOJ and whether they file charges, then if a court finds that it was a violation of the law.

But ask the CA DOJ to see if they agree with your view. I bet that they don't.

 

[treelogger]

You are conflating ownership with having a financial interest in the item.

On the contrary, I'm trying do de-conflate (is that even a word). Completely agree that "financial interest in an item" is different from "ownership title" is different from many other aspects of the same thing. What I'm really saying is (and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself): The thing that normal people call "ownership" or "own" is much more complicated than those normal people think. And just "paying for it" does not automatically nor always transfer the important parts of ownership. Matter-of-fact, ownership (being a bundle of rights, of which financial interest is one) does not have to transfer all at once.

In your firearms example, if the gun hasn't even been built yet, the two customers can clearly not "own" the guns, since owning a non-existing thing is meaningless (*). From a civil law viewpoint, what we have here is only a purchase contract, with part of the obligation already fulfilled, another not yet. What happens in the future (when the gun is built, shipped, logged, DROSed, held for 10 days, and finally delivered) is a set of interesting questions.

(Footnote*: One of the thing I remember from civil law class: If the ship sank the night before buyer and seller entered into a binding contract to sell it, then the contract is ab initio invalid, since you can not buy or sell something that has ceased to exist. Which means that instead of looking into the "ownership transfer" part of the civil codes, you need to look at the "unroll an invalid contract" part, which have interestingly different rules, for example for interest and penalties.)