It's hard to see how the wife in this scenario wouldn't be the importer:
27585.
(a) Commencing January 1, 2015, a resident of this state shall not import into this state, bring into this state, or transport into this state, any firearm that the person purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015
yes but that's why it's crazy
Does not apply to:
(14) The importation, transportation, or bringing of a firearm into the state by a person who meets any of the following criteria:
(A) The person is listed in the registry set forth in Section 11106 as the owner of the firearm.
PC § 27585(a) is the rule requiring a California resident who acquires a firearm outside California to route it through a California dealer before bringing it back. But subsection (b)(14) expressly says that rule “does not apply” when the person bringing the firearm into California is already listed in the § 11106 registry as its owner. The statute separately recognizes DOJ documentation, a DROS showing ownership, or even a California carry license listing that handgun as alternative ways to satisfy (14).
LegiInfo
And § 11106 confirms that DOJ's registry is built from DROS records plus various reports submitted under California firearm statutes, including operation-of-law and intrafamilial reports.
LegiInfo
So, stripped down:
If you are already listed in AFS/§11106 as the owner of that exact firearm before you bring it into California, §27585(a) does not apply to that importation. That is what the statute says.
LegiInfo
The real legal bottleneck therefore isn't §27585 anymore. It's:
how do you lawfully get yourself listed as the owner while the firearm is still outside California?
That is why the spouse theory is interesting. California specifically treats a transmutation of firearm ownership between spouses under Family Code §850 as taking title “by operation of law,” and §27920 provides a DOJ reporting mechanism for those operation-of-law acquisitions.
LegiInfo Once DOJ actually processes that report, §11106 says those reports become part of the registry.
LegiInfo
That produces a statutory sequence that is difficult to dismiss:
lawful out-of-state acquisition → lawful operation-of-law transfer → DOJ report → recipient listed in AFS as owner → §27585(b)(14)(A) → California's §27585 import requirement no longer applies.
The caveat is exactly what §27585(c) says: the section is cumulative and doesn't override other laws.
LegiInfo So satisfying (b)(14)(A) doesn't magically erase assault-weapon restrictions, prohibited-person laws, federal law, etc.
And federal law remains the awkward part. The text of 18 USC §922(a)(3) still says a nonlicensee generally may not transport into their state of residence a firearm they obtained outside that state.
Legal Information Institute The new Fifth Circuit decision attacks that prohibition, but how that ruling is applied to a California resident physically bringing the gun into Ninth Circuit territory is exactly where I would want a firearms attorney or subsequent court guidance before treating the route as settled.
But strictly on your quoted California provision:
yes, you're reading it correctly. If AFS already shows you as the owner, §27585 itself gives you an express importation exception. That's a much more consequential provision in light of yesterday's ruling than it was 48 hours ago.
