5th Circuit finds the ban on direct interstate sale of handguns unconstitutional.

[RustVendor]

It was a classmate (same university, but I went to business school) I met on AutoAdmit.com, the most prestigious law school discussion board in the world, not paid advice. Can't dox him because the last time someone from our forum got doxxed, it became national news.

As he explicitly stated, everything I hallucinate him ever saying is legal advice.

what about this part, the process to fill out the declaration form requires that you bring the firearm into the state first so you would be "knowingly furnishing incorrect information" per part A:

27560. ​

(a) (1) Within 60 days after bringing any firearm into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following:

(A) Submit to the Department of Justice, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question. The department may request photographs of the firearm to determine if the firearm is a generally prohibited weapon, assault weapon, or machinegun, or is otherwise prohibited. A person shall not furnish a fictitious name or address, knowingly furnish any incorrect information, or knowingly omit any information required to be provided in this report.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

what about this part, the process to fill out the declaration form requires that you bring the firearm into the state first so you would be "knowingly furnishing incorrect information" per part A:

27560. ​

(a) (1) Within 60 days after bringing any firearm into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following:

(A) Submit to the Department of Justice, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question. The department may request photographs of the firearm to determine if the firearm is a generally prohibited weapon, assault weapon, or machinegun, or is otherwise prohibited. A person shall not furnish a fictitious name or address, knowingly furnish any incorrect information, or knowingly omit any information required to be provided in this report.

There is nothing in that section requiring the gun be brought into the state. However, if it is brought into the state, the paperwork has to be done within 60 days of that happening.

 

[RustVendor]

There is nothing in that section requiring the gun be brought into the state. However, if it is brought into the state, the paperwork has to be done within 60 days of that happening.

how is it valid if you don't follow the outlined procedure in the code? I also should point out as I did above that this form is a declaration and not a permit, just because they process it doesn't mean it's legal for the person to bring it in the state.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

how is it valid if you don't follow the outlined procedure in the code? I also should point out as I did above that this form is a declaration and not a permit, just because they process it doesn't mean it's legal for the person to bring it in the state.

I don't know what you mean, and I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

What procedure isn't being followed?

 

[DeagleDan]

I will happily make that drive.

I call shotgun! Let's do this!

 

[RustVendor]

I don't know what you mean, and I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

What procedure isn't being followed?

Damn bro, right out the gate with being a douche? I used to work in enforcement for the state of CA and we had a very similar situation, people would submit forms declaring certain things and our dept would process them. Later on when I was doing investigations and issuing violations because we found that the thing they were declaring wasn't legal in the first place they would always say "but you approved it!". Well, no. We processed the form. But the form is just a declaration. If the thing in the first place wasn't legal it doesn't matter that we processed the form. The process to get on the registry is to fill out the form, but the code says "(a) (1) Within 60 days after bringing any firearm into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following: " . The procedure outlined in the code says that "after" you bring the firearm you shall declare it. I don't know if this necessarily means the entire thing is invalidated, but to me the way the code is written says that under 27585 its illegal to bring a firearm purchased out of state if you are a resident of CA with an exception if you are already registered in the Ca state registry. 27650 outlines the procedure to put your out of state firearm on the registry but says you shall do it after the firearm is already in the state. I don't know if that's legally enforceable or not which is why I said "what about this part?" but it sure looks to be like theses sections were written to be complimentary and account for this potential loophole.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

Damn bro, right out the gate with being a douche? I used to work in enforcement for the state of CA and we had a very similar situation, people would submit forms declaring certain things and our dept would process them. Later on when I was doing investigations and issuing violations because we found that the thing they were declaring wasn't legal in the first place they would always say "but you approved it!". Well, no. We processed the form. But the form is just a declaration. If the thing in the first place wasn't legal it doesn't matter that we processed the form. The process to get on the registry is to fill out the form, but the code says "(a) (1) Within 60 days after bringing any firearm into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following: " . The procedure outlined in the code says that "after" you bring the firearm you shall declare it. I don't know if this necessarily means the entire thing is invalidated, but to me the way the code is written says that under 27585 its illegal to bring a firearm purchased out of state if you are a resident of CA with anexception if you are already registered in the Ca state registry. 27650 outlines the procedure to put your out of state firearm on the registry but says you shall do it after the firearm is already in the state. I don't know if that's legally enforceable or not which is why I said "what about this part?" but it sure looks to be like theses sections were written to be complimentary and account for this potential loophole.

I'll admit that I've only been an attorney for 18 years, so your abilities of statutory interpretation gleaned while "working in enforcement for the state of CA" may be better than mine, but as I pointed out above, there is nothing in that section that requires the gun be brought into the state prior to filling out the paperwork. It does say that if the gun is brought into the state, the paperwork must be completed within 60 days.

I'm not going to address anything else you wrote, because you appear to be either arguing with someone else or arguing against something you imagine I said.

Can you point to the specific language you are referring to saying that the process can only be started after the gun is brought into the state? I'm more than happy to reconsider my position.

 

[Gawernator]

what about this part, the process to fill out the declaration form requires that you bring the firearm into the state first so you would be "knowingly furnishing incorrect information" per part A:

27560. ​

(a) (1) Within 60 days after bringing any firearm into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following:

(A) Submit to the Department of Justice, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question. The department may request photographs of the firearm to determine if the firearm is a generally prohibited weapon, assault weapon, or machinegun, or is otherwise prohibited. A person shall not furnish a fictitious name or address, knowingly furnish any incorrect information, or knowingly omit any information required to be provided in this report.

I think everyone may be focusing on the wrong reporting statute.

§ 27560 is the new-resident/personal-firearm-importer provision, so I agree there is an argument over what “within 60 days after bringing” means there.

But what about PC § 28000?

That separately allows a person who is not otherwise required by law to report acquisition/ownership, or who is exempt from § 27545, to voluntarily submit a Firearm Ownership Report. DOJ specifically says an individual Firearm Ownership Report establishes/populates an AFS record, and AFS is the registry established under § 11106.

Then § 27585(b)(14)(A) expressly says § 27585 does not apply to:

“The importation, transportation, or bringing of a firearm into the state by a person” who “is listed in the registry set forth in Section 11106 as the owner of the firearm.”

So wouldn't the real question be whether a person who lawfully acquires the firearm out of state can submit a § 28000 Firearm Ownership Report while the firearm remains out of state, become listed in AFS as the owner, and then subsequently fall within § 27585(b)(14)(A)?

That seems like a much stronger statutory argument than trying to use § 27560 before importation.

I’m not saying a court has approved that sequence, but I don’t see language in § 27585(b)(14)(A) saying the firearm had to have previously been in California or previously DROSed here. If there is another provision that prevents § 28000 from being used that way, that is the section I’d be interested in seeing.

There seems to be a possible pathway but you are risking being a test case for CADOJ.

@kemasa

 

[RustVendor]

I'll admit that I've only been an attorney for 18 years, so your abilities of statutory interpretation gleaned while "working in enforcement for the state of CA" may be better than mine, but as I pointed out above, there is nothing in that section that requires the gun be brought into the state prior to filling out the paperwork. It does say that if the gun is brought into the state, the paperwork must be completed within 60 days.

I'm not going to address anything else you wrote, because you appear to be either arguing with someone else or arguing against something you imagine I said.

Can you point to the specific language you are referring to saying that the process can only be started after the gun is brought into the state? I'm more than happy to reconsider my position.

If you jump into the middle of the conversationit could be helpful to read like two messages prior where the guy who is planning to use this process is waiting for DOJ to "approve" his declaration. The fact he said "approve" is what stood out to me because as I said, in my experience this kind of declaration is not an "approval", especially if it wasn't legal to begin with. I'm just saying be careful if you feel like them processing the form means you could never be prosecuted. As for the other issue, I already cited the code above, so why would the 60 day timeline be enforceable but not the other portion that says the process shall begin after the firearm is in the state?

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

If you jump into the middle of the conversationit could be helpful to read like two messages prior where the guy who is planning to use this process is waiting for DOJ to "approve" his declaration. The fact he said "approve" is what stood out to me because as I said, in my experience this kind of declaration is not an "approval", especially if it wasn't legal to begin with. I'm just saying be careful if you feel like them processing the form means you could never be prosecuted. As for the other issue, I already cited the code above, so why would the 60 day timeline be enforceable but not the other portion that says the process shall begin after the firearm is in the state?

I don't need to jump anywhere. My comment was specifically limited to your statement that the statute required the gun be brought into the state in order to do the paperwork. That is the entirety of what I commented on.

I asked you to point to the language you were relying on. You haven't done that. Now you're saying "the portion that says the process shall begin after the firearm is in the state." Again, can you please point to the language that says that? And don't quote the section you cited above, because it unequivocally does not say that.

 

[RustVendor]

I don't need to jump anywhere. My comment was specifically limited to your statement that the statute required the gun be brought into the state in order to do the paperwork. That is the entirety of what I commented on.

I asked you to point to the language you were relying on. You haven't done that. Now you're saying "the portion that says the process shall begin after the firearm is in the state." Again, can you please point to the language that says that? And don't quote the section you cited above, because it unequivocally does not say that.

I feel like you think we are arguing, I don't know who hurt you but I forgive you

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

I feel like you think we are arguing, I don't know who hurt you but I forgive you

It's actually really easy, and a mark of intelligence and maturity, to just say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong."

 

[WSS01]

I don't know what you mean, and I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

What procedure isn't being followed?

Likely he doesn't, but I think that is what he is trying to clarify.

 

[No_glonks]

Like your dad or son going to Texas and buying then transferring to you? That would be legal. My out of state little brother could buy off roster, transfer to my dad who could gift it to me and that's legal already

why doesn't he, that's the question

 

[Warpspeed]

Please note that you all are posting in the California Law and Activism section.

Discussion and cross checking everyone's ideas are cool - name calling is not.

One member has been banned from the thread - anyone else that can't be civil will be banned as well.

 

[mbuss101]

Yes, I moved into California and I filed a new resident report. A few key things though:

- You can file the "New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership" form 50 years after becoming a CA resident. Just needs to be within 60 days of bringing the actual firearm into the state
- If you comply with PEN § 27560 you are legal and the rule doesn't say anything about being a new resident:



if you don't want to risk being forced to disclose you bought in another state (the form asks "Date of Acquisition"), other options exist:


You could PPT the gun to a friend at an FFL dealer (no real reason to do this though), or do the pawn shop trick to both transfer the firearm to a dealer and get it lawfully transferred to you in one fell swoop.

Also, another funny thing I found on a pro-gun control site on this issue: http://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/registration-in-california/

If the thing preventing you from buying a firearm in another state is the 1968 GCA, this ruling fundamentally rewrites the law at least for the acquisition part.

Where are you getting the 50 year limit on submitting a new resident form? If you move here establish residency then try to submit something 5 years later you aren’t exactly a new resident

 

[mbuss101]

Please assume that the CA DOJ reads these forums

Maybe they can help us shed some light on the subject then?

 

[miles888]

Google AI said it’s a go

 

[nakatomi]

For those planning road trips to Reno: this ruling only covers TX, Louisiana and Mississippi. We should book the one-way to DFW. We just can't bring stuff back

What's next is magazine cap limits w/ circuit split between the 3rd and 9th Circuits. SCOTUS has that case on the docket for conference right now. After that AR features ban should go (oral arguments Dec 2). The Glock ban could also fall apart if the broader roster framework collapses under Boland.

The CA roster is here to stay and it's going to be the LAST domino not the first. What falls before the roster is the requirement to go through a CA FFL on interstate purchases. Once 27585 gets struck down the roster becomes irrelevant because it only controls what CA dealers can sell not what you can own.

 

[mbuss101]

Google AI said it’s a go

That’s for transfer from a family member not what this convo is about