Any bolt action rifle made over 50 years ago can be bought without FFL?

[The Badger]

Is it that simple? Can I purchase a hunting rifle made over 50 years ago from a private party without ffl?

Thanks!

 

[Librarian]

No.

That used to be possible, but the law changed in 2014.

If you have a C&R FFL, you can go out of state and buy, and file paperwork to CA reporting such acquisitions. But in-CA transfers need the CA FFL.

 

[flyer898]

Librarian, not exactly. See Penal Code section 27966. A person in California who has both a 03 C&R FFL and a COE my buy a C&R long gun, face to face, in California without going through a FFL. The purchaser must then register the purchase with California DOJ.

 

[ef9boy88]

You are still able to buy a long gun this way IF you have an FFL03 AND COE. You can meet somebody buy said rifle and then register it yourself through the DOJ. You are able to do this out of state for both long guns and handguns. You may also buy at the FFL and are waiting period exempt with C&R guns.

 

[echo1]

If you live in Idaho you can still buy used FTF, like Kali pre 2014. Now it's only antiques. Since I've been at it since the '60s much of my stuff is of the books. PAX

 

[Tere_Hanges]

You need an 03FFL and COE to buy a longgun over 50 years old without going through a dealer. You can buy in person/face to face anywhere (in or outside of CA). You have to log it into your bound book and register it online with CADOJ.

 

[echo1]

....You have to log it into your bound book and register it online with CADOJ.

Only if acquired with your 03. Used gun transferred through an 01 not so mauh.

 

[Tere_Hanges]

Only if acquired with your 03. Used gun transferred through an 01 not so mauh.

Yup. Sorry if my post wasnt clear.

 

[flyer898]

Federal law requires a 03 C&R FFL to enter all C&R purchases and dispsitions in your bound book, even if it was DROSed.

 

[mk2dave]

How confident are you that this is correct? It was my understanding that the only entries in the bound book are when the 03 is used. Why would the same transaction need to be noted twice? Once by DROS and once in your book?

 

[Hit Factor]

How confident are you that this is correct? It was my understanding that the only entries in the bound book are when the 03 is used. Why would the same transaction need to be noted twice? Once by DROS and once in your book?

§ 478.125 Record of receipt and disposition.
(f) Firearms receipt and disposition by licensed collectors.
(1) Each licensed collector shall enter into a record each receipt and disposition of firearms curios or relics. The record required by this paragraph shall be maintained in bound form under the format prescribed below . . .

This is where the debate between the “spirit” of the law and the “letter” of the law comes into play. The spirit of the law would probably only require entry into the collector’s bound book if the transaction was made through the use of the collector’s federal license. But the way the law is written suggests that any receipt or disposition of a C&R firearm needs to be entered into the bound book. Especially when you consider this:

(3) The format required for the record of receipt and disposition of firearms by collectors is as follows:
(g) Commercial records of firearms received.
When a commercial record is held by a licensed dealer or licensed collector showing the acquisition of a firearm or firearm curio or relic, and such record contains all acquisition information required by the bound record prescribed by paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, the licensed dealer or licensed collector acquiring such firearm or curio or relic, may, for a period not exceeding 7 days following the date of such acquisition, delay making the required entry into such bound record . . .

A period of delay is granted, but there’s no mention of an outright exception. Read it how you will, and act accordingly. I think most people, including the ATF, support the spirit of the law when it comes to C&R record keeping, but I think recording all C&R receipts and dispositions is the safest route.

For some mind-numbing reading, you can go right to the source: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-478/subpart-H/section-478.125