Do guns have to be registered?

[OlderThanDirt]

Old people have a lot of legally owned unregistered firearms. War trophies were also quite common in WWI and WWII, so their is no paper trail whatsoever. People that aren't avid collectors frequently have old firearms that just keep getting handed to the next generation that has no idea of what paperwork is required.

 

[home1974]

No idea if anyone knows but is there anything special about guns registered in your name or a spouse's name, like how with DMV you can have both on the title? Do both spouses own the gun legally?

With a spouse the other doesn't have to be registered to use it however if you carry your spouse firearm sometimes as edc than you'll have to add it to your ccw

 

[SlowMoe]

At least one at your current address in your name to buy ammo

 

[1911-CV]

With a spouse the other doesn't have to be registered to use it however if you carry your spouse firearm sometimes as edc than you'll have to add it to your ccw

With SB 2, you can no longer add your spouse's firearm to your CCW.

 

[H. Bowman]

Old people have a lot of legally owned unregistered firearms. War trophies were also quite common in WWI and WWII, so their is no paper trail whatsoever. People that aren't avid collectors frequently have old firearms that just keep getting handed to the next generation that has no idea of what paperwork is required.

30 is old? Long guns purchased through an FFL were not registered until what, 12 years ago? And loads of C&R guns exist in this state with no paper trail whatsoever.

 

[Gawernator]

With SB 2, you can no longer add your spouse's firearm to your CCW.

Great....

 

[Gawernator]

30 is old? Long guns purchased through an FFL were not registered until what, 12 years ago? And loads of C&R guns exist in this state with no paper trail whatsoever.

at 32 I am now a dinosaur ... RIP

 

[Librarian]

With a spouse the other doesn't have to be registered to use it however if you carry your spouse firearm sometimes as edc than you'll have to add it to your ccw

You can no longer do that; handguns on licenses by law now must be in AFS associated with the licensee.

Used to be possible about 2 years ago.

 

[jkcerda]

 

[treelogger]

The question did not specify specific people or circumstances.

"You need to register all firearms." Is a factually incorrect statement.

There is a lot of nuance to this. You are not completely wrong. But you are definitely not right either.

Any resident of California who acquires the ownership of a firearm, and every person who becomes a resident of California and has firearms, has to register all these firearms. So if "you" in the above sentence means all current and prospective residents of California, and "need to register" means anytime a firearm changes hands or enters the state, then that statement is correct.

Anyone who reads your statement and concludes "California residents do NOT need to register all their firearms" is completely wrong. I know that this is not exactly the meaning of what you are writing, but it can be mis-interpreted as such.

There are some very interestingly complex grey areas. As everyone keeps pointing out, older firearms (handguns before ~1990, long guns before 2014) did not have their serial number on the DROS, or the DROS was not registered. However, the state DoJ has been going through old archives of DROS forms and other records (perhaps bound books, perhaps 4473 copies, I forget the details), and supposedly they have many importations into California and transfers, in many cases back to the 1920s. Now, that data is not a "register", because it can be incomplete. For example, while FFLs are required to keep all their records de-facto forever, and when they close down turn them over to the ATF, some such records are simply destroyed due to accidents; we've had gun stores burn down.

There are rare cases of firearms that can't be registered because they have no serial number. I think it was legal for manufacturers to build and sell guns without serial numbers up to the 60s or 70s. There are also the obvious mistakes in the processes that make the whole registry very slightly unreliable (like digits switched around).

In another generation or so, we will be able to safely assume that nearly all firearms in private ownership in California will also be registered. At that point, unregistered guns will be an exceedingly rare exception. How that will affect gun control law is an open question for the future.

 

[H. Bowman]

There is a lot of nuance to this. You are not completely wrong. But you are definitely not right either.

Any resident of California who acquires the ownership of a firearm, and every person who becomes a resident of California and has firearms, has to register all these firearms. So if "you" in the above sentence means all current and prospective residents of California, and "need to register" means anytime a firearm changes hands or enters the state, then that statement is correct.

Anyone who reads your statement and concludes "California residents do NOT need to register all their firearms" is completely wrong. I know that this is not exactly the meaning of what you are writing, but it can be mis-interpreted as such.

There are some very interestingly complex grey areas. As everyone keeps pointing out, older firearms (handguns before ~1990, long guns before 2014) did not have their serial number on the DROS, or the DROS was not registered. However, the state DoJ has been going through old archives of DROS forms and other records (perhaps bound books, perhaps 4473 copies, I forget the details), and supposedly they have many importations into California and transfers, in many cases back to the 1920s. Now, that data is not a "register", because it can be incomplete. For example, while FFLs are required to keep all their records de-facto forever, and when they close down turn them over to the ATF, some such records are simply destroyed due to accidents; we've had gun stores burn down.

There are rare cases of firearms that can't be registered because they have no serial number. I think it was legal for manufacturers to build and sell guns without serial numbers up to the 60s or 70s. There are also the obvious mistakes in the processes that make the whole registry very slightly unreliable (like digits switched around).

In another generation or so, we will be able to safely assume that nearly all firearms in private ownership in California will also be registered. At that point, unregistered guns will be an exceedingly rare exception. How that will affect gun control law is an open question for the future.

Nothing you wrote here is part of the OPs original question. "No." is an absolutely factually correct answer to "Do you need to register all firearms in California." To claim anything else is a lie or ignorance.

If the question was involving during transfer or importation then sure, you may be onto something. But the question was simply "Do you need to register all firearms in California" and the answer to that simple and very broad question is a resounding "No."

 

[tomrkba]

Okay, now we cleared that up. Registration is conditional.

How does it work if a CA resident has guns outside the state but now wants to bring them in? There are several scenarios I can think of:

1) Inheritance
In this case, there are two action categories:

a) Go to the other state and drive them in.
b) Mail them. I believe all carriers only go to FFL’s.

If the gun is their property through inheritance, can they just bring it in?

2) Stored out of state
In this case, the person moved here but didn’t bring guns at the time for whatever reason. I know of several people with property in Nevada and they keep guns there. Can they bring their gun in and how?

3) Interfamilial transfer.
This is known as a parent to child transfer. I know how this works.

How does these cases, except #3, work?

 

[jayson_b24]

Okay, now we cleared that up. Registration is conditional.

How does it work if a CA resident has guns outside the state but now wants to bring them in? There are several scenarios I can think of:

1) Inheritance
In this case, there are two categories:
a) Go to the other state and drive them in.
b) Mail them. I believe all carriers only go to FFL’s.

2) Left behind guns
In this case, the person moved here but didn’t bring guns at the time for whatever reason.

3) Interfamilial transfer.
This is known as a parent to child transfer. I know how this works.

How does these cases, except #3, work?

In my case with numbers 1 & 2, I simply picked them up, drove them back into the state and filled out a "Firearm Ownership Report" for each weapon brought into the state. Since I had been a resident of CA for quite some time, I didn't have to fill out the "New Resident Report..." form (I tried this one and they were rejected for being on the wrong form). Hope this helps!

 

[Dvrjon]

Okay, now we cleared that up. Registration is conditional.

How does it work if a CA resident has guns outside the state but now wants to bring them in? There are several scenarios I can think of:

1) Inheritance
In this case, there are two action categories:

a) Go to the other state and drive them in.
b) Mail them. I believe all carriers only go to FFL’s.

If the gun is their property through inheritance, can they just bring it in?

CA PEN 27585 controls:

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, from outside of this stateunless the person first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state for delivery to that resident pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 27540 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2.

CA PEN 27920 provides limited exemption:

(c) Subdivision (a) of Section 27585 does not apply to a person who imports a firearm into this state, brings a firearm into this state, or transports a firearm into this state if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The person acquires ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession as a surviving spouse or as the surviving registered domestic partner of the decedent who owned that firearm.

(2) If acquisition of the firearm had occurred within this state, the receipt of the firearm by the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner would be exempt from the provisions of Section 27545 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) by virtue of subdivision (h) of Section 16990.

(3) Within 30 days of taking possession of the firearm and importing, bringing, or transporting it into this state, the person shall submit a report to the Department of Justice, in a form and manner prescribed by the department, that includes information concerning the individual taking possession of the firearm, how title was obtained and from whom, and a description of the firearm in question.

(4) The person has obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used.

2) Stored out of state
In this case, the person moved here but didn’t bring guns at the time for whatever reason. I know of several people with property in Nevada and they keep guns there. Can they bring their gun in and how?

If the acquisition was post 1/1/2015, then Section 27585 controls. To my knowledge, prior to enactment of 27585, there was no requirement to use FFLs to transport. So, if the acquisition was before that date, they should be able to, as Jayson noted above, simply drive the guns in and report the possession.

Caveats: no assault weapons; no LCMs; no threaded pistol barrels, etc.

If shipping, FedEx and UPS now only ship FFL to FFL. USPS only ships long guns; no handguns. ShipMyGun works through a network of FFLs.

 

[nakatomi]

Who is discussing this?

Click hyperlink for full context.

 

[treelogger]

Nothing you wrote here is part of the OPs original question. "No." is an absolutely factually correct answer to "Do you need to register all firearms in California." To claim anything else is a lie or ignorance.

If the question was involving during transfer or importation then sure, you may be onto something. But the question was simply "Do you need to register all firearms in California" and the answer to that simple and very broad question is a resounding "No."

If you ask the question "Do guns have to be registered?", the answer is: partly yes, partly no. In California any gun that is transferred into the ownership of a California (either with the transfer occurring inside the state, or by being brought into the state) will be registered. Either automatically when the transfer of ownership occurs, or by having to file the forms Dvrjon pointed us to above.

But existing guns that were not registered (before 199x or before 2014) do not have to be registered. Even though most of them are de-facto registered by being recorded in the CA DoJ databases.

If you ask the question "Do you need to register all firearms in California?", the answer is: No. You do not need to perform an action yourself to register them in all cases. If you instead ask the question "Do you need to register firearms in California?", the answer would be: In some situations.

Note that the three underlined questions are subtly different. The first of the three is the one the OP asked in the thread title.

This is, in a nutshell, what I said above. Describing a complex and nuanced answer as "lie or ignorance" is nonsensical, and argumentative for the sole purpose of stirring up anger.

 

[jayson_b24]

If you ask the question "Do guns have to be registered?", the answer is: partly yes, partly no. In California any gun that is transferred into the ownership of a California (either with the transfer occurring inside the state, or by being brought into the state) will be registered. Either automatically when the transfer of ownership occurs, or by having to file the forms Dvrjon pointed us to above.

But existing guns that were not registered (before 199x or before 2014) do not have to be registered. Even though most of them are de-facto registered by being recorded in the CA DoJ databases.

If you ask the question "Do you need to register all firearms in California?", the answer is: No. You do not need to perform an action yourself to register them in all cases. If you instead ask the question "Do you need to register firearms in California?", the answer would be: In some situations.

Note that the three underlined questions are subtly different. The first of the three is the one the OP asked in the thread title.

This is, in a nutshell, what I said above. Describing a complex and nuanced answer as "lie or ignorance" is nonsensical, and argumentative for the sole purpose of stirring up anger.

I was thinking this exact same thing. Just didn't have the time or energy to put it all out here.

 

[Joker67]

I inherited a 1947 Model 12 12 gauge. Never been registered.

I know guys who got their grandfathers and fathers hunting rifles when their dad passed. They will pass them on to their sons. Never going to be registered.

Friends took care of an elderly neighbor . Before he died he gave them a couple of Colt Revolvers in a box. Never been registered.

I suspect that tens of thousands of rifles and pistols have been passed down through generations and will never be registered.

 

[treelogger]

I inherited a 1947 Model 12 12 gauge. Never been registered.

You are not wrong: in 1947, it didn't have to be registered.

However, there is a good chance that the gun is in the DoJ database (I don't know whether in AFS or one of the underlying databases), because the DoJ has been scanning and entering old logs from gun dealers. And that gun must have been purchased from a gun dealer, who must have entered its model/make/serial into their bound book when they received it from the manufacturer or distributor, and must have entered the name of the buyer into the bound book when they sold it to whoever you inherited it from. The concept of FFL and bound book dates back to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, so those things existed back then. Assuming the dealer's building hasn't burned down, it is likely that this bound book is now in a database in Sacramento.

I know guys who got their grandfathers and fathers hunting rifles when their dad passed. They will pass them on to their sons. Never going to be registered.

Friends took care of an elderly neighbor . Before he died he gave them a couple of Colt Revolvers in a box. Never been registered.

And in both cases, the law is being broken, as a papered transfer is necessary (either via an OpLaw form or an FFL transfer). So now we have a gun that the records say is owned by person A, and that is really owned by person B. At some point, that gun will come in contact with law enforcement or with a gun dealer, and at that point the discrepancy will get discovered.

Today, the fraction of guns that are "not registered" (meaning the ownership information in AFS is not correct) is still pretty high, so discovering that discrepancy has no effect. Otherwise, a huge number of mis-owned guns would need to be dealt with by authorities, and that's impractical. If for example LE finds person A with a gun whose serial number indicates that it is owned by person B, they can't just immediately conclude that A stole the gun; because of the high number of discrepancies, they have to assume that the problem is that the ownership records are often flawed.

But now wait 30 years, until the fraction of such mis-registered guns is tiny. At that point, it becomes reasonable to deal with these discrepancies harshly, as most of them will then be an indication of a crime.

 

[OlderThanDirt]

30 is old? Long guns purchased through an FFL were not registered until what, 12 years ago? And loads of C&R guns exist in this state with no paper trail whatsoever.

There is a paper trail for long guns purchased through a FFL, but it takes a little work. ATF will trace from the manufacture to the FFL, to the purchaser who will gladly roll over if they gave the firearm to someone else. Their dog’s life depends on it.

C&R on the other hand was cash and carry with no trail.