Does spouse need to obtain FSC if she inherited firearm from husband?

[cheapie408]

I have a friend who suddenly passed away and owns few firearms. They asked me how can they sell their firearms because the kids aren't old enough to own handguns. I recommended that they don't sell but put it under mom's name and have her hang onto it. Their sons, 17 and 18 are responsible firearm enthuesist and are experience firearms users. But since they're under 21, they can't own a handgun.

Mom isn't in a mental state to think about taking an FSC. If I'm not mistaken, the FSC is required to purchase a firearm from the dealer. But if spouse inherited the firearm, she wouldn't need an FSC right? Just like my wife doesn't have an FSC but she technically have legal rights to my firearms. What is the next step for them? Does the firearm needs to be transfered to Mom with CA DOJ or whatever agency so she can legally give it to her children later?

 

[treelogger]

The heir of a firearm needs an FSC, that is explicitly required in PC 27875. And the heir needs to file the "OpLaw" form (known as BOF 4544) within 30 days of receiving the gun, and that form requires the FSC number to be filled in. That same FSC requirement also applies to intrafamiliar transfers between spouses or parent/child, even to loans (see section 27880).

You say that mom isn't in a mental state to do that right now, and I completely understand (and condolences to the family). Let me offer two suggestions. First: A person who is 18 can OWN a handgun, but they can't BUY one. The only way they can own a handgun is to have one transferred to them by their parents in an intrafamiliar transfer, including through inheritance. So maybe the 18 year old son could get an FSC and become the owner of all the guns. Perhaps with an informal agreement to later transfer them to his brother (which is a bit tricky, but that's a problem for later). Obviously that requires the executor of the estate (who might be the mom) to decide that the older son is to inherit all the guns.

Second: If the mom's mental state is troublesome, and she is in danger of harming herself, she can temporarily (for a time period of any length) transfer the guns to any person who is at least 18 years old (such as her older son!), who can keep them locked (in a safe or with locks), until her mental state gets better (she is not in any danger) and they can be returned. The person receiving and holding the guns does not need an FSC, and no paperwork is required. But the guns need to remain locked and unused, until they can be returned. For the details see penal code section 27882, for example at the state web site.

Finally: failure to file that BOF 4544 form on time is hardly ever enforced. In particular, penalties for filing it late are prevented by filing it at all.

Best wishes to the whole family!

 

[cheapie408]

The heir of a firearm needs an FSC, that is explicitly required in PC 27875. And the heir needs to file the "OpLaw" form (known as BOF 4544) within 30 days of receiving the gun, and that form requires the FSC number to be filled in. That same FSC requirement also applies to intrafamiliar transfers between spouses or parent/child, even to loans (see section 27880).

You say that mom isn't in a mental state to do that right now, and I completely understand (and condolences to the family). Let me offer two suggestions. First: A person who is 18 can OWN a handgun, but they can't BUY one. The only way they can own a handgun is to have one transferred to them by their parents in an intrafamiliar transfer, including through inheritance. So maybe the 18 year old son could get an FSC and become the owner of all the guns. Perhaps with an informal agreement to later transfer them to his brother (which is a bit tricky, but that's a problem for later). Obviously that requires the executor of the estate (who might be the mom) to decide that the older son is to inherit all the guns.

Second: If the mom's mental state is troublesome, and she is in danger of harming herself, she can temporarily (for a time period of any length) transfer the guns to any person who is at least 18 years old (such as her older son!), who can keep them locked (in a safe or with locks), until her mental state gets better (she is not in any danger) and they can be returned. The person receiving and holding the guns does not need an FSC, and no paperwork is required. But the guns need to remain locked and unused, until they can be returned. For the details see penal code section 27882, for example at the state web site.

Finally: failure to file that BOF 4544 form on time is hardly ever enforced. In particular, penalties for filing it late are prevented by filing it at all.

Best wishes to the whole family!

Thank you for clarifying, this is very helpful. The 18 year old does have an FSC, so does this mean that the handgun CAN be transfered to him? Their family are very close and don't care who in the family hang onto it, they just want to make sure it can stays in the family and be compliance with whatever the law say.

Unfortunately, my friend's passing was very unexpecting, he was pretty young and did not have a will. They all resides in the same household, firearms are in their safe and at least one of them knows how to get to.

Since they live in the same house, there's really no "taking possession of" per se, how does that law apply here?

FWIW: I just look at the form BOF 4544, it looks very similar to the form i have to fill out when I moved to CA with my firearms.

 

[treelogger]

The 18 year old does have an FSC, so does this mean that the handgun CAN be transfered to him?

I think so. That's assuming the executor of the estate decides that he should be the heir. Since there is no will, it is pretty much up to the executor to decide who gets what. The executor might be the mom, or it might be someone else, who is likely to follow the wishes of the family.

My only worry in this scenario is that the younger (17 year old) son will not end up owning any of the guns at this time. And the future transfer from the older to the younger son is a little tricky: it's not intrafamiliar, but will have to go through an FFL and be DROSed ... which can't be done until the younger son is 21.

In most cases, I would say "the fix is to create a trust"; if the issue was for example real estate, one could write up a trust that benefits the younger son, is administered by the mom or older son for a few years, until the transfer to the younger son can be done. Alas, that doesn't work for guns: in California, trusts can't own guns, since only natural persons can DROS them.

Since they live in the same house, there's really no "taking possession of" per se, how does that law apply here?

The law does little to control that. Someone owns the guns (at this point likely the estate, which is legally controlled by the executor). Part of the rights of an owner of a thing is to control who can have possession of the thing. In most cases, that's trivial, as the owner is also the possessor (I hold my own gun in my own hands, unless I hand them to a family member or lend them to someone). In the current situation of your friend, it's a little harder, since an estate (not being a physical person) can not open a safe, nor hold a gun in its hand. So it acts through its executor.

 

[cheapie408]

I think waiting till he's 21 is fine, I'll talk to them tomorrow and see how they'd like to handle it and show them your post.

Thanks again, very informative.