Shipping Rifles from California to Out-of-State Buyers

[kemasa]

You must deal with a different version of a UPS store than is present locally. My local UPS store prints a UPS receipt and hands it to me every time. Valid contract with UPS...

The closest UPS Store are the ones who refused to print a receipt as they said it costs them money. One slightly further away will print the receipt without a problem, the people there are a lot nicer and far more reasonable.

But the problem was that I shipped an item with a pre-printed label and while they claimed to scan it, they didn't and when it was picked up from UPS it wasn't scanned. There was no tracking shown. I called UPS and they said that I had to wait past the delivery date to see if it happened to make it, but that if UPS never got it, they were not responsible and I had no proof of UPS getting, nor any proof that the UPS received it. Needless to say, I won't set foot in that location ever again.

FedEx Office is different because it is actually the same FedEx.

 

[kemasa]

So how can removing a bullet button from a registered assault weapon make a different unregistered assault weapon if the full disassembly of that very same registered assault weapon into a stripped receiver does not keep it from being the very same assault weapon it is registered as?

They can't have it both ways.
It has to be either one way or the other way.
It can't be both.

Sorry, but you are making no sense. Different unregistered assault weapon?

CA registered so-called a-salt weapons are registered based on serial number, which is why taking it apart makes no difference. That serial number is still listed as a so-called a-salt weapon and the paperwork would need to be done to remove it from the list.

For an unregistered firearm, taking it apart make it no longer a semi-auto firearm, which means the laws regarding so-called a-salt weapons don't apply.

 

[kemasa]

When the transfering dealer receives the rifle and transfers ownership, that will trigger notification to the CA DOJ.

No. Just plain NO. When a firearm is received by a FFL, whether in-state or out of state, no notification to the CA DOJ will occur. Only when a DROS is submitted or when it is listed as being received, such as for a consignment, will the CA DOJ get notified and that is only for CA FFLs.

 

[kemasa]

I had an sb23 raw and if I were to sell it there were 2 choices drive it out of state or use an ffl with an assault weapons permit last I heard there were only 2.

Best option hope one is close or drive it out of state. Not sure what other ffl will do being it coming from ca and not via an approved ffl.

There is NO federal law which requires a FFL receive a firearm from another FFL. Many FFLs have absurd rules in which they personally refuse to receive a firearm unless it comes from another FFL, but they have a problem if a non-FFL ships the firearm as they still received it AND they are required to log the firearm in, they can't just ignore it (although they might illegally do just that).

The issue is that often when the firearm is shipped from a non-FFL the person may not include all the information needed to log it in, which is annoying, but then again it is possible to log in the firearm with just the information that you have, which isn't ideal, to say the least. The easiest way around this if for the FFL to require the information, typically a copy of the person's ID in advance and stop the person from shipping it without that by refusing to give out any of the FFL's information until that is received.

 

[kemasa]

They would argue a Registered AW is still a registered AW even if its just a lower.

They would argue that because that is the case since the firearm is registered by serial number, which the lower has, not by any features.

 

[kemasa]

It would be very hard for them to make that argument, especially since they drafted this regulation (quoted from 11CCR5471(hh)):

“Semiautomatic” means a firearm functionally able to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case, and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled and released. Further, certain necessary mechanical parts that will allow a firearm to function in a semiautomatic nature must be present for a weapon to be deemed semiautomatic. A weapon clearly designed to be semiautomatic but lacking a firing pin, bolt carrier, gas tube, or some other crucial part of the firearm is not semiautomatic for purposes of Penal Code sections 30515, 30600, 30605(a), and 30900.
(1) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm merely lacking ammunition and a proper magazine is a semiautomatic firearm.
(2) A mechanically whole semiautomatic firearm disabled by a gun lock or other firearm safety device is a semiautomatic firearm. (All necessary parts are present, once the gun lock or firearm safety device is removed, and weapon can be loaded with a magazine and proper ammunition.)
(3) With regards to an AR-15 style firearm, if a complete upper receiver and a complete lower receiver are completely detached from one another, but still in the possession or under the custody or control of the same person, the firearm is not a semiautomatic firearm.
(4) A stripped AR-15 lower receiver, when sold at a California gun store, is not a semiautomatic firearm. (The action type, among other things, is undetermined.)"

But please note that provision in subparagraph (3) that removes a weapon from being a "semi-automatic: when the upper and lower receivers are separated, only works to prevent an "evil by feature" Assault Weapon from being an Assault Weapon, since being a semi-automatic is an element of an "evil by feature" AW.

Separating the upper and lower doesn't give the same protection to an "evil by name" AW since the name still remains.

Read your last sentence. The same applies for a firearm which is registered as a so-called a-salt weapon. All of the above is in regards to a firearm in general, but everything changes once it is registered. Even if you remove features which make the firearm a so-called a-salt weapon it doesn't matter as it is still registered as a so-called a-salt weapon. There is a process to get it removed from being registered, then it changes again.

 

[kemasa]

The penal code and CCR do not give exemptions to just ship yourself that I see:


16850 and 25610 are locked containers, unloaded, or locked truck, ect

You are correct, the CA law prohibits the shipping of so-called a-salt weapons by anyone other than those who have the correct permits.

In talking to the CA DOJ, after shipping such a firearm through a FFL who had all the permits, it seemed that the CA DOJ doesn't care about the law if it is shipped out of state, but that doesn't mean that they might not change their mind, nor would it resolve any issue should there be a problem with the package prior to it getting out of state where it becomes just an average firearm again.

 

[kemasa]

Thanks for the helpful discussion and input. I’ve learned a lot here.

My question comes down to this: If I use a shipping label provided by ShipMyGuns.com, can I drop off the package at a regular UPS Store or USPS location? Will they accept it?

If anyone has had a similar experience recently, I would appreciate hearing about it.

What you might get away with is different than the actual policies.

According to the official UPS Tariff/Terms and Conditions of Service and the corporate UPS Firearm Shipping Policy, the following primary source regulations apply:

Prohibited Locations and Tender Methods

• The UPS Store Restrictions: Under the UPS Prohibited Items policy, packages containing firearms or firearm parts cannot be accepted or dropped off at The UPS Store locations, UPS Drop Boxes, or any third-party UPS Access Point.
  
  
• Approved Tender Methods: Authorized shipments must strictly be picked up by UPS at the shipper's location via a scheduled pickup account or brought directly to the customer counter at a corporate UPS Customer Center.

Strict Contractual Account Requirements

• Approved Agreements Only: As published in the official How To Ship Firearms guidelines, "Shipments containing Firearm Products are accepted for transportation only from shippers who are federally licensed and have an approved UPS agreement for the transportation of Firearm Products".
  
  
• Serialization: UPS only accepts firearms that bear a visible serial number complying with federal law. They do not accept shipments of firearm parts that can be assembled to form a complete, unregulated firearm.

Packaging and Service Standards

• Service Speed: Handguns (as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921) will only be accepted via UPS Next Day Air Services.
  
  
• Delivery Constraints: Shippers must select Delivery Confirmation Adult Signature Required and Direct Delivery Only services.
  
  
• Outer Markings: The outer packaging must be a new corrugated box, and all outer labels or markings must remain entirely non-descriptive so they do not identify the contents as a firearm.

The above isn't quite correct as UPS has contracts which allow for 2nd day air, typically from manufacturers and other large shipper of firearms, such as a wholesaler/distributor.

 

[kemasa]

From what CADOJ says on one of my conditions for a AW permit is I must facilitate shipping of Registered AW's to out of state FFL's even though I do not offer outgoing shipping services as it is not legal (according to them) to ship a Registered AW's


I've been told its fine if the registrant want to drive the firearm out of state but not ship it.
IANAL and have never seen a specific code that allow it.

Not sure as to who you talked to, but under CA law and in talking to the CA DOJ, it is legal to ship registered AWs, but it has to be a FFL with the correct permits. Then again, in talking to them they claimed it wasn't a problem to ship such a firearm myself as long as it was being shipped out of state.

 

[RickD427]

Read your last sentence. The same applies for a firearm which is registered as a so-called a-salt weapon. All of the above is in regards to a firearm in general, but everything changes once it is registered. Even if you remove features which make the firearm a so-called a-salt weapon it doesn't matter as it is still registered as a so-called a-salt weapon. There is a process to get it removed from being registered, then it changes again.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Before starting into the reasons why, it's important to look closely at the controlling statutes and regs. Break them down into their component "Building Blocks" and then look to see how they fit together. This is an area where looking at the law intuitively can lead you astray. When having discussions with my deputies on legal issues, I'd often ask the diagnostic question "what charge would you put on the booking slip" to help define if there was criminal liability to any particular conduct.

As to the case of an "evil-by-name" Assault Weapon, it remains an Assault Weapon even if the upper and lower receivers are separated. Penal Code section 30510 defines them as semi-automatic Assault Weapons, without regard to separation of upper and lower. However, 11CCR5471(hh) provides the the separation of upper and lower removes the weapon from being semi-automatic. This creates a conflict between the statute and the regulation. The conflict get resolved in favor of the statute.

In the case of an "evil-by-feature" Assault Weapon (PC 30515), the weapon must be semi-automatic if it is a rifle, and must possess one or more of the listed features. If a rifle is not semi-automatic, it cannot be an "Assault Weapon" under PC 30515. In this case there is no conflict between statute and regulation, and 11CCR5471 prevents the weapon, when upper and lower are separated, from being considered as "Semi-Automatic" and that prevents it from being considered as an "Assault Weapon."

Here's where the "intuitive view of the law can lead you astray" part comes in. It appears that you are arguing that since a weapon is registered as an "Assault Weapon" it remains an "Assault Weapon." That's not true. Assault Weapons remain as defined in Penal Code sections 30510 and 30515. Being registered as an "Assault Weapon" is not a criteria under either section. It is possible to to have a "Registered Assault Weapon" that is not presently an "Assault Weapon." (Don't expect California law to make sense). If you don't believe me, try answering this diagnostic question - You're a police officer, you find a suspect in possession of an "evil-by-feature" RAW, with the upper and lower separated, that he carries locked in the trunk of his car "in case I need it". The weapon is being transported outside of the destination requirements for an RAW - what charge do you put on the booking slip?

You're correct that DOJ does have a process to de-register RAWs. But that's not relevant here. There are liabilities attendant to a RAW that is not presently an AW. The point remains that "Assault Weapons" are defined by Penal Code section 30510 and 30515. They're not defined by their registration.

 

[AR15barrels]

I have to respectfully disagree.

Before starting into the reasons why, it's important to look closely at the controlling statutes and regs. Break them down into their component "Building Blocks" and then look to see how they fit together. This is an area where looking at the law intuitively can lead you astray. When having discussions with my deputies on legal issues, I'd often ask the diagnostic question "what charge would you put on the booking slip" to help define if there was criminal liability to any particular conduct.

As to the case of an "evil-by-name" Assault Weapon, it remains an Assault Weapon even if the upper and lower receivers are separated. Penal Code section 30510 defines them as semi-automatic Assault Weapons, without regard to separation of upper and lower. However, 11CCR5471(hh) provides the the separation of upper and lower removes the weapon from being semi-automatic. This creates a conflict between the statute and the regulation. The conflict get resolved in favor of the statute.

In the case of an "evil-by-feature" Assault Weapon (PC 30515), the weapon must be semi-automatic if it is a rifle, and must possess one or more of the listed features. If a rifle is not semi-automatic, it cannot be an "Assault Weapon" under PC 30515. In this case there is no conflict between statute and regulation, and 11CCR5471 prevents the weapon, when upper and lower are separated, from being considered as "Semi-Automatic" and that prevents it from being considered as an "Assault Weapon."

Here's where the "intuitive view of the law can lead you astray" part comes in. It appears that you are arguing that since a weapon is registered as an "Assault Weapon" it remains an "Assault Weapon." That's not true. Assault Weapons remain as defined in Penal Code sections 30510 and 30515. Being registered as an "Assault Weapon" is not a criteria under either section. It is possible to to have a "Registered Assault Weapon" that is not presently an "Assault Weapon." (Don't expect California law to make sense). If you don't believe me, try answering this diagnostic question - You're a police officer, you find a suspect in possession of an "evil-by-feature" RAW, with the upper and lower separated, that he carries locked in the trunk of his car "in case I need it". The weapon is being transported outside of the destination requirements for an RAW - what charge do you put on the booking slip?

You're correct that DOJ does have a process to de-register RAWs. But that's not relevant here. There are liabilities attendant to a RAW that is not presently an AW. The point remains that "Assault Weapons" are defined by Penal Code section 30510 and 30515. They're not defined by their registration.

So if a RAW is disassembled as such that it's no longer an AW, can that firearm be shipped out of state without the use of an FFL with a DWP?
Because that solves a lot of problems for people wanting to dispose of their RAW's.

 

[RickD427]

So if a RAW is disassembled as such that it's no longer an AW, can that firearm be shipped out of state without the use of an FFL with a DWP?
Because that solves a lot of problems for people wanting to dispose of their RAW's.

Nope.

Like I wrote in my original posting, you have to look to the statutes, break the statutes down to their component parts, and then use those parts as your "building blocks" to a conclusion. You don't just jump to the conclusion based on your intuition.

The key point here is that there are differences between the meaning of "Assault Weapon" and "Registered Assault Weapon" and the differences can be significant depending on the issue being considered.

I'm not an FFL and have never worked a firearms case concerning an FFL, so I can't speak directly to the FFL and Dangerous Weapons Permit part of your question. I can speak directly to the transportation part of your question, and I'll also use it to illustrate why you gotta do that "building block" thing with the statutes.

Penal Code section 30945 governs the transportation, and permitted uses of "Registered Assault Weapons." It's important to note that is different from it's applying to "Assault Weapons." Even if a Registered Assault Weapon is modified such that it is no longer an "Assault Weapon", the provisions of PC 30945 still apply.

 

[kemasa]

I have to respectfully disagree.

Before starting into the reasons why, it's important to look closely at the controlling statutes and regs. Break them down into their component "Building Blocks" and then look to see how they fit together. This is an area where looking at the law intuitively can lead you astray. When having discussions with my deputies on legal issues, I'd often ask the diagnostic question "what charge would you put on the booking slip" to help define if there was criminal liability to any particular conduct.

As to the case of an "evil-by-name" Assault Weapon, it remains an Assault Weapon even if the upper and lower receivers are separated. Penal Code section 30510 defines them as semi-automatic Assault Weapons, without regard to separation of upper and lower. However, 11CCR5471(hh) provides the the separation of upper and lower removes the weapon from being semi-automatic. This creates a conflict between the statute and the regulation. The conflict get resolved in favor of the statute.

In the case of an "evil-by-feature" Assault Weapon (PC 30515), the weapon must be semi-automatic if it is a rifle, and must possess one or more of the listed features. If a rifle is not semi-automatic, it cannot be an "Assault Weapon" under PC 30515. In this case there is no conflict between statute and regulation, and 11CCR5471 prevents the weapon, when upper and lower are separated, from being considered as "Semi-Automatic" and that prevents it from being considered as an "Assault Weapon."

Here's where the "intuitive view of the law can lead you astray" part comes in. It appears that you are arguing that since a weapon is registered as an "Assault Weapon" it remains an "Assault Weapon." That's not true. Assault Weapons remain as defined in Penal Code sections 30510 and 30515. Being registered as an "Assault Weapon" is not a criteria under either section. It is possible to to have a "Registered Assault Weapon" that is not presently an "Assault Weapon." (Don't expect California law to make sense). If you don't believe me, try answering this diagnostic question - You're a police officer, you find a suspect in possession of an "evil-by-feature" RAW, with the upper and lower separated, that he carries locked in the trunk of his car "in case I need it". The weapon is being transported outside of the destination requirements for an RAW - what charge do you put on the booking slip?

You're correct that DOJ does have a process to de-register RAWs. But that's not relevant here. There are liabilities attendant to a RAW that is not presently an AW. The point remains that "Assault Weapons" are defined by Penal Code section 30510 and 30515. They're not defined by their registration.

You can disagree all you want, but the simple fact is that the CA DOJ disagree with you.

What you are missing is that it is REGISTERED as an ASSAULT WEAPON. Taking it apart doesn't change that. The registration is based on the firearm's serial number, which doesn't change when it is taken apart.

Talk to the CA DOJ, talk to an expert lawyer on firearms laws, especially with experience with so-called a-salt weapons.

Your example ignores reality since the firearm is stated to be a RAW, it is somehow assumed that the officer KNOWS that the firearm is registered, which means the violation is for illegally transporting a RAW. Then you later admit that CA PC 30945 applies to your example. So why do you deny it here?

If what you said was true, please explain exactly why there would need to be a process to unregister such a firearm since just taking it apart is claimed by you to make it no longer a so-called a-salt weapon. The law also restricts how a REGISTERED assault weapon can be transported, a RAW, which doesn't matter if it would be considered an AW at that point in time since no matter what it is still a RAW.

 

[kemasa]

So if a RAW is disassembled as such that it's no longer an AW, can that firearm be shipped out of state without the use of an FFL with a DWP?
Because that solves a lot of problems for people wanting to dispose of their RAW's.

No, because it is still registered by serial number, so even if taken apart it is a RAW.

 

[kemasa]

Nope.

Like I wrote in my original posting, you have to look to the statutes, break the statutes down to their component parts, and then use those parts as your "building blocks" to a conclusion. You don't just jump to the conclusion based on your intuition.

The key point here is that there are differences between the meaning of "Assault Weapon" and "Registered Assault Weapon" and the differences can be significant depending on the issue being considered.

I'm not an FFL and have never worked a firearms case concerning an FFL, so I can't speak directly to the FFL and Dangerous Weapons Permit part of your question. I can speak directly to the transportation part of your question, and I'll also use it to illustrate why you gotta do that "building block" thing with the statutes.

Penal Code section 30945 governs the transportation, and permitted uses of "Registered Assault Weapons." It's important to note that is different from it's applying to "Assault Weapons." Even if a Registered Assault Weapon is modified such that it is no longer an "Assault Weapon", the provisions of PC 30945 still apply.

Wow, so here you admit that the law still applies because it is registered.

 

[AR15barrels]

What you are missing is that it is REGISTERED as an ASSAULT WEAPON. Taking it apart doesn't change that. The registration is based on the firearm's serial number, which doesn't change when it is taken apart.

Then there's this:

§ 5477. Registration of Assault Weapons Pursuant to Penal Code Section 30900(b)(1); PostRegistration Modification of Registered Assault Weapons, Prohibition
.(a) The release mechanism for an ammunition feeding device on an assault weapon registeredpursuant to Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) shall not be changed after theassault weapon is registered. A weapon’s eligibility for registration pursuant to PenalCode section 30900, subdivision (b)(1) depends, in part, on its release mechanism. Any alteration to the release mechanism converts the assault weapon into a different weapon from the one that was registered.

So does taking it apart NOT make it the same or does taking it apart make it different?

 

[RickD427]

Then there's this:

So does taking it apart NOT make it the same or does taking it apart make it different?

Neither.

Under 5477(hh) separating the upper and lower receivers does not make a different weapon. It only removes the weapon from being a "semi-automatic".

 

[RickD427]

You can disagree all you want, but the simple fact is that the CA DOJ disagree with you.

What you are missing is that it is REGISTERED as an ASSAULT WEAPON. Taking it apart doesn't change that. The registration is based on the firearm's serial number, which doesn't change when it is taken apart.

Talk to the CA DOJ, talk to an expert lawyer on firearms laws, especially with experience with so-called a-salt weapons.

Your example ignores reality since the firearm is stated to be a RAW, it is somehow assumed that the officer KNOWS that the firearm is registered, which means the violation is for illegally transporting a RAW. Then you later admit that CA PC 30945 applies to your example. So why do you deny it here?

If what you said was true, please explain exactly why there would need to be a process to unregister such a firearm since just taking it apart is claimed by you to make it no longer a so-called a-salt weapon. The law also restricts how a REGISTERED assault weapon can be transported, a RAW, which doesn't matter if it would be considered an AW at that point in time since no matter what it is still a RAW.

Wow, so here you admit that the law still applies because it is registered.

Kemasa,

You're not reading the statutes.

I doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what a bunch of lawyers think (if you're one who worships the statements of lawyers, please note that whenever one lawyer says something, there's a line of other lawyers waiting to disagree. Lawyers are very skilled at argument, and that makes them well worth listening to, but no lawyer has a perfect record of argument) It does matter what DOJ says since they have prosecution power, but DOJ has said very little about the issue we're discussing here. Their publishing the regulation under 5471(hh) is probably the strongest position that DOJ has taken.

DOJ hasn't disagreed with anything that I have written. If you believe that they have, then please cite the statute, regulation, or document where they have done so.

You appear to be firmly wedded to the belief that the act of registering an Assault Weapon defines the weapon so registered as an Assault Weapon. That's simply not the case. If you believe that a weapon becomes an Assault Weapon simply by virtue of being registered as such, then please cite the statute so providing. Don't engage in name calling, don't line up folks who may, or may not support your view, simply cite the statute. If it exists, you'll find it in Part Six of the Penal Code. All you got to do is give us a number. It will have five digits and will start with a "3". Begin your search with section 30510 and 30515 they're the only two sections that define what an "Assault Weapon" is, and neither of them define an Assault Weapon according to your belief.

As to your point about "why" there is a process to de-register an RAW, and also to your discussion about my example of the transportation/destination requirements of PC 30945, you need to recognize that there are limitations that apply to specifically to RAWs and there are limitations that apply to AWs. They're not the same. You need to look to the statutes to determine which is which. PC 30945 applies to RAWs. The de-registration process permanently removes a weapon from both the AW and RAW provisions, and cannot be undone. Removing a weapon from being a semi-auto (and having the collateral effect of removing it from being an AW) does nothing to relieve the RAW restrictions, and it can be easily undone. In other words - Apples and Oranges.

 

[AR15barrels]

Neither.

Under 5477(hh) separating the upper and lower receivers does not make a different weapon. It only removes the weapon from being a "semi-automatic".

I am talking about removing the bullet button under 5477(1)(a).
In order to completely strip down a lower reciever, all parts are removed.

Kermasa is saying that the registered assault weapon is still exactly the same registered assault weapon when it's fully disassembled, but the regulation I quoted says that the registered assault weapon becomes a different assault weapon when the bullet button is removed and the bullet button is indeed removed when the lower is fully disassembled.

 

[RickD427]

I am talking about removing the bullet button under 5477(1)(a).
In order to completely strip down a lower reciever, all parts are removed.

Kermasa is saying that the registered assault weapon is still exactly the same registered assault weapon when it's fully disassembled, but the regulation I quoted says that the registered assault weapon becomes a different assault weapon when the bullet button is removed and the bullet button is indeed removed when the lower is fully disassembled.

OK, its sounding like we've got a couple of parallel discussions going on. I may need more than the two cups of coffee I've had so far to adequately respond.

But you do a good job here of pointing out the lunacy of California's firearms statutes and regs. They're not intuitive, and they don't often make a lot of sense. Judge Lawrence Van Dyke of the Ninth Circuit has been more eloquent in his observations of the quality of California's statutes.

My point was that if a person separates the upper and lower receivers of an "evil-by-name" Assault Weapon, the resulting weapon is no longer an "Assault Weapon." The reason being that "Assault Weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic that has one or more prohibiting features (PC 30515). The DOJ Reg (11CC5471(hh)) is very explicit that when the upper and lower receivers are separated, the weapon is no longer "semi-automatic." If it's not "semi-automatic" it cannot be an "Assault Weapon." If the weapon were registered as an "Assault Weapon", it still remains a "Registered Assault Weapon", even if it is not presently an "Assault Weapon." Mr. Kemasa and I are currently debating this point in our discussion in this thread. He appears to hold the belief that if a weapon is an RAW, then it must also be an AW. I've challenged him to provide the statutory references.

My point only considered the separation of the upper and lower.

As to your point of completely stripping the lower of a BBRAW, I don't see that the governing regulation (11CCR5477(a)) clearly leads to the conclusion that a new firearm has been created from the old one. But this is a close call and I can easily see where a court could resolve the question either way. As a retired LEO, I would not want to see anyone arrested for doing this. The reason for the uncertainty is the use of the language "any alteration" to the release mechanism creates the "new" weapon that is distinct from the old one. It's common to strip weapons down to component parts and then to reassemble them in the same configuration, either for cleaning or service. If that is done, I don't see that any "alteration" has occurred. But if one were to reassemble the lower with a different release mechanism, then a "new" firearm has been created.