Son left weapon

[sonofeugene]

I’d simply tell your son to come and get it. This shouldn’t be your problem to deal with.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

The possible change is in regards to allow people to be able to buy a handgun when out of state, just like it is with long guns, but the catch is that the laws of both states must be followed, so it makes no difference for CA residents since out of state FFLs can't submit a DROS, as well an out of state resident can't submit a CA DROS in CA.

The subsection of 922 requiring the purchase to follow the laws of both states only applies to long guns (the statute explicitly says it only applies to long guns). There is nothing about handguns, because the sale of handguns was barred completely.

Beyond that, the 5th Circuit decision appears to invalidate all of Section 922, so even that provision would be out.

 

[Gawernator]

OP posted this then the cops got him

 

[M_N04H]

OP posted this then the cops got him

We were too late

 

[Daytona675]

My son left a Walther PDP with me (without me knowing) during a visit in late April. He's in Washington state, I'm in California. Any ideas on how to either take ownership or

My son left a Walther PDP with me (without me knowing) during a visit in late April. He's in Washington state, I'm in California. Any ideas on how to either take ownership or sell it?

Interfamilial transfer.
Immediate family.
Shouldn’t be an issue.

 

[Gurney Halleck]

why don't you give it back to him?

He thought I wanted it, doesn't want it back. Also, I loaned him the $$ to buy it in WA state.

 

[Davis378]

He thought I wanted it, doesn't want it back. Also, I loaned him the $$ to buy it in WA state.

oh FFS. I am not a lawyer, but I would recommend you stop talking about this on a public forum and just get him to pick up his gun. Or talk to a firearms attorney if you really insist on keeping it.

 

[RickD427]

The subsection of 922 requiring the purchase to follow the laws of both states only applies to long guns (the statute explicitly says it only applies to long guns). There is nothing about handguns, because the sale of handguns was barred completely.

Beyond that, the 5th Circuit decision appears to invalidate all of Section 922, so even that provision would be out.

If you're referring to the 5th Circuit's recent decision in Precision Elite Customs v BATF, please note that the decision has no effect in California.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

If you're referring to the 5th Circuit's recent decision in Precision Elite Customs v BATF, please note that the decision has no effect in California.

Thanks for providing clarification of something that nobody claimed.

 

[RickD427]

Thanks for providing clarification of something that nobody claimed.

Somebody claimed it. Please refer to this quote:

"...so even that provision would be out"

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

Somebody claimed it. Please refer to this quote:

"...so even that provision would be out"

Absolutely nothing in that conversation referenced it being in effect in California. Maybe read the whole conversation before needlessly injecting yourself.

 

[RickD427]

Absolutely nothing in that conversation referenced it being in effect in California. Maybe read the whole conversation before needlessly injecting yourself.

I did read the entire conversation. The context of which is clear that the OP was seeking a method of gaining control of his son's Walther PDP which was left in his possession. The OP was clear that his cone was a Washington State resident, and that he was a California resident. In Post #6, Mr. "Peri Bellum" suggested using California's Inter-Familiar transfer process to accomplish this goal. Both Mr. "Librarian" and Mr. "Kemasa" later pointed out that that California's Inter-Familiar transfer only works when both parties are California residents. Their view is correct due to the provisions of 18USC922.

You responded with your posting that: "Beyond that, the 5th Circuit decision appears to invalidate all of Section 922, so even that provision would be out.

The conversation was clear at that point that we discussing both California and 18USC922 (I got that from reading the entire threat).

That makes it highly relevant to the discussion that nothing is "out" as a result of the Fifth Circuit's decision.

Your ball.

 

[NaboombuLagoon]

I did read the entire conversation. The context of which is clear that the OP was seeking a method of gaining control of his son's Walther PDP which was left in his possession. The OP was clear that his cone was a Washington State resident, and that he was a California resident. In Post #6, Mr. "Peri Bellum" suggested using California's Inter-Familiar transfer process to accomplish this goal. Both Mr. "Librarian" and Mr. "Kemasa" later pointed out that that California's Inter-Familiar transfer only works when both parties are California residents. Their view is correct due to the provisions of 18USC922.

You responded with your posting that: "Beyond that, the 5th Circuit decision appears to invalidate all of Section 922, so even that provision would be out.

The conversation was clear at that point that we discussing both California and 18USC922 (I got that from reading the entire threat).

That makes it highly relevant to the discussion that nothing is "out" as a result of the Fifth Circuit's decision.

Your ball.

The specific conversation you're referring to had nothing to do with OP's original question, and was specifically only about the 5th Circuit decision. The fact that neither I, nor the person I responded to, made any claim that the 5th Circuit ruling was in effect in California makes it appear that you just decided someone said it was so you could "well actually..." and pat yourself on the back.

I don't know what law school you went to, but at mine we were taught that words have meanings and you don't get to invent someone else's argument when they've said no such thing.