Reply from ATF on Soldier's Sailor's Act

nitrouz

As some of you know I have been trying to find out if the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act protects a serviceman's firearms from California's 'Assault Weapon and Transportation Permit'.

The response I got back from the ATF is that the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act does not protect a service member from taxes, licenses, or fees on personal property from a state he get's stationed in.

Thanks ATF. Although they did state that California shouldn't be charging us $73 for the permit when State law mandates $20.

Also a service member can drive in any State with his home state drivers license....but they are saying his Concealed Carry Permit is not valid as the Gun Control Act of 1968 states there is no federal carry permit which is what it would be.


Homeland Security at it's finest.

mark christian

Very sorry to hear about that Nitro, I honestly thought that you might have had something there. I believe that accepting another states drivers license is totally up to the host state. Service members in California can drive here with home state licenses but anyone else who remains in this state for over 90 days must obtain a California drivers license (I think that is the regualtion). If you are under 18 I'm not even sure that your out of state license is valid here at all...or perhaps for a much shorter time than 3 months. Accepting CCW's is completely at the whim of the host state and most seem to have an "If you accept mine then I'll accept yours". I don't think a single out of state CCW is valid here in California and I'm not sure any other states accept California CCW's. So where does this leave you on your AW quest? Surely you have a PLAN B and other irons in the fire. Frankly Nitro if there is anyone who can figure out a way around the California AW laws it will have to be you...everyone else gave up a long time ago!

Mark T. Christian

idsman75

Ahh...let me give you some insight. According to a certain section of Title 18 of the U.S.C. (too tired to research it but will do so if you like later on down the road) the interstate transportation clause protects you so long as you may lawfully possess a firearm at your point of origin and at your destination in spite of state/city/local ordinances. Hypothetically speaking, I may or may not deny or confirm that I drove right through Chicago two years ago with a truck bed full of my own guns of various types.

Prior to changing duty stations from Fort Lewis, WA to Fort Drum, NY I checked out Fort Drum's website which specifically states that one MUST NOT transport handguns into the state of NY. All handguns must enter the state via a licensed dealer and one may not own a handgun or take possession of a handgun unless that specific handgun is listed (via make/model/serial#) on that individual's permit to own a handgun or permit to possess/conceal that handgun. In spite of the fact that all state/local laws are assimilated under the UCMJ, many soldiers still transported their handguns to Fort Drum and those handguns were turned over to the unit arms room custodian. NO ACTION OF ANY KIND WAS TAKEN AGAINST THEM FOR THIS. Then those individuals went through the lengthy (18 months in my experience) process of obtaining a permit to actually own/possess those firearms. After the permit was obtained, the individuals could check their firearms out of the arms room or store them at their residence provided that they did not live in the barracks where no weapons are allowed anyways.

I don't totally understand the background to your situation. However, if you are in the middle of changing duty stations go ahead and call down to the MP station where you will be stationed. Ask them if they have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction on that installation. If the jurisdiction is exclusive then the local/state law enforcement agencies are not permitted to enforce the law on that installation. If the jurisdiction is concurrent, then they must coordinate with the Military Police to enforce the state/local law on that installation. However, they will generally not do so unless they are invited to do so by the installation itself. The NY state handgun laws were never enforced with regards to the above-metioned scenario on Fort Drum even though state laws still apply on a military installation. Soldiers still arrived with handguns in spite of state laws and they were merely stored with the unit armorer until the appropriate permit was obtained.

Some or none of this may apply to your situation but it may give you some insight. I'm not trying to play "outhouse lawyer" but I figured I'd share anyways.

TrinityScrimshaw

Idsman75 makes a good point. When a member of the US Military is on orders, and is making a permanent change of station they are authorized to ship & store personally owned firearms. Some individual state laws conflict with this Federal rule, such as NY & CA. It should be legal for you to transport any legally owned firearm into any state, and onto a Federal military reservation. You may have to register it with the local Provost Marshal's office, and be required to keep it in an Arms Room Vault. You also may not be allowed to withdraw it from said vault until on orders again. In NY state this is a sticky situation, because once a handgun is in the state and in an Arms Vault, it conflicts with state law to release it without the possessors having a CCW. It has caused some FFL holders to have to come out to the Arms Vault, take possession of the firearm, and then ship it out of state to another FFL of the owners choosing. Of course this is at the owners expense, and will cause the handgun to get recorded on the FFL holders paper work as being owned by you, and shipped by whomever to whomever. Sort of like registering it all over again if you ask me. The only way to get around this is to go through NY states long drawn out CCW certification process. And you had better start it as soon as you get assigned here, because you can't get it done while deployed to some warm sandy place where camels run wild!

Trinity +++


"Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it."(Proverbs 22:6)

mark christian

Unfortunitly for Nitro he is already stationed in California (and has been for quite a while) and wants to purchase a new assault weapon and actually take it off base to shoot and enjoy it. The Firearms Owners Protection Act only applies to TRANSIT and not ownership/usage through the various states; you can drive from a "free state" through a banned state on your way to another "free state", but stopping off along the way to show Uncle Fred your new AR-15 or doing some plinking out in the desert puts you in violation of state law.

There is an assault weapons permit process here in California to aquire new AW's but unless you are a licensed firearms dealer here you'll never convince the DOJ to issue one to you. All privately owned assault weapons had to be registered before various cut off dates to be legal here. There would be no way to take the AR-15 you just brought to a California military base and register it in California-- it will be trapped on base for your entire tour since the cut off date for AR-15 registration ended in 1989 (and other variations in 2000). If it was not registered before the cut off it cannot be registered now as there is no mechanisim in the law to allow for this. Nitro has exhausted the normal procedures and was trying some of the options that he felt his military duty status may have offered. On the surface the Soliers and Saliors Act "should" have allowed him either a permit or the chance to register any assault weapon he may purchase out of state with the State of California. As of now it does not appear that he will be able to take any AW he my aquire of his military base.

I have been following Nitro's struggle on this issue for nearly a year and he has kept at this much longer than most people who have attempted the same thing. The first AW law went into effect in Caliornia back in 1989 and no private individual has yet found a way to get an assault weapons permit from the DOJ because the permit is the exact same type used to own a machinegun here in California and this simply does not happen for private citizens. Nitro has gone at this permit from different angles and approaches and he my yet figure something out...he seem very resourceful!

Mark T. Christian

tr fox

In Calif. are so called assualt weapons identified by actual name or only by description such as "folding stock, protruding handgrip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug"? Because if a rifle only falls into the "assualt weapons" category for only having a pistol grip then I would be willing to try a "trick," that I have wondered about for a long time, to defeat the ban. I would make sure my AR-15 didn't have ANY of the banned features. I alter the the handgrip to make it "easy on, easy off" and I would make sure it was always off unless I was postive there were no Fedcoats around and then, if I felt like or needed it, I would put it back on. Perhaps I would attach the handgrip to my coffee pot so no one could say it was just laying around waiting for me to put it back on my AR-15. Same with the folding stock part. If I didn't want avoid it all together, I would "pin" it so that it would not fold. But I would always know how to "unpin" it if I so chose. Now I know this sounds a little silly and goofy, even to me as I write it. But believe me I have seen actions more weird than this that got the person around the law. Of course this would not work if particular rifles are outlawed by name. By the way, I just want to voice my appreciation for the knowledge that is being spread around by Mark and others. I do a pretty good job of knowing in "general" what I need to keep me out of troube, but it is good to hear the more indepth and detailed info being given as most, maybe all, of it sounds and "feels" correct.

When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.

mark christian

Mr. Fox, sadly that trick won't work. There is another little catch all AW ban known as Catagory II in California. This classification of firearms are those which our states Attorney General has on his own decided are so simuliar to already banned firearms that these firearms are also prohibited. The Catagory II list right now is made of a various AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles. Be it Bushmaster, Olympic Arms, Aramalite, ect. these are all banned and the features of the rifle makes no difference as it is the fact they are simuliar to already banned rifles that counts. Even a stripped receiver is prohibited. This went to court a few years ago and the California Supreme Court ruled that the AG had the authority to do this. He wasted no time adding dozens of rifles to his "privare" list.

When the Catagory III ban was getting ready to go into effect at the end of 2000, there were many companies who were offering either detachable pitol grips or some very strane looking stocks which had neither a pistol grip or a thumbhole-- they were awkward as hell and I can't imagine shooting the rifle-- for the AR-15 type rifles. No go as the AG quickly banned everything he could find that was an AR type rifle (and the list keeps growning). The people who bought these strange stocks to try to avoid having to register their Bushmaster and other AR types ended up wasting their money.

Mark T. Christian

nitrouz

Atlantic Arms sells a California legal AR-15 with a fixed magazine and no flash hider. Century Arms sells a California legal AK-47 with a pump instead of semi-automatic. Both are a waste of money. Think about having to split your AR15 in half every time you want to load a few rounds in it. Not good for self defense.

My next 'Assault Weapon' battle will be with my base legal office and the California Department of Justice for trying to charge military members $73 for the 'Assault Weapon' Possession Permit and state residents get charged only $20.

If I can't get rid of it I'll atleast try to make it cheaper. Even though they won't even issue it.

You know, I have the application and finger print cards still sitting here and never sent it in because Mark hinted they will never issue me the permit. I'm going to mail it in with the $73 and see if they send me back a permit. I'm not going to list a firearm on there and will send a letter stating I'll have my firearm shipped when a valid permit is in my possession- then I'll register it with them within the 90 day window.

Anyone think California will take my $73?

mark christian

Based on what I've been hearing on the news about California's budget crisis that $73 may be all the money we'll have here until 2004! I suggest that you send it in right away so that they can start spending it up in Sacramento! Nitro, I seriously doubt you'll get the permit (no private individual has in 13 years) but go ahead and apply. It will probably take about 6 months to get your $73 refunded, but they will indeed return your money, the DOJ won't keep it. Hey, you know you might just fall through the cracks and slip into a permit with the rest of us dealers...it could happen.

Mark T. Christian