In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
California FFL-03 transfer question
Viking1911
Member Posts: 8 ✭✭
Hello,
Trying to get opinions on this incident. I recently purchased an Egyptian SAFN49 on GunBroker.com and the seller had trouble sending it to me. He was told 3 stories in 3 phone calls to CA BOF. 1. You can't send it to the buyer because you're FFL-01 registration with CA is expired. He told me he online and took care of that in a few minutes - no big deal. He called back and they said sorry, the real reason is that this isn't a curio relic firearm. I scanned and emailed the seller page 22 of the Curio Relic guide the Federal government sends you (CA sends you NOTHING with the C.O.E. paperwork) that says all SAFN49 regardless of caliber are C&R. Then he called them again and they said, "We're sorry, it's not really any of those things we just told you, it's because there's no provision to register it if it's sent straight to an FFL-03 holder." So I emailed the seller form BOF961 and the acceptance letter CA send back after they process their form they tell you to fill out that they just said doesn't exist. Then they hung up on him and refused his subsequent calls and wouldn't answer any future messages he left. He called the Federal level and they said they couldn't see why it would be illegal, but that sometimes states have their own laws that conflict with the FFL-03 provisions. I told the seller he was heroic in his efforts and that he should not try any more, that I would call an FFL-01 I use for other stuff and he should stop trying. So after paying CA for the C.O.E. paperwork, they wouldn't allow me to excerise rights my Federal FFL gives me.
My question is: Does this sound right? I have an FFL-03 that is current and a C.O.E. (Certificate of Eligibility) which CA requires or they openly remove the FFL-03 holder's abilities. I don't see why anyone would not be able to legally send a C&R firearm to an FFL-03 holder with C.O.E. in California? Maybe an Argentine SAFN49 because they were converted to .308 and have 20 round magazines and would thus violate state high capacity laws, but this has a fixed 10 round magazine.
Maybe they change laws so fast here that the people administering them can't keep up? The acceptance letters they return still say "handgun" even though you click rifle on the BOF961 which has been there since 2014. And January 2014 I called BOF to ask about Form BOF961 and they said such a form didn't exist.
Anyone's input on this is welcome.
Trying to get opinions on this incident. I recently purchased an Egyptian SAFN49 on GunBroker.com and the seller had trouble sending it to me. He was told 3 stories in 3 phone calls to CA BOF. 1. You can't send it to the buyer because you're FFL-01 registration with CA is expired. He told me he online and took care of that in a few minutes - no big deal. He called back and they said sorry, the real reason is that this isn't a curio relic firearm. I scanned and emailed the seller page 22 of the Curio Relic guide the Federal government sends you (CA sends you NOTHING with the C.O.E. paperwork) that says all SAFN49 regardless of caliber are C&R. Then he called them again and they said, "We're sorry, it's not really any of those things we just told you, it's because there's no provision to register it if it's sent straight to an FFL-03 holder." So I emailed the seller form BOF961 and the acceptance letter CA send back after they process their form they tell you to fill out that they just said doesn't exist. Then they hung up on him and refused his subsequent calls and wouldn't answer any future messages he left. He called the Federal level and they said they couldn't see why it would be illegal, but that sometimes states have their own laws that conflict with the FFL-03 provisions. I told the seller he was heroic in his efforts and that he should not try any more, that I would call an FFL-01 I use for other stuff and he should stop trying. So after paying CA for the C.O.E. paperwork, they wouldn't allow me to excerise rights my Federal FFL gives me.
My question is: Does this sound right? I have an FFL-03 that is current and a C.O.E. (Certificate of Eligibility) which CA requires or they openly remove the FFL-03 holder's abilities. I don't see why anyone would not be able to legally send a C&R firearm to an FFL-03 holder with C.O.E. in California? Maybe an Argentine SAFN49 because they were converted to .308 and have 20 round magazines and would thus violate state high capacity laws, but this has a fixed 10 round magazine.
Maybe they change laws so fast here that the people administering them can't keep up? The acceptance letters they return still say "handgun" even though you click rifle on the BOF961 which has been there since 2014. And January 2014 I called BOF to ask about Form BOF961 and they said such a form didn't exist.
Anyone's input on this is welcome.
Comments
You are always required to comply with both state & Federal laws (unless you are discussing drugs, in which case you are on your own). BATF has ruled that federal gun law takes precedence over state law, UNLESS state law is more restrictive than federal.
Federal law requires that a C&R rifle be either > 50 years old, or on their list. The FN49 is on the BATF C&R list, but I am not aware of any way to prove the DOM; there isn't much on this model in reference books. And, even if listed, all C&R's must be substantially as manufactured; sporterize one, or rechamber it, & it is no longer a C&R.
CA only recognizes rifles > 50 years old as C&R's &, even then, they can't have certain evil features. Since you failed to give us a complete description of your rifle or provide photos, we can't tell you if it's CA legal as a C&R.
It sounds like your seller was unable to provide BOF with complete information, either. So, the default in CA would be "01 only".
And, yes, your Constitutional rights have been taken away from you by the CA legislature & governors. You have our sympathy.
Neal
I fully understand why so many sellers refuse to sell to socialist democrats states like CA, NY, etc.
Since I'm new, I'll try my hand at inserting a photo a couple different ways too.
The rifle was 100% original, made around 1950, 8mm 10 round fixed magazine.
Now keep in mind, the same week I bought this, I bought an M1896 Swedish Mauser made in 1909.
This seller was given the same run around.
I can understand an employee of this horrible system probably doesn't get a whole lot of friendly, happy phone calls, and it would be overwhelming getting reasonable questions all day that can't be answered reasonably, honestly, or even the same way in a few months time. I didn't really take that into account initially, but it seems like giving up on CA probably doesn't help gun owners in the other states either. It's not like they're not going to try to destroy what people have built in other states once they finish here, and with many GunBroker ads declaring "I won't send to California", they've already succeeded in isolating the state. As it is, a new person interested in the firearms hobby in this state has more reasons not to start than to start.
Anyway, I'll try to do better at providing info if I post in the future.
Certainly a beautiful rifle. It is interesting that the seller, who is in California, is having so many problems. Why did he contact the CA DOJ in the first place? This is a straight-up instate sale to a licensed collector. He says a Type-03 FFL is good to go, so there was no reason to even talk to them.
I think there is more to it. Has he sold the rifle to someone else for more money?
I have 2 FN-49 rifles, a Luxembourg version in 30-06 and an Egyptian version in 8mm. Both were acquired with my 03 C&R license. As long as the guns are not modified they are C&R's.
Once the seller you were dealing with was registered with Cal you didn't need to even deal with the Cal DOJ. He should have just shipped you the rifle once he was in receipt of your C&R.
Thanks to Mark Christian (wow, says "administrator", yeah, I'm new) for posting my link as clickable. To answer his question, I did resell this for more money (bought it for $961 in March, sold it for $1730 in June). I filled out form BOF4546 "No Longer in Possession" (for firearms I bought 2014 until present) to which the state will send me an acknowledgment letter in a couple months.
I don't normally buy firearms with the idea of reselling them, but after research I thought this one would do well, and I had just seen one with a lot of handling marks go for about the same money. Truth be told I'm typically a bolt action rifle person, usually any Mauser rifle 1891-up (half Swedish, half something else) and recently Finnish Mosin Nagants), but the odd semi-auto finds it way to my safe now and then.