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.

MAK90 IN CALIFORNIA. HOW DOES ONE SELL?

FREDJR1331FREDJR1331 Member Posts: 2 ✭✭
edited April 2004 in Ask the Experts
I HAVE A FRIEND THAT HAS A MAK90 223 AND WANTS TO SELL IT BUT HE LIVES IN CALIFORNIA CAN HE BECAUSE OF THE LAW OR WHAT?

THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP
[:)]
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    IF it is a registered 'Assault Weapon' and he possess's the permit for it he can take it to a firearms dealer and have it sold for him Out of State.

    Mark Christian is a Cali FFL and can interpret the vast laws presiding over the issue with this rifle. I'm merely giving my interpretation.

    If it has never been registered then it must be burried, destroyed, smuggled out of state, or taken to the nearest Law Enforcement for demolishment with a sworn Statement that it was just found in an attic somewhere's. The latter is what the State law requires.

    If it has never been registered do not attempt to register it with the Cali DOJ, the time frame has elapsed and they will prosecute your friend with illegal possession of a firearm, misdemeanor and a $500 fine I believe...along with transportation without a permit, and a bunch of other stuff tacked on to make an example out of him.

    There is one loophole to get it out of his possession without prosecution or breaking laws. Email me. Military Members need not register their firearms labeled 'assault weapons' with California if kept on Federal Land in military arsenals. Your friend can comply with State law by taking the firearm to a military member and military base as that is complying with State law--giving up possession to LEO's. There would be no FFL transfer involved with the weapon but the military member could 'compensate' your friend for 'mileage-delivering' the firearm to a LEO facility in compliance with State law. Thus the firearm is registered by the military member on the Federal Facility as his own, placed in the armory, and California DOJ should be happy. By 'compensating' your friend for milegage driven, the firearm will not be considered to have been sold illegally under the new laws nor a FFL transfer required. In California we swap and sell firearms on post-base all the time without going thru a FFL as California demands. What are they going to do? Imprison the U.S. Armed Forces?

    Mark should shoot back with a reply -it must be turned in to LEO's and destroyed if not registered.

    I repeat, email me.

    There is an impending lawsuit against California that says we military members should be allowed to possess 'assault weapons' off-base or post...but until then we have to keep them on base-post.



    Merely my interpretation of the laws....



    kabalogoshadowed.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • stalion10stalion10 Member Posts: 336 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    actually red military personal still has to reg. their assault weapons.but are the only ones that can after the cut off date, reason being military personal are only considered temp. residence of any state so therefore can not be made to sell them before entering ca. but as with any other gov. entity they still want their money so let you guys bring them into the state only if you give them the $100.00 reg. fee. so before you do this or suggest it to some one else you ought to get your facts straight. now i dont know if it has to be stored on fed. grounds or not but it can be used off base any time as long as it is reg. and the paper is in your possesion. but be carefull my neighbor did at a gun range and had a cop hold him at gun point until he produced the reg. and still was treated as a ciminal afterwards..quote:Originally posted by Red223
    IF it is a registered 'Assault Weapon' and he possess's the permit for it he can take it to a firearms dealer and have it sold for him Out of State.

    Mark Christian is a Cali FFL and can interpret the vast laws presiding over the issue with this rifle. I'm merely giving my interpretation.

    If it has never been registered then it must be burried, destroyed, smuggled out of state, or taken to the nearest Law Enforcement for demolishment with a sworn Statement that it was just found in an attic somewhere's. The latter is what the State law requires.

    If it has never been registered do not attempt to register it with the Cali DOJ, the time frame has elapsed and they will prosecute your friend with illegal possession of a firearm, misdemeanor and a $500 fine I believe...along with transportation without a permit, and a bunch of other stuff tacked on to make an example out of him.

    There is one loophole to get it out of his possession without prosecution or breaking laws. Email me. Military Members need not register their firearms labeled 'assault weapons' with California if kept on Federal Land in military arsenals. Your friend can comply with State law by taking the firearm to a military member and military base as that is complying with State law--giving up possession to LEO's. There would be no FFL transfer involved with the weapon but the military member could 'compensate' your friend for 'mileage-delivering' the firearm to a LEO facility in compliance with State law. Thus the firearm is registered by the military member on the Federal Facility as his own, placed in the armory, and California DOJ should be happy. By 'compensating' your friend for milegage driven, the firearm will not be considered to have been sold illegally under the new laws nor a FFL transfer required. In California we swap and sell firearms on post-base all the time without going thru a FFL as California demands. What are they going to do? Imprison the U.S. Armed Forces?

    Mark should shoot back with a reply -it must be turned in to LEO's and destroyed if not registered.

    I repeat, email me.

    There is an impending lawsuit against California that says we military members should be allowed to possess 'assault weapons' off-base or post...but until then we have to keep them on base-post.



    Merely my interpretation of the laws....



    kabalogoshadowed.gif


    it's not the type of gun you have in the heat of a battle that counts, only if you have enough ammo for it, lets face it, a gun without ammo is only as good as a base ball bat!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,696 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by mark christian
    If the rifle has never been registered just ship it to the out of state FFL and remain silent about the entire matter.


    But how can it be shipped out-of-state without other people learning that it is unregistered and in the state? If shipped, it needs to be declared as a firearm--does CA even allow private individuals to ship firearms?

    It seems to me the option of "smuggling" it out-of-state--assuming one isn't too far from a friendly border--might be a "safer" route...

    Once out of CA, one could sell to an FFL or have an FFL do a transfer to a third party if "your friend" wants to keept the sale "legal." (I suspect such an action would be a technical violation of CA laws, but it would probably be unlikely CA would ever learn about the sale.)

    Of course, for the $500-odd dollars, it might just be cheapest for "your friend" to turn it over to law enforcement and swear out a statement that it was just "found in the attic" as Red223 described...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Laredo LeftyLaredo Lefty Member Posts: 13,451 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If the gun goes across the border "leaving" the state, it is not smuggling since that is what our doppy law makers want it to do.
    It would only be smuggling if entering the state.

    If the gun was never "registered" and thus contraband, once it crossed the border leaving the state it would cease to be contraband, and then could be sold via a dealer in its new home state.

    I have shipped guns for repairs numerous times, and have insured them. The guns have never been opened for inspection by the post office or other shippers.




    "Never let school interfere with your education"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 3 weelin geezer3 weelin geezer Member Posts: 19 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Now, I've never sold any of my guns but I would figure you have to give your name and address to the ffl or no? Even if you sell it in Nevada (can you sell it outside of your home state?) they still need to know who you are. If it is 'illegal' then wouldn't it be called traficking in illegal weapons across state lines and land you in jail anyways [8]? I once had a firestar .40 that I traded for a 10 ga shotgun. They didn't ask for my address when I forked over the pistol but since I was buying the 10 ga, they still had my name and address. This was near Seattle btw.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    Stalion,

    I just left California and have contacted the DOj over the issue. They want U.S. Service Members to pay $73 for a 'Assault Weapon Possession Permit' and I have letters from them that state if we keep them on Federal land, the bases or camps we don't need the permit.


    There is an impending lawsuit against California because the Soldier's and Sailor's Civil Relief Act protects U.S. Service Member's private property from State's they are stationed in from being charged a tax, license, or fee....unless it is used.

    I've got my facts straight and anyone wanting the information I have from the California Department of Justice can email me with a fax number and you will have it pronto.

    I've also got the form the DOJ sent me asking for $73 for the permit.



    kabalogoshadowed.gif
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.