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.
Options
Immediate Family-Senario
74man
Member Posts: 162 ✭✭✭
IMMEDIATE FAMILY
BELOW IS A REPLY I GOT FROM DOJ,CALIFORNIA. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE TWO FOLLOWING SENARIO'S. WOULD THEY BE LEGAL SENARIO'S?????
Definition of Immediate Family according to Penal Code Sec.12078 (c) (3)
REPLY FROM DOJ:"In regard to your inquiry, the definition of "immediate family" can be found in Penal Code section 12078(c)(3). That Penal Code states that immediate family is defined as parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family". A husband and wife may transfer firearms betweem themselves".
If you have any further questions, you may contact the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887.
Sincerely,
Leslie McGovern, Analyst
Firearms Division
Penal Code Section 12078: as Follows:
C) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.
(3) As used in this subdivision, "immediate family member" means any one of the following relationships:
(A) Parent and child.
(B) Grandparent and grandchild.
Senario Number 1:
All names are for relationship only, ficticious:
Wifes maiden name Smith:
Miss Smith marries Mr. Ball, it is Miss Smith's 2nd marriage. By her first marriage she had two children, Joe Tack and Jim Tack.
Mr.Ball gives his wife (former Miss. Smith) a hand gun. (husband to wife)
Mrs. Ball gives the handgun to her son Joe Tack, (parent to child)
Joe Tack gives the handgun to his grandfather Mr. Smith,(grandchild to grandparent)
Mr. Smith then gives the handgun to his wife.(husband to wife)
Mrs. Smith was previously married where she had two daughters, Jill and Jody Land.
Mrs. Smith gives the handgun to her daughter, Jill Land (parent to child)
Jill Land gets married to Mr. Right.
Jill Right gives handgun to Mr. Right.(wife to husband)
AND SO ON AND SO ON, YOU GET NOW, WHY I NEED VERIFICATION OF THE TERM " IMMEDIATE FAMILY"
Senario number 2: Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family"
Mrs. Smith marries Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball gives a gun to Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Smith gives the gun to her father, Mr. Smith. ( child to parent)
Mr. Smith then gives the gun to his other son or daughter, Mrs. Balls brother or sister.
If this is a worthy senario, then why is my reply from the DOJ stated, "Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family".
So what is the difference, If Mrs. Ball gives the gun to her Brother Mr. Smith, because that is where it ended up anyway???
I requested a proper difinition of " Immediate Family " and the above reply by your office was as vague as the Section of the Penal Code, Sec. 12078 (c) (3). Please send me an exact difinition of "Immediately Family" or state in writing that both senarios are the meaning of the Immediately family
A man with a gun is a CITIZEN!!!!
A man without a gun is a SUBJECT!!!
WHICH DO YOU WANT TO BE???
BELOW IS A REPLY I GOT FROM DOJ,CALIFORNIA. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE TWO FOLLOWING SENARIO'S. WOULD THEY BE LEGAL SENARIO'S?????
Definition of Immediate Family according to Penal Code Sec.12078 (c) (3)
REPLY FROM DOJ:"In regard to your inquiry, the definition of "immediate family" can be found in Penal Code section 12078(c)(3). That Penal Code states that immediate family is defined as parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family". A husband and wife may transfer firearms betweem themselves".
If you have any further questions, you may contact the Firearms Division at (916) 263-4887.
Sincerely,
Leslie McGovern, Analyst
Firearms Division
Penal Code Section 12078: as Follows:
C) The person receiving the firearm is 18 years of age or older.
(3) As used in this subdivision, "immediate family member" means any one of the following relationships:
(A) Parent and child.
(B) Grandparent and grandchild.
Senario Number 1:
All names are for relationship only, ficticious:
Wifes maiden name Smith:
Miss Smith marries Mr. Ball, it is Miss Smith's 2nd marriage. By her first marriage she had two children, Joe Tack and Jim Tack.
Mr.Ball gives his wife (former Miss. Smith) a hand gun. (husband to wife)
Mrs. Ball gives the handgun to her son Joe Tack, (parent to child)
Joe Tack gives the handgun to his grandfather Mr. Smith,(grandchild to grandparent)
Mr. Smith then gives the handgun to his wife.(husband to wife)
Mrs. Smith was previously married where she had two daughters, Jill and Jody Land.
Mrs. Smith gives the handgun to her daughter, Jill Land (parent to child)
Jill Land gets married to Mr. Right.
Jill Right gives handgun to Mr. Right.(wife to husband)
AND SO ON AND SO ON, YOU GET NOW, WHY I NEED VERIFICATION OF THE TERM " IMMEDIATE FAMILY"
Senario number 2: Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family"
Mrs. Smith marries Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball gives a gun to Mrs. Smith.
Mrs. Smith gives the gun to her father, Mr. Smith. ( child to parent)
Mr. Smith then gives the gun to his other son or daughter, Mrs. Balls brother or sister.
If this is a worthy senario, then why is my reply from the DOJ stated, "Brothers to sisters, brothers to brothers, aunts to uncles, uncles to nephews, etcetera, are not considered "immediate family".
So what is the difference, If Mrs. Ball gives the gun to her Brother Mr. Smith, because that is where it ended up anyway???
I requested a proper difinition of " Immediate Family " and the above reply by your office was as vague as the Section of the Penal Code, Sec. 12078 (c) (3). Please send me an exact difinition of "Immediately Family" or state in writing that both senarios are the meaning of the Immediately family
A man with a gun is a CITIZEN!!!!
A man without a gun is a SUBJECT!!!
WHICH DO YOU WANT TO BE???
Comments
When you,I, and 80 million other gutless cowards allow burorats to define what a 'Right' is...when we stand by and do nothing..when we merely water down slightly the latest wave of gun control......we get exactly what we deserve.
"Immediate Family" AS DEFINED BY THAT SECTION OF THE CODE means parent-child and grandparent-grandchild relationships.
I'm guessing this code section has something to do with transferring firearms between family members, or perhaps inheriting firearms.
Keep in mind, legal definitions for commonly used words often have DRASTICALLY different meanings from the common usage you find in a dictionary. For example, depending on which part of the federal law you're looking at, the word "firearm" can mean what we would normally call a handgun, a machinegun, or a bare frame. This is why just about every statute/code in existence has a Definitions section at the beginning of each section.
I still don't know exactly what you're main question is; what are you trying to accomplish?
If you wanted to make transfers using your scenarios for handguns, you probably could IF: (a) each family member receiving the handgun had a Handgun Safety Certificate and (b) each transfer was reported to the DOJ and a $19.00 fee paid each time.
One thing to remember about government regulations in general, not just gun laws, is that using logic and common sense to try and understand them will only drive you crazy. You appear to be in the first stages already.[:D]
In order to even be a politician in Kali, you must have had a frontal lobotomy, or at least you might think so. Hard to tell, isn't it?
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
For the most part I am not the gutless 80 million. I put out the senario's to show how hollow the meaning of Immediate Family is. I belong to many organizations who fight for our rights, I write my Senators and Congressmen and state assembly represenatives and view my stand on items like the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Veterans Benifits and Veterans Health Care. I do care and I will fight to the death to support your rights to disagree with me. If one does not try to overcome, even in failure, one still stands taller that those who don't even try!!!!
MPOLANS:
Thanks for responding with the legal gargen which I didn't know the meaning is at the beginning. Here is what I am concerned with: Transfering of firearms between family members and the odd way a firearm might end up in the wrong family, even following the law. That is all, Oh yea, and how stupid our lawmaker'S are for thinking that the definition will stop a firearm from ending up somewhere it shouldn't be.
EOD GUY: Thanks and you are right, I am about half way there.
GUNPHREAK:
I have met with my representatives and boy they are either very sly or dummer than a box of rocks, I bet on the first one and they can dance around any subject without commitment.
tr fox: Ditto, my above answer still stands. I want them to think that I am stupid until I get them in my sights because I am a straight shooter.
THANKS EVERYONE, IT HAS BEEN INTERESTING TO HEAR SO MANY VIEWS. VERY DIVERSE. KEEP THE FAITH, OUR 2ND AMENDMENT ISN'T GONE YET!!! AND AS LONG AS I HAVE MY GUNS IT WILL NEVER BE AND YOU CAN PUT THAT ON MY TOMBSTONE.
A man with a gun is a CITIZEN!!!!
A man without a gun is a SUBJECT!!!
WHICH DO YOU WANT TO BE???
Think about It!!!
d.a.stearns
Gunsmith / LEO
Niota , Tn
My dog is the best person I know...
If only more people could be as loyal and honest as my dog!!!
I love guns & Shooting!
We should be DEMANDING that the trash in the legislature obey it !! We cannot block the criminally insane from flocking to the polls and putting in the Shumers/Fiendsteins/Kennedys'/Bushs....
But we sure ought to make it clear that Socialists WILL follow the Law. That ain't gonna happen either...
Since the intelligent people left in Amerika are so few...they really need to concentrate on survival of themselves and others of like mind.
Get off your knees and stop rubbing shoulders with garbage...it WILL rub off.
Think about It!!!
I equate this to saying:
Why didn't the Poles just move to Russia when the Nazis invaded?
Why didn't the Czechs just move to France when the Soviets invaded?
Why didn't the South Vietnamese just move to Indonesia when the Commies invaded?
I did choose to run, I left California for Nevada. But soon there will be no place left to run because the plague is spreading, and quickly. We need to stand our ground at some point, but I knew there was no point for me to stand my ground when I was already behind enemy lines. I think the only hope for California may be county secession. There are still a lot of rural counties with significant populations of conservative, pro-gun folks. They may be able to form their own state and free themselves from the liberal counties in the Bay Area and Southern California.
-WW
MOLON LAVE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Legislators in Kali DO hate the people, but not the same way Hitler hated the Jews (at least not yet), and like most legislators everywhere, undoubtedly do think the people they represent are a bunch of idiots.
No argument here, Fox.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."
Because they either did not understand what was going on, or because they were stupid.
quote:Why didn't the Czechs just move to France when the Soviets invaded?
Ditto.
quote:Why didn't the South Vietnamese just move to Indonesia when the Commies invaded?
All those above answers, plus the fact that they knew it would get them in Indonesia, anyhow. They were dealing with a conquering regime in SE Asia, and freedom to protect one's self was not high on their list of rights. They would have had to migrate somewhere further away, which was incredibly unlikely.
quote:I did choose to run, I left California for Nevada. But soon there will be no place left to run because the plague is spreading, and quickly. We need to stand our ground at some point, but I knew there was no point for me to stand my ground when I was already behind enemy lines. I think the only hope for California may be county secession. There are still a lot of rural counties with significant populations of conservative, pro-gun folks. They may be able to form their own state and free themselves from the liberal counties in the Bay Area and Southern California.
WW, you did the right thing. And you are right, we will have to stand our ground. But that will be much easier when you are in the company of many who do not put up with gun laws, like in Kalifornistan. Every one of those so-called pro-gun conservatives in Kali are willing to subject themselves to Kommie rule, unless, of course, they own what the state refers to as kontraband weaponry, in defiance of their diabolic edicts.
And, by your pulling out of Kali, you have just jumped the odds that you will live long enough to watch the blood flow from Kali, and other Kommie states, once criminals begin taking it over.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Lev 26:14-39
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
"Followers of Christ, be armed."