Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/2/2006 3:08:01 PM EDT
Person wants to buy one of my pistols. He's in California. Is it legal? I would guess so. He pays, finds an FFL, I ship to FFL (after verifying legitimacy), good to go.

?
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:13:54 PM EDT
Be sure the FFL is legit and be sure that the handgun you're selling isn't on Cali DOJ's shit list.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 3:15:29 PM EDT
check your specific state's laws, and CA's laws. they may require you to have an FFL ship to his FFL
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:15:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
check your specific state's laws, and CA's laws. they may require you to have an FFL ship to his FFL



Usually on threads like this I chime in that 'You can ship the gun to his FFL, you don't NEED and FFL on your end.' And that is true, mostly. It is OK by Federal law, but you also have to comply with each State's laws.

HOWEVER, as the quoted poster above says, some states (NY among them) require that FFLs there only receive guns shipped from other FFLs. Now, I don't think that applies to California (yet) BUT, there is another reason to Choose to use an FFL on your end to send the gun to the CA FFL.

With the CA DOJ approved guns lists and the CA DOJ purchase approval process(DROS), it is entirely possible that you can send the gun to an FFL in CA, then find out that the purchaser CANNOT take possession. This means that that CA FFL then has to send the gun back to you, via an FFL local to you. This is much smoother all around if you started from a local FFL.

I would only choose to do this for possibly: CA, NY(mandatory), NJ, maybe MA, HI. In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.

Futuristic
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:18:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:20:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?



They'll never learn their lesson, if we don't punish them for electing their officials in the first place.

Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:29:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?



They'll never learn their lesson, if we don't punish them for electing their officials in the first place.




45% of California voted for Bush in the last election. Not a one of them helped Bush get elected either.
Link Posted: 4/2/2006 4:51:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?



They'll never learn their lesson, if we don't punish them for electing their officials in the first place.




45% of California voted for Bush in the last election. Not a one of them helped Bush get elected either.



It's too bad that Kalifornia can't be split in two; North California and South California. They might get much better representation that way. And if you include San Francisco in North California it would really piss them off...all the better reason to do it.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 12:16:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Paradude54:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?



They'll never learn their lesson, if we don't punish them for electing their officials in the first place.




45% of California voted for Bush in the last election. Not a one of them helped Bush get elected either.



It's too bad that Kalifornia can't be split in two; North California and South California. They might get much better representation that way. And if you include San Francisco in North California it would really piss them off...all the better reason to do it.



It's hopeless for that entire state. Don't try to polish a turd.
Link Posted: 4/3/2006 6:56:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By Futuristic:
In fact, I just probably wouldn't sell to someone in those states, but that's up to you.



Really? Why's that?



Actually, no political agenda involved nor to punish those poor souls.

I just don't like the extra hassles. There are at least 40 states that are far easier and less stressful to sell to. Places where I don't have to even think about: Approved Gun Lists, Magazine Capacity, Manufacture Date (see MA), etc.

Futuristic


Top Top