A friend owns a pre-ban AR and moved to Kali about 2 years ago.
Not sure when this occurred, he wanted to be a good citizen and notified the state about his AR. They sent a letter telling him to turn it in.
What can he do at this point? Can he ship/drive the rifle out of state or is he now caught? I don't believe he met the April 2001 deadline.
I did a search on this topic but didn't come up with too many answers. I've been to the Kali state site but that is a bit confusing to read.
Thanx for your help.

He will need to move it out of state asap.

DOJ will probably won't some form of "proof" that it was sold or disposed of.

I think a letter with a signature of another person from another state would be enough.

Could try sending if off to www.Frontsite.com

I looked at their website and didn't see anything about renting storage space. I'll email them tomorrow. Can he mail it out of the state? UPS, Fed Ex, etc? A signed letter would just allow the gun to be tracked to that person.

Any long gun may be US mailed or UPSd, but it must be directly to an FFL, not a private citizen. There can be no markings on the box to indicate contents. If you're in doubt as to whether the receiver is an FFL, have them mail you a signed copy of their FFL, just so you have the record. Have the package sent so you get a receipt of delivery. The outside of the box should be marked as plainly as can be, with no indication the receiver is an FFL if possible.

But, when mailing to an out of state FFL, would the FFL turn the weapon over to the shippee on just the shippers request? Maybe the FFL could provide the letter to the state saying the FFL received said weapon.

I'd send it out of state ASAP, at least the stripped lower which is the no-no part. Then I wouldn't do anything. If CA-DOJ inquires about it I would tell them I don't currently have one. If they asked about my notification I would admit to that and nothing else, period. What are they going to do? Persecute based on a "notification?" I wouldn't worry about it after I sent it out of state. The DOJ has plenty of LEOs to chase down who couldn't figure out they had to register their personal AWs that they didn't get Dept approval for.

Thanx guys, I'll pass this link along. Years ago this person and I had a discussion about the confiscation of firearms in the US.
He said it will never happen and I'm paranoid. [:D]

There is nothing in the law or regulations I have seen that requires any sort of proof that the rifle was moved out of state.

If you have somewhere to move it, just do so. If they hassle you, just send them a nice letter explaining that you drove it to your grandfather's house in new Mexico or wherever and let them worry about proving it. After all, how do they really know you had it in the first place? His notification is not proof of anything without the rifle.

If they want to hassle you over it, tell them to get a warrant and come look for it. If you moved it, they will find nothing. I have a hard time believing that a judge would issue a search warrant on the basis of some letter or phone call anyway, but either way, if they do come knocking and find nothing, they have no proof of any illegal possesion of a so-called "aw".

Case closed unless they can convince someone to file criminal charges on the basis of some letter. Not likely.

Lastly, depending upon when your friend actually bought the rifle, along with some other legal requirements, the first offense is only an infraction and, believe it or not, a judge could give it back after a hearing (fat chance!).

Ray

Any assault weapon shipped into or out of California must be shipped through a dealer with an assault weapons permit.  Oops.  It has to be registered, too.  

Tell him to drive it out of state and store it or sell it.

Grundsau you need to provide more information such as the date he moved the AR into California. "About two years ago" is a bad timeframe because much of changes occurred then.

So here a summary:

1- If he imported the AR before January 2000, then it had better be something other than a Colt AR or others with AR as a model name.

2- If his model was included on the amended list by Lockyer in fall of 2000, he had to register it by some date in January (23rd I think) of this year.

3- If he's AR has the specified features (magazine capable plus one of several features), he must have imported into this state and registered it prior to January 1, 2000.

4- If he's lucky enough to have a lower which was never specifically amended by Lockyer, he needs to be clear that he didn't have a pistol grip, or other banned features on it.

Interesting side note, PWA (if they still exists or somebody obtain the rights to the name) can NEVER sell any firearm of any sorts in Caliban country. This is because Lockyer amended section 12276 as "PWA, all models". If Harrott vs Kings doesn't cover this, then someone has a great case.

PS. Dave... I like your new sig. I thought you must have been a democrat and sent your hate for my posts because I'm a life-long republican.

Not sure the exact date he moved. But it's very clear he needs to unload that AR asap.

Grandsau,
A friend of mine had that exact problem. In 2000 he tried to register a Colt AR15 that was listed on the 89 ban.

He also got a letter from the state asking him to turn it in.

He got it out of the state.
He then called the DOJ and informed them the guns were not in the state. They sent him a form to fill out that he no longer had possession of them in California.

So far so good.

Get the gun out of California ASAP.
If your friend in Northern California there is a place in Reno that will store his guns.

Good luck.

Just an observation - I've read several accounts in which someone basically confessed to the DoJ that they had an illegal AW - e.g. a Colt AR-15 imported after the Roberti-Roos ban.  In every case the DoJ has done exactly what was described here - And nobody has had their home invaded by JBTs.  Not even the 1,500 or so who registered rifles during the original R-R "extension" period which ended in March 1992 and later ruled illegal.

The Caliban doesn't have the manpower to enforce their silly AW laws.

I agree that there is a manpower issue, however, I think the other concern CA-DOJ has is the fear of loosing prosecution in courts. I think Lockyer's DAs are uncomfortable persueing the AW laws. Right now, they seem to be content in this middle ground. However, HCI & Brady (Along with Sierra Club money, don't forget) will most likely sue again.