My friend just sold his 20" ASA. It was a registered California AW. He had to drive 1 1/2 hrs to an "assault weapon" dealer and pay them $100 to transfer and ship the rifle. What a joke! I hate this state!

The joke is that he sold the rifle.  Why didn't he just wait for the Reno Hilton Show in March and sell it then?

Yes there are a lot of stupid laws in this state, but I am always surprised how religiously some people follow them.

Sgtar15

Why didn't he just ship it to the buyers FFL himself? If it was going out of state there would be no reason to use an AW FFL in CA. Just give it to UPS (insured of course) and off it goes.

What was the name of the dealer? Because if they charged $100 to put it in a box and ship it that is a major rip off. And I might add, something the state has no control over. But if they were actually handling the sale (for a fee), and paying the shipping by next day air (more money), and paying for insurance in case it "disappeared" (more money), then $100 might not be too far out of line. Really need more details. On another note, I think your friend is an idiot for selling his CA registered AW (AR?) since he can't replace it any more.

DITTO and....DITTO!

Your friend seems like a pretty gullible character to actually pay some asshole CA FFL dealer $100.
Talk about taking advantage of the situation. They know better but they'd rather screw a gunowner.


My actual experience:
I have a buyer in Oregon for my SLR-95 (AW).
Buyer sends me his $$$, FFL, and address.
I ship UPS insured to that address.
Done.
No laws are broken.
Buyer is happy.
Total cost: about $22.00 --all in shipping

Right, the CA assaultweapon license is a total scam.  I remember something about them being the only ones licensed to broker sales of registered assaultweapons out of CA, but federal law is clear about shipping to an FFL direct and the spirit of the CA law is to remove the guns from CA.  

That said, the CA DOJ has been very ambiguous on AW violations, in theory, you are illegally transferring an AW to the UPS people when you ship it.  If you actually are going to make the hour and a half drive to an AW dealer, then you might as well just make the drive out of state and ship it from a UPS place in NV, Oregon or AZ.  I can see why someone would not sell the gun directly to a Reno or Oregon dealer since the dealers are usually looking to take undue advantage of CA residents.  

If you aren't willing to drive it out of state yourself, you are required under the law to ship it through a dealer with with an assault weapons license.  To do otherwise is a crime here.

What's amazing is how many of you that reside in CA don't know what laws apply to AW sales...  

Quoted: What's amazing is how many of you that reside in CA don't know what laws apply to AW sales...

Neither does the CA DOJ, and that's part of the problem.

Look is it simple.  All you hace to do is ask for a signed ink copy from an FFL out of state.  Once you recieve the copy of the FFL license, then ship directly to the FFL out of state.  

As long as you can prove that you "legally" sold the weapon to an out of state dealer you are good to go.  Remeber as long as you can prove that you no longer possess the weapon and sent it to a bonifide FFL dealer your arse is covered.

Avoid the greedy FFL's in California.  I used to live there and know what con artist they can actually be.


Max

frpcmanager: May I ask who charged that shipping cost? Was it one of our local guys around Fresno?

Dude, get out of California.

In the last election, California went to Gore by 1.283 million votes. If all the Republicans in California were to leave it wouldn't change anything becuase they already are a liberal shithole.

But, if the 4,437,557 Republican voters in California and the 44,292 Libertarian voters in California were to all leave California, they could significantly change the voting of the rest of the country. Imagine if they all went to Arizona, John McCain would be out on his ass and wouldn't be electable as a Dog Catcher.

That is 4,481,849 Voters. I.E. 4.5% of the Popular vote that is being ignored because they are in the wrong state. But, here is the kicker. With all you in California they have 54 electoral votes and 52 House members, but if all the conservative voters leave come 2010...California will loose 6 congressional seats and only have 48 electoral votes.

Of course this only accounts for the 10,679,577 Californians who voted in 2000.

California has 33,871,648 Residents. Extrapolating that 42% are consvervative, means there are about 14,226,092 Conservatives in California who aren't being listened to.

493,654 of these or 3.5% of the Conservatives in California or 11% of the Conservative Voters in California is enough to give New Jersey to the Republicans and kick Toricelli and his Anti-Gun Crap out of office.

Basically, in a state with 33 million resident you are powerless, but if portions were to move to smaller states with smaller populations like 8,414,350 (New Jersey), you could have significant effect on gun rights.

What'll happen is that in 2010, California would lose 29 Congressional seats. That means 29 less PRK Congressmen in Congress. But, in addition, that is 29 more Congressmen to wherever ya'll move. If you move to Arizona, they will go from 6 to 35 Congressmen (House). and California will go from 52 Congressmen (House) to 23 Congressmen.

Wow cc48510, you've really done your homework. I'm impressed! I think you're right. California is a lost cause. Conservatives would do better to move to other states, then when California goes completely communist and bans and confiscates everything, they'll be able to help keep the gun control from spreading to other states. I'll be packing my bags soon, but not soon enough.

California is a lost cause, as is Massachusetts. I want out of here before they start  confiscating our guns. I will never give up my firearms for anybody. Especially to the anti-gun scum bags who can't even get real criminals off our streets.
I am sick of those arrogant liberal pigs trying to push thier stupid adgendas down our throats.
I want to go to New Hampshire.

As of October 2000, we had 5.4 million registered republicans and 7.1 million registered demos. The wildcard is that 2.2 million decline-to-state, who probably vote demo. If we could only get the 6 million eligible voters who aren't even registered to vote republican, we could be like Arizona or Texas. he he

Last summer I purchased a pre-ban AW from a gentleman in California. He just went to the post office and shipped it to my FFL. End of story.

It was a dealer in Bakersfield!
He is a LE officer (which is why he had me sell it for him, he didn't want his email out). Someone told him this is what he has to do, and because he wanted to make sure to do things right, he did it. I have already sold AR's out of CA, and had no problem. He wanted to mind his P's & Q's. You are correct in saying that this whole CA thing is a scam, it is, and as long as people keep beliving it and subscribing to this crap, it will continue.

He just doesn't shoot his AR's anymore, and is doing other things. He doesn't feel he needs them.

NH rocks! NH is on my high priority list of places to move. It was so hard to fondle my Glock today and have to hand it back over the counter for my 10 day wait.

THIS STATE SUCKS!!!!!

Man, I could never deal with that.
I drove 100 miles to avoid the 5 day wait in Broward County. At least it is capped at 5 Days for now. It was 14 Days until 1987, when the Legislature passed pre-emption. But, in 1998 the sheeple voted by a razor thin margin to allow certain counties to require a 5 Day wait on any sale where "the public has a right to access". This was billed as closing the Gun-Show loophole. The Sherrif (Don't remember if it was Navarro or Jenne. Not like it matters as both had a rabid hatred of gun owners.) even had posters put up asking/telling the good little sheeple to vote to close the "loophole". So, there is now a 3 county area which is esentially anti-gun. They have banned private sales by requiring background checks on all gun sales where the public has a "right to access". I have been told this was part of the law passed in 1998, but I cannot find it anywhere in the law. So, I believe it was one of the liberal interpretations of Oberfuror Kenne Jenne. BSO, et al. have interpreted "public right to access" as being anywhere in the county regardless of how remote, etc...Some cities have passed laws not allowed under the 98 law and banned under pre-emption. But, the legislature doesn't have the balls to tell these localities where they can put their illegal laws.

Quoted: He just doesn't shoot his AR's anymore, and is doing other things. He doesn't feel he needs them. NH rocks! NH is on my high priority list of places to move. It was so hard to fondle my Glock today and have to hand it back over the counter for my 10 day wait. THIS STATE SUCKS!!!!!