Can a California resident sell a gun to an Arizona resident private party?

is it legal?

Thanks guys

Transfer has to go thru an FFL

Perfectly legal to purchase a gun from any private party.  No FFL required.

if the california resident is in AZ?

That's right.  There's no requirement for you, the purchaser, to know anything about the person in an Arizona face to face (FTF) purchase.  Although, it's in your best interest not to purchase from Al Qaeda even if you know it's not stolen.

Face to Face sales must be with a person who is a RESIDENT of your state. If he has dual residency with CA and AZ then you're good but otherwise no.





From ATF:





(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]





A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if
he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A
person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for
temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have
reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a
firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a
curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed
collector.





[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]





(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back]





A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State,
except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or
shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the
sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the
State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a
firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.





[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]





(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State
source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed
dealer in the purchaser’s own State? [Back]





A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring
firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain
the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the
purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm
from the dealer.





[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]





(B4) May an unlicensed person obtain ammunition from an out-of-State source? [Back]





Yes, provided he or she is not a person prohibited from possessing or receiving ammunition.





[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n)]

Oh goodie!  Now which one of those codes pertains to the original poster and his original question?  Gold star if you get this one right.

so it looks like it has to go through FFL

Nope.

Unless you are seriously paranoid about a paper trail it is always best to Cover Your Assets.......

"(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State"



[18
<abbr>U.S.C.</abbr> 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27
<abbr>CFR</abbr> 478.29 and 478.30]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer
 

He's not too good at reading

If I understand this correctly, it's technically not illegal for me to buy a gun from a CA resident, if he the firearms is in Arizona at the time of sale.  It is, however, illegal for him to sell it to me.

Based on the ATF FAQ's, yes.


But If they sell it to you then they may be a prohibited possessor and make it illegal to buy.





I sure as hell don't want to play ATF games and see though. At least one person is getting booked in that transaction. There's probably some other law that would dictate that you could not buy a gun in this situation.



EDIT: Though there is probably some circular logic that can be applied to the whole mess. I'd bet 10 bucks that both parties would get in trouble.





 

Yep, that's pretty much it.  Passed on a NIB Kassnar preban Hungarian AK underfolder for $1200 several years ago, seller was from FL attending SAR.  Seemed kinda sketchy, but after doing research I came to the same conclusion.

However, if the sale come to light, who says the gun isn't confiscated and never seen again.  Now if the gun is a 30/06 bolt action, no one will probably care.

Yeah!   Gold star!  

Long guns and shotguns are really a non-issue.  Handguns, well, they're a little bit of a gray area.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 is really about the feds power to control licensees but it does try to extended itself to individuals but not very well as evidenced  by the first clause in B(2)

"A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State".  

That's the only clause that pertains to the OP and his status.  This is a lesser know part of the "'gunshow loophole" that some would like to close.  And nothing in Arizona requires a purchaser to know anything about the status of the other person selling the gun.  That law just doesn't exist.

Oh, man, sorry.  I only read the header question.

Since I like to buy guns "off paper" at gun shows (never know when you'll need a cheap throw away), I had an attorney look into it once.  He basically said as the buyer, there's nothing to worry about unless the gun was stolen.  I guess he was wrong.

Sooooo.....how would this be any different from what a whole bunch of people hammered Nealon for doing, essentially?

Was Nealon a licensed dealer or a private citizen?  Did the firearms get recorded on 4473's, or were they off paper?

There's a big difference there.

Perhaps there is a difference...the problem is we don't know what the transactions were between he and the other guy.  Some might have been 4473-based, others not.  The fact of the matter is that the law discusses being able to purchase from an unlicensed dealer who is a resident of your state...which someone from California isn't.  Yeah, there may be no requirement to verify that the person you're buying from is a bonafide AZ resident (not just some schmoe CA resident with an i.d. card), but you're still breaking the law if you purchase from one who is here in Arizona.

In fact, a dealer I know (no, not Nealon) was telling me ATF had a sting operation where they would bring in someone from California to sell a gun, and then popped the unsuspecting Arizona resident.   It was unclear whether or not the buyer knew the seller was from out-of-state.

To say they are 'vastly different' is parsing.

I didn't say they were "vastly different", I said there's a big difference.  And there is.  A dealer has specific rules he must follow.  These aren't secret rules, everyone knows what they are.

But let's not turn this into a Cav thread.  It's 2 totally different scenarios.

"Big difference", "vastly different".  Nuance.

Yes, dealers have to follow specific rules. I understand that.

But we are also responsible for knowing the law...and following it.  How's that go?  "Ignorance of the law is no excuse?"  (no, I don't agree with that)

Just because you don't know if someone is a resident or not, doesn't necessarily alleviate your responsibility to hold to that law.

If the law says "person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed person of his state", then the implicit statement is that the person selling needs to be a resident of that state.  A person from California isn't a resident of Arizona and, by definition, cannot sell a gun to an unlicensed Arizona resident.  To do so, he breaks both California and federal law.  And since the transaction is therefore illegal, so it the purchase.

I think that's exactly how the feds would argue it in court, even though "there's no law that says you're required to verify the seller's residence".

I am not trying to turn this into another Cav thread. That's a horse that's been beaten senseless.  What I am trying to find out is how this interstate transfer between 2 unlicensed individuals would at all be considered legal.

It wouldn't be.  A good attorney could probably argue that the buyer didn't break a law.  Damn near impossible to argue that the seller didn't.  Either way, the sale itself would be illegal.

ETA:  If something isn't specifically illegal, then it's legal.  At least that's my interpretation of American jurisprudence.

That's the way it should be.  Whether it always is, well, we know that's not the case.

Things that are still legal, without a law specifically allowing it, are only that way because someone hasn't gotten around to writing some law about it.

I can think of pretty much nothing that I can do in my daily life that isn't regulated in some way.