It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?
Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.
Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:
For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.
(PC section 12072(d))
CA firearms FAQ
California firearms lawsedit on 7/5/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Sek82
Okay Ben I like your threads but this one... I'm not taking the bait. So they are selling Airsoft guns, no big deal once that is known. But they could very well be real M4s from a distance, can they not? They got a call from some other concerned citizen and are just responding to it.
So residents are holding a Garage Sale, and when a cop steps up to check out the wares, the "Private Property" card gets pulled and I'm supposed to side with the idiots selling this stuff?
This can be compared to that guy who was questioned by police while carrying an arsenal of weapons, you are right. They are trolling for police response just to put it on YouTube while crying about their rights being infringed upon.
Originally posted by Ben81
Originally posted by Char-Lee
reply to post by nenothtu
Kind of scary too what they are teaching their kid. Seems the kid will look at police in all forms as the enemy and a showdown always in order. Would like to see how that ends up.
Teaching their kids to never trust anyone is a good thing to do
but they also need to teach them respect
if you want the kid to have a good balance in life
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by jude11
It was over the top on the folks selling their stuff... bottom line.
They created a scene, where one wasn't needed..
I see no evidence of cops bashing the citizens here, does it happen? yes.. does it disturb me? yes..
Does it mean that I will take every opportunity to say the cops are thugs! Hell no...
They are for the most part, good folks, doing a job, and while there are quite a few that tarnish their reputation, these particular officers should not be included in the group.
They were merely doing their job.
Originally posted by HomerinNC
I have airsoft guns, an m4 variant and a 9mm baretta lookalike. you can take these and place them next to the real thing, and you'd NEVER been able to tell the difference.
I think the LEOs had EVERY right to investigate what MIGHT be someone selling 'assault styled weapons' at a yard sale.
Also, funny how its a 'cop watch' person who JUST happens to be there, WITH a video camera, to catch the big bad cops, who happen to be acting on an anonymous phone call about someone selling weapons....
Originally posted by Masterjaden
HE doesn't have any right to be there.
Having a gun hanging on a rack is NOT a crime. Without witnessing a crime, or having reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime HAS ALREADY been committed, he cannot go onto private property just to MAKE SURE that a crime hasn't been committed.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Masterjaden
It was a yard sale. We've established this. A concerned citizen called it in. We've also established this. The cop had no choice but to investigate. It's the law. We've established this as well.
What part of "safe community" escapes your little brain? One would think you were born in the back hills of Louisiana.
Without witnessing a crime, or having reasonable suspicion
Exposed firearms at a yard sale is reasonable cause. I'm glad you don't live near me...I'd be worried for my life, the way you treat this. No crime has to be committed for public safety to be at risk. It's called NEGLIGENCE.
Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Masterjaden
Someone called it in so there was probable cause. One citizens concerns can give reason for the police to be there. If I was the cop I would have got a search warrant and tore apart their house.
Originally posted by Masterjaden
Actually maybe YOU should learn the law. While I don't consider the Supreme court the final authority, the supreme court has ruled that someone possessing a firearm in public IS NOT reasonable suspicion of a crime taking place.
Only an actual SALE of a firearm would have constituted an illegal act. That's why when cops bust prostitutes they have to wait until money either changes hands or a deal is made.
So, even had they been ACTUAL firearms, until a deal has been made and or money has changed hands, nothing illegal has been done, no crime, no just cause for intruding on private property and touching or seizing property that they do not have consent, or a warrant allowing them to do so...
Originally posted by openyourmind1262
I have watched this about 5 times. I have came to the conclusion that both sides of this particular video, are equally to blame. Did the law use the standard "lie" of we had a call? They said they did, problem is how does one prove that some one in fact did call the law? Or did they just happen by on patrol & decide to "look see"?
When seeking a confrontation, one will find it. Some even contrive it. Both sides were wrong, cop has "no right" just grabbing their stuff without consent or warrant.