You are changing the scenario. You first state that you gave money to your father to purchase the gun for you, then transfer to you, in order to circumvent the CA laws/regulations regarding non-roster handguns. That is what I am responding to.
for the sake of time, I am not considering licensees, rather transferring between unlicensed individuals.
It all comes down to the intent of the original purchase. Intent is the only legal hurdle in the situation. If the firearm was purchased for yourself, say, you bought a shitbird Mosin-Nagant because the internet told you it’s the greatest thing, then quickly realized how they are not, you can sell/gift it to anyone that is legally allowed to obtain it. If that person resides in the same state, then the transfer can occur under the provisions of the applicable state law. If that state law requires a background check and transfer through FFL, then the federal law requires it through proxy.
If the people reside in different states, then the transfer must be conducted by an FFL on a 4473 except in very limited situations.
A face to face transfer becomes illegal to the federal government when the transfer is not conducted in accordance with the state law; the firearm is transferred to a person known or suspected of being unable to legally obtain said firearm, and/or; the person transferring the firearm knows or a reasonable suspicion that the person receiving the firearm resides in another state.
Personally, I require a valid MN driver’s license and permit to carry or permit to purchase for any face to face transfer. Not required but it’s a way to cover my ass.
He created the scenario to debate beyond the initial Rittenhouse/Black purchase. Both of whom admitted, under oath, the nature of that rifles purchase. Given it as a parallel scenario where the father was given funds to buy the gun then transfer under the familial gifting, the violation of the law is there. I am not speaking to the “what if I didn’t tell them that’s what we did” follow-on comment. Regardless of the reporting and disclosure, the violation exists.
I agree that the burden of proof is on the government in these cases, and that intent is difficult to prove. In the applicable case law the intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in at lest one case, upheld by SCOTUS.
In the case of Rittenhouse/Black, intent is not hard to prove as there exists an admission of the violation.
Actually I do know how laws work, it’s literally my job, and I’m quite good at it.
It doesn’t matter how you feel about your buying a handgun through your dad in another state and having said handgun gifted to you. By doing so you have violated federal law and both you and your father are open to criminal charges. This is based on the facts of the scenario, not your not my feelings about it. This is clearly spelled out in both the USC and CFR.
What firearms you brought with you to CA is governed by CA law. The federal government says you can move your firearms freely about the country as long as you are in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction you are in. CA says you can bring your non-roster handgun into the state, then the federal government is fine with it. If CA said it’s not okay, and you did it anyway, then you are in violation of CA and federal law.
).
