SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    California residents please chime in
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
California residents please chime in Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
Many CA FFLs still accept firearms from out of state individuals too, so you might not even need to go through an FFL in MI.
 
Posts: 551 | Location: California | Registered: July 07, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Three on, one off
Picture of G-Man
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gose:
Many CA FFLs still accept firearms from out of state individuals too, so you might not even need to go through an FFL in MI.


Good to know! Thanks!
 
Posts: 4470 | Location: Michigan | Registered: November 03, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
Reagan wasn't a friend of the Second Amendment.


That and other examples are something I believe gun rights advocates should keep in mind. If it’s a politician we don’t like, their support for infringing our rights makes them demons incarnate—if not the Devil himself. On the other hand if it’s a politician we like otherwise (including a recent one who said he didn’t like suppressors), then his/her stance is quietly ignored.




“I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.”
— The Wizard of Oz

This life is a drill. It is only a drill. If it had been a real life, you would have been given instructions about where to go and what to do.
 
Posts: 47957 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pistols off the California roster are often sold for a premium. P365 guns are advertised for sale on Calguns for $2,000. If he received some extra pistols, he could sell them in a day for $1,000 each and be doing Calif residents a favor. The P320 sells for almost the same amount as the 365.


-c1steve
 
Posts: 4148 | Location: West coast | Registered: March 31, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by rmfnla:
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
Do you have to prove where you obtained a firearm in Kommiefornia?


You might be surprised to learn that it was Gov. Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, which prohibits the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on our 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time.

He also supported bans on "assault-style" weapons, and said, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Reagan wasn't a friend of the Second Amendment. He also signed off on the last and, essentially complete ban on new full auto guns.


Culturally this country's 2A views have changed a lot since the late 1960s. Reagan's position then was very much the mainstream. IIRC, in the late 1950s, 58% of Americans supported a complete ban on all handguns. We should be careful to simply take our current politics and overlay them on the past. It gives a distorted view of a person.

Also, not that it matters, but the de facto full auto ban was supposed to be a compromise that allowed for the safe interstate travel of firearm owners without harassment. States have effectively negated that benefit without being challenged, but we still have the prohibition on new full autos. I wouldn't necessarily pin that one on Reagan anymore than I'd pin the abortion-on-demand in CA on him. Sure he signed the law, but it wasn't implemented the way it was presented.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of rmfnla
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
quote:
Originally posted by jhe888:
quote:
Originally posted by rmfnla:
quote:
Originally posted by smschulz:
Do you have to prove where you obtained a firearm in Kommiefornia?


You might be surprised to learn that it was Gov. Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford Act, which prohibits the carrying of firearms on your person, in your vehicle, and in any public place or on the street, and he also signed off on our 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

“There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” Reagan said at the time.

He also supported bans on "assault-style" weapons, and said, “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Reagan wasn't a friend of the Second Amendment. He also signed off on the last and, essentially complete ban on new full auto guns.


Culturally this country's 2A views have changed a lot since the late 1960s. Reagan's position then was very much the mainstream. IIRC, in the late 1950s, 58% of Americans supported a complete ban on all handguns. We should be careful to simply take our current politics and overlay them on the past. It gives a distorted view of a person.

Also, not that it matters, but the de facto full auto ban was supposed to be a compromise that allowed for the safe interstate travel of firearm owners without harassment. States have effectively negated that benefit without being challenged, but we still have the prohibition on new full autos. I wouldn't necessarily pin that one on Reagan anymore than I'd pin the abortion-on-demand in CA on him. Sure he signed the law, but it wasn't implemented the way it was presented.


Also important to realize that Reagan was reacting to the Black Panthers' call to arms for their public appearances.


*****
Today, my jurisdiction ends here…
 
Posts: 141 | Registered: August 21, 2021Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Has he bought guns since living in CA ? He will need to take the BS 30 question moron test and pay a nominal fee for that privilege to get a firearm safety certificate before running the DROS at his FFL. Also know that pretty much every FFL a I dealt with in the greater SF bay area CA won’t accept a gun from a private person. So just make sure his FFL knows the parent to child exemption and ship your FFL to his FFL. Then he has to wait 10+ days of course after doing CA paperwork before he gets to take possession. He will also be hard pressed to find a FFL that will do a shipped in transfer for less than $100 + $37.50 state fees
 
Posts: 5111 | Location: Florida Panhandle  | Registered: November 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Blume9mm
posted Hide Post
Would be nice if you both owned property in your state.... As I read the ATF requirements for residence one can actually reside in more than one state.... thus a simple person to person transfer would be possible. Of course he would have to come stay at that property to make the transfer.


My Native American Name:
"Runs with Scissors"
 
Posts: 4441 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Back in October, my son gifted me two Sigs. I flew home with them.

I went online, filled out the intrafamilial form, paid $19 to process both Sigs, and got the approval letter within 30 days.

Easy peasy. Must be parent, grandparent, child relations. No sibling to sibling.

OP, you should be good to go.


P229
 
Posts: 3979 | Location: Sacramento, CA | Registered: November 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  SIG Pistols    California residents please chime in

© SIGforum 2024