[Popgun]

Does anybody know why Beratta's Nano is not approved for sale in this state? Is the gun just too new or does it violate some tender spot in Kalifornia's sensibilities? Is it just too "scary" looking for them?

I guess you can tell I'm annoyed.

thanks

[c3shooter]

CA requires that a manufacturer supply a certain number of each gun, and model variation. There MAY be a fee to have gun tested by CA DOJ. Some makers chose not to submit all models for testing- matter of economics.

[masterPsmith]

c3 is right, probably never submitted for certification, or certification has expired. Handgun certification in Kalifornia is not a one and done deal. They periodically have to be re-certified for sale in Kalifornia and some manufactures just don't want to deal with it..


Jim.............

[Vikingdad]

The CA qualifications only apply to new firearms, not previously owned ones. If you are fortunate you can find a used one. (not likely yet)

[Popgun]

Hmmm,

I talked to a guy in town who said that his licensed gunshop could buy a firearm for me like a Beretta Nano (not on the approved list), modify it to be a single shot firearm (they also are a licensed gun manufacturer), and legally sell it to me as a single shot gun. Once I owned the firearm and had left the gun store, I could (according to them), return it for "upgrade" to a standard clip capacity of 7 rounds.

Now I have no respect for Kalifornia's unconstitutional gun restriction laws, but, I also have no desire to get caught-up in something for which I could be charged. What do you guys think; is this legally crazy and foolish, or, is this a creative procedure to accomplish what the customer wants in a lawful way?

Any thoughts?

[Popgun]

BTW, a Beretta Nano is a fairly new gun for them so I doubt there are any used ones out there yet.

[Vikingdad]

I wouldn't touch that deal. Sounds sketchy to me. If I were so inclined I would have somebody buy one in Nevada and then sell it to you used, do a legal transfer through an FFL as a used firearm. It will cost you more but if its what you want then it might be worth it to you.

[pagj17]

It is a route many folks in the not so great state if California take, in particular to get ar 15 pistols.

[Popgun]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

I wouldn't touch that deal. Sounds sketchy to me. If I were so inclined I would have somebody buy one in Nevada and then sell it to you used, do a legal transfer through an FFL as a used firearm. It will cost you more but if its what you want then it might be worth it to you.

So, if I were to buy a used Nano from a private party in a surounding "sane" state, the firearm would be legal for me to possess in California? If I bought it in person from a private party while outside of California, would I use an FFL dealer in that state or does it need to be done in Cal? If it needs to be done here, do I have a grace period to get the transfer done?

Thanks

[Vikingdad]

I am not an expert on this by any means, just another California subject.... I mean resident, who tries as hard as I can to stay within the Draconian laws here.

You cannot buy a gun in a private-party transfer in another state. There is a grey area in that Nevada allows legal PPT with bordering states but CA does not recognize that. It could land you in some hot water with the CA authorities.

The laws restricting the Nano from sale in CA only restrict it as a new firearm purchase, not as a used purchase. So if you were to find one used in another state you could purchase it and have it transferred here to CA through an FFL. The restriction is like the maximum number of handguns you can purchase in any 30-day period in that it only applies to brand-new guns.

If you make the purchase in NV, say, you must go through the DROS there and have that FFL transfer it to another FFL in CA where you would have to wait 10 days after that FFL receives the gun before you can pick it up in CA.