Why is the Beretta Nano not approved for Cal?

Discussion in 'California Gun Forum' started by Popgun, Jun 17, 2012.

  1. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    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
     
  2. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,451
    571
    113
    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.
     

  3. masterPsmith

    masterPsmith New Member

    1,346
    2
    0
    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.............
     
  4. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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)
     
  5. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    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?
     
  6. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    BTW, a Beretta Nano is a fairly new gun for them so I doubt there are any used ones out there yet.
     
  7. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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.
     
  8. pagj17

    pagj17 New Member

    2,455
    0
    0
    It is a route many folks in the not so great state if California take, in particular to get ar 15 pistols.
     
  9. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    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
     
  10. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    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.
     
  11. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    I'm with you on not wanting to break any of the laws of this foreign country called California.

    If someone I know (in Oregon, as an example) owns a firearm that I want, I should be able to buy it "used" from him, hand it off to a gun shop up there, have them ship it to an FFL down here, wait my 10 days, and then pick it up local. I would probably have to pay a fee to both gun shops for the paperwork but it would be worth doing if its legal and I get the firearm I want. I don't buy very many guns so any limits wouldn't be an issue. Anybody see an issue with this plan?

    Seems like the more I learn about this stuff, the more things I find that I don't know. Thanks for the feedback.
     
  12. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Yeah, you have it as I understand it. You might want to shop around for a CA FFL that doesn't charge an arm and a leg to receive it though. Some will charge a hundred or more.

    If you think this scenario is bad just wait until you start looking into an AR!
     
  13. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    Popgun,
    Was this at Valkyrie? I have been looking into them for a stripped AR lower and on their website they do say that they can handle off-list guns, modify it for the transfer and then you can later (after taking possession) modify it back to the original configuration and it is considered to be "gunsmithing". That seems a little sketchy to me, but would probably be much less expensive and less of a hassle than the option I was suggesting (buying a used one from out of state), I would check with somebody else who is knowlegeable on the subject. There is also the federal consideration of the guy buying the gun with the intent to re-sell it. That is something I forgot to consider when I suggested it and something I am not conversant on other than knowing that if you do purchase a gun with the intent to re-sell it you are by definition "dealing" in firearms. I am not sure if this applies with only one purchase/sale or not nor do I know if there is an exception for a single gun or not.
     
  14. Popgun

    Popgun New Member

    112
    0
    0
    You know your gunshops Viking, but I'm not going to go that route, too sketchy. Also, that's a good concern about someone being called a "dealer", I can't imagine someone selling me just one gun that he owns would make him a dealer but I'll try to see if I can find any Fed law to worry about.

    Thanks again for your input
     
  15. Vikingdad

    Vikingdad New Member

    14,922
    0
    0
    The Federal law says (paraphrased) "cannot purchase a firearm with the intent to sell same" without an FFL. You might want to PM C3Shooter with the specific questions (he chimed in earlier in the thread). He is a wealth of information on firearms and an FFL.