Intrafamilial Firearm Transfer in California

California lets you give a firearm to your child, your parent, your grandchild or your grandparent without going through a dealer. It is one of the narrowest exemptions in the Penal Code and one of the most widely misunderstood — including, as this page documents with citations, by the California Department of Justice’s own public FAQ, which currently tells readers something that would leave them exposed to criminal charges.

This page explains the law and cites it. It is not legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. California firearm law changes frequently — six of the sections discussed below have been amended since 2024. Where a question is genuinely unsettled, this page says so rather than guessing. For your own situation, talk to a California firearms attorney.

Do you qualify? The 30-second check

Four questions decide which path you are on.

1. Is the relationship parent–child or grandparent–grandchild? If no, the intrafamilial exemption is not available. See what applies instead.
2. Is the person giving the firearm alive and giving it now? If the firearm is passing because someone died, the operation-of-law path applies instead — same form, different section, different rules.
3. Is the firearm already in California, and is the giver a California resident? If it is coming from out of state, federal law and California law both route it through a California dealer unless you are inheriting it. See out-of-state family.
4. Is it a registered assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle? If yes, it cannot be transferred to a family member while the owner is alive. See firearms that do not qualify.

Yes, yes, yes, no — and this is an intrafamilial transfer: one form, $19, no dealer.

Who counts as “immediate family” in California

This is where most published guidance goes wrong, including pages written by law firms. The statutory definition is one sentence long and it is closed:

“…’immediate family member’ means either of the following relationships: (a) Parent and child. (b) Grandparent and grandchild.”
California Penal Code § 16720

Two words do the work. “Means”, not “includes” — so the list cannot be read as illustrative. And “either of the following” — so there are exactly two qualifying relationships, not a category to reason outward from. Section 16720 was added in 2010, operative January 1, 2012, and has never been amended.

The proof that the omissions are deliberate

You do not have to take the narrow reading on faith. The Legislature wrote a broad family definition into a section five numbers away. Penal Code § 27880, which exempts short-term family loans, reads:

“(a) The loan is to a spouse, registered domestic partner, or any of the following relations, whether by consanguinity, adoption, or steprelation: (1) Parent. (2) Child. (3) Sibling. (4) Grandparent. (5) Grandchild.”
California Penal Code § 27880

Spouses, domestic partners, siblings, adoption and step-relations — all named. Section 16720 contains none of them. When a legislature uses expansive language in one provision and omits it from a neighbouring one, that is not usually read as an oversight.

The practical consequence surprises people: lending your brother a rifle for a weekend hunting trip can be lawful, while giving him the same rifle as a birthday present is not.

But the loan exemption has six conditions, not three, and two of them are routinely left out of summaries elsewhere. Section 27880 requires that the loan be to one of the listed relations and that it be infrequent and that it be “for any lawful purpose” (subd. (c)) and that it not exceed 30 days (subd. (d)) and that the borrower hold a valid Firearm Safety Certificate (subd. (e)) and that, for a handgun, the firearm be registered to the lender under § 11106 (subd. (f)). Hand a sibling without an FSC a rifle and you have not made a lawful loan — you have made an unlawful transfer.

Adopted children: the honest answer

Section 16720 does not mention adoption. Neither does DOJ’s list of excluded relationships, which names step-relations, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins but is silent on adoptive children either way. The argument cuts both ways: § 27880 names adoption expressly and § 16720 does not, which points against inclusion — but adoption creates a legal parent-child relationship for essentially every other purpose in California law, which points for it.

We could not find a statute, regulation, published case or Attorney General opinion that resolves it. Most pages on this topic simply assert an answer. If this is your situation, the downside of being wrong is a criminal charge rather than a rejected form, which makes it worth a conversation with a California firearms attorney.

If your relationship is not on the list

You are not stuck — you are on the ordinary path. The transfer goes through a licensed dealer as a Private Party Transfer under Penal Code § 27545 — how a California private party transfer works, and the $10 fee cap and § 28050, which means the 10-day wait, a DROS entry, and the recipient’s safety certificate presented at the counter.

Worth knowing, because a lot of guidance implies otherwise: a Private Party Transfer is also exempt from the handgun Roster. Section 32110(a) exempts a transfer made through a dealer “in order to comply with Section 27545.” So an off-Roster handgun can lawfully change hands between two private parties through a dealer. The intrafamilial route is not the only way to get there.

A workaround gets suggested often in forums — routing a sibling-to-sibling gift through the parent, so each leg is a qualifying parent-child transfer. Nothing in Article 6 addresses it, so treat what follows as caution rather than law: each leg would have to be a genuine transfer of ownership on its own terms, each counts against the “infrequent” limit below, and a record showing the middle person never really owned the firearm is not a helpful fact.

Before you rely on the DOJ’s FAQ, read this

The California Department of Justice publishes a firearms FAQ that is, on this topic, out of date and wrong in ways that matter. We document it here with citations because a reader who follows it will break the law without knowing.

Error 1 — it tells you the rules only apply to handguns

The FAQ says that “[i]f the firearm is a handgun,” the recipient must get a safety certificate and file the report. A reader gifting a rifle to their adult child would reasonably conclude they need to do nothing.

The statute says otherwise. Penal Code § 27875(a)(3) attaches the reporting duty to “the firearm” with no handgun qualifier, and § 27875(a)(4) requires “a valid firearm safety certificate for any firearm.”

Notably, DOJ’s own CFARS page contradicts DOJ’s FAQ and states the requirement correctly, with no handgun limitation. The two pages sit on the same website.

A note on the Handgun Safety Certificate. Several statutes on this page, including § 27875(a)(4) and § 27880(e), still permit “a valid unexpired handgun safety certificate” as an alternative for a handgun. Treat that as a dead letter in practice: the Firearm Safety Certificate replaced the HSC when the FSC regime became operative on January 1, 2015, and HSCs have not been issued since. We could not locate the provision fixing the HSC’s validity term, so we will not state flatly that every HSC has now expired — but if you are reading this in 2026 and planning around an HSC you obtained before 2015, verify it rather than assume. The FAQ’s instruction to “obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate” describes something you cannot obtain.

Error 2 — it names a form that no longer exists

The FAQ refers, twice, to a “Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Handgun Transaction.” The actual form is BOF 4544A, Report of Operation of Law or Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction. The same “Firearm” title appears in the fee regulation at 11 CCR § 4002(b).

Error 3 — it cites two Penal Code sections that do not exist

The FAQ cites “Pen. Code, §§ 27870-27875, 30910-30915” and “Pen. Code, §§ 16990, subd. (g), 27915, 27920, subd. (b).” There is no § 27870 and no § 27915. Article 6 runs from § 27850 to § 27970 and contains neither number. You can check that in about a minute using the link.

Error 4 — it omits two mandatory conditions

The FAQ never mentions the “infrequent” limit or the requirement that the recipient be 18 or older. Both are conditions of the exemption, and failing either means the exemption does not apply at all.

To be fair to DOJ: the FAQ is right about the $19 fee, right about the 30-day deadline, right that step-relations, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins are excluded, and right about the assault weapon carve-out. But it is the page most people find first, and on the two questions that decide whether a crime has been committed — does this apply to long guns, and what are all the conditions — it is not reliable.

The five conditions, exactly as the statute states them

Section 27875(a) sets out five requirements, and all of them must be met for the exemption to apply. They are not the five you will find on most other pages, so here they are in the statute’s own order:

1. The transfer is infrequent, as defined in § 16730.
2. The transfer is between members of the same immediate family — parent/child or grandparent/grandchild.
3. The recipient reports it to DOJ within 30 days of taking possession. The report is not paperwork you do afterwards for tidiness; it is a condition of the exemption itself.
4. The recipient holds a valid Firearm Safety Certificate for any firearm, obtained first. (The statute also permits an unexpired Handgun Safety Certificate for a handgun — see the note above on why that is effectively a dead letter.)
5. The recipient is 18 years of age or older.

Two further constraints sit outside § 27875 but will stop the transfer just as effectively: the recipient must not be a prohibited person, and the firearm must not be a registered assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle.

On the safety certificate

The statute says the recipient “shall first obtain” it — this is not something to sort out during the 30-day reporting window. Penal Code § 31700 lists the exemptions, including active and honorably retired peace officers, active and honorably retired members of the armed forces and National Guard, valid CCW holders, licensed dealers, and collectors acquiring a curio or relic with a current Certificate of Eligibility. One exemption is routinely misstated online: a valid unexpired hunting licence exempts you for long guns only — § 31700(c) says “except as to handguns.”

On the age requirement

Section 27875(a)(5) sets the floor at 18, with no separate handgun age. That matters more than it looks, because § 27510(a) bars a licensed dealer from delivering any firearm to anyone under 21. The exceptions in subdivision (b) are narrower than they are usually described, and each has its own scope:

• Valid unexpired hunting licence — covers only “a firearm that is not a handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part.” A stripped lower is not covered.
• Honorably discharged service members — excludes handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles.
• Active peace officers, federal agents, reserve officers and active service members — excludes handguns only.

So for an 18-to-20-year-old who does not fall into one of those, a parent or grandparent using this exemption is one of the few lawful ways to acquire ownership of a firearm by gift — and it is a route that closes entirely if any condition fails, because “just use a dealer” is not available to them. (Other routes that do not involve a dealer remain open to an 18-to-20-year-old: taking title by inheritance or other operation of law under § 27920, and the family loan exemptions. The 21-year floor in § 27510 is a restriction on dealers; for a gift or a loan where no dealer is involved, the operative floor is 18, set by § 27505(a) and reinforced by the safety-certificate requirement, since an FSC is not issued to anyone under 18.)

One trap at this age, and it catches the sale variant. Section 27505(a) has two clauses, and the second one binds everybody: “No person, corporation, or firm shall sell, loan, or transfer a firearm to a minor, nor sell a handgun to an individual under 21 years of age.” So while a parent may give a handgun to their 19-year-old under this exemption, no person may sell one to them — dealer or not. If money is involved and the firearm is a modern handgun and the recipient is under 21, § 27505(a) prohibits it, whatever § 27875 would otherwise allow. (Section 27505(b)(1) carves out antique handguns, which are outside the scope of this page.)

Under 18, a transfer is prohibited outright by § 27505. The parent and guardian exceptions in that section are loans for a reasonably necessary time, not gifts.

On “infrequent”

Penal Code § 16730 defines it precisely, and both halves must be true: fewer than six transactions per calendar year and no more than 50 firearms per calendar year. A “transaction” is a single transfer of any number of firearms.

The counting rule catches people out. Handing your son five rifles at once is one transaction. Handing him one rifle on six separate occasions is six transactions, and on the statute’s text a person who conducts six has not conducted “less than six” that year — so the exemption’s availability across that year is at best in doubt. There is no separate handgun and long-gun standard; a single definition covers both, and pages giving you different numbers for handguns are wrong.

On prohibited persons — and the sequencing problem

Section 27875 has no express prohibited-person clause, but § 27500 reaches it from outside, and the exposure is severe. Knowingly transferring to a prohibited person is punishable by two, three or four years under § 27590(b)(1). Transferring when you merely “have cause to believe” the person is prohibited is separately chargeable under § 27500(b).

Understand the sequencing, because it is the least intuitive part of the exemption. There is no background check before the transfer. DOJ runs its check under § 27875(f) after the report is filed, which is after the firearm has already changed hands. If a family member is prohibited and nobody knew, the state finds out weeks later and the firearm is already in their house.

There is a way to find out first, but it comes with a trap that almost nobody flags. DOJ operates a Firearm Eligibility Check under Penal Code § 30105, which an individual may request about their own eligibility, on their own initiative.

Do not ask a family member to run one before you give them a firearm. Section 30105(h) provides that “a person or agency shall not require or request an individual to obtain a firearms eligibility check,” and that “[a] violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor.” Subdivision (i) requires DOJ to print that warning on the application itself. So the well-intentioned version of the sequencing fix — “get an eligibility check and then I’ll give you the rifle” — is itself an offence for the person asking.

If the recipient decides independently to obtain one, it is not a quick lookup: § 30105(b) sets a $20 fee, § 30105(c) requires the application to be notarized by a California Notary Public and submitted by mail, and § 30105(e) allows DOJ to decline to process an incomplete application.

On assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles

A registered assault weapon cannot be sold or transferred to anyone in California other than a licensed dealer, or relinquished to law enforcement under § 31100. The rule is in § 30910, and § 30930 applies the same rule to .50 BMG rifles. Giving or lending one outside those channels is a felony under § 30600, punishable by four, six or eight years. Using a dealer does not convert it into a lawful family gift — the dealer is the terminus, not a conduit.

Inheritance is the one exception, and it is a deadline rather than a permission. An heir who receives a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession has 90 days (§ 30915) to render it permanently inoperable, sell it to a licensed dealer, obtain a DOJ permit, or remove it from California. For a .50 BMG rifle the clock is 180 days (§ 30935). Those two numbers are different, and much published guidance states only one of them.

Two practical notes. BOF 4544A itself states it may not be used to report assault weapons as defined in §§ 30510–30530, and puts the burden of classification on the applicant. And § 27875(e) allows DOJ to “request photographs of the firearm” to determine whether it is a generally prohibited weapon, assault weapon or machinegun. If an AR-pattern rifle’s configuration is ambiguous, that question gets resolved either before the transfer or by the Department afterwards.

One partial relief for households: § 30955(a) allows joint registration of an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle owned by family members residing in the same household, though § 30955(b) excludes weapons registered under § 30900(c).

How to file

Two routes, same $19 fee, same 30-day clock.

Online through CFARS

The California Firearms Application Reporting System handles this as the Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction. You will need a CFARS account. Payment is by credit card — DOJ states the system accepts Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Discover.

The genuine trap is the report picker. DOJ’s “Help Me Identify Which Report I Need” page is a flat list rather than a decision tool. The two that get confused are Report of Intra-Familial Firearm Transaction (a gift from a living parent, child, grandparent or grandchild) and Report of Operation of Law (an inheritance, an executor, a spouse). Both cost $19. Picking the wrong one files under the wrong statute.

One thing to be aware of if you are an out-of-state heir relying on § 27875(b): DOJ’s stated condition for the intrafamilial report is that the firearm “was acquired in-state as a gift from an immediate family member.” We could not determine which report DOJ expects for an interstate bequest, and we are not going to guess. Ask the Bureau of Firearms before filing.

By mail on BOF 4544A

The paper form is BOF 4544A (Rev. 01/2020). Several requirements on it appear on no DOJ web page, and each will get a filing returned — the form warns that “[i]ncomplete applications submitted without the proper fees and documentation will be returned without processing.”

• A copy of your California driver licence or identification card is required from everyone, not only from the people covered by the next item.
• Payment is check or money order only, payable to the Department of Justice. The credit-card option does not extend to the mailed form.
• One form covers a maximum of two firearms. The form provides two firearm blocks and instructs you to attach additional copies for more. Five firearms means three forms.
• Only one applicant per report.
• If your California licence or ID reads “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY” on the front, you must also submit proof of lawful presence. Accepted documents include a U.S. passport or passport card, a certified U.S. birth certificate (abbreviated or abstract certificates are explicitly not accepted), a Certificate of Naturalization or Citizenship, or an unexpired Permanent Resident Card.
• If the name on that proof differs from the name on your ID — through marriage, adoption or a name change — include the document that bridges them.

The address printed on the form is Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms – OL & IF, P.O. Box 820200, Sacramento, CA 94203-0200.

One caveat we would rather flag than paper over: AB 3064 (2024) changed § 27875(a)(3) to require the report “in a manner prescribed by the department,” giving DOJ authority to decide whether paper remains acceptable. The form is still posted on DOJ’s forms page and still prints a mailing address, but we found no DOJ statement confirming mail is still accepted after that change. CFARS carries no such ambiguity.

The 30-day clock, and where it actually starts

The statute is specific: the report is due “[w]ithin 30 days of taking possession of the firearm.” CFARS describes it as within 30 days of “the transfer.” Those are not always the same date — if a firearm was gifted in conversation on the first of the month and collected on the twentieth, the statutory clock starts on the twentieth. The statutory trigger is the one that controls, and it is the more generous of the two.

What if the 30 days have passed? Neither the statute nor DOJ publishes a late-filing procedure, an amnesty, or a penalty specific to lateness, and we are not going to invent one. What the law does say is that missing the deadline means condition (a)(3) failed, so the exemption never applied — which puts the transfer back under § 27545 and its penalties, described below. For a handgun or a centerfire semiautomatic rifle those penalties are more than a simple misdemeanor. That combination — no published cure, real exposure — is why this particular situation is worth a lawyer rather than a web page.

What the exemption switches off

The handgun Roster does not apply

Penal Code § 32110(b) exempts from the unsafe-handgun law any transfer that is exempt from § 27545 under Article 2 or Article 6 — and § 27875 sits in Article 6. In plain terms: a parent can pass an off-Roster handgun to an adult child.

Read the condition closely, because it is doing real work: the exemption holds only “if the sale, loan, or transfer complies with the requirements of that applicable exemption.” Fail the FSC, the 30-day report, the age minimum or the “infrequent” cap, and the Roster exemption falls with it. The sloppy version of this transfer is not merely a paperwork problem.

One reporting duty appears to survive. Section 32000(e)(2) says a transfer accomplished through an exception to § 27545 “is not exempt from this reporting requirement” — a 72-hour notification for handguns originally obtained under § 32000(b)(4), (6) or (7), broadly agency and off-Roster service weapons. That sits somewhat awkwardly against § 32110(b)’s blanket language, and we read the specific provision as controlling; CFARS provides an Unsafe Handgun Transfer Notification at no fee for exactly this case, which suggests DOJ reads it the same way.

No 10-day waiting period

The waiting period in § 27540 is a duty imposed on a dealer — “[a] dealer… shall not deliver a firearm to a person… [w]ithin 10 days of the application to purchase.” An intrafamilial transfer has no dealer and generates no application to purchase, so there is nothing for the section to attach to.

To be transparent about the basis: that follows from the structure of the statute rather than from a DOJ sentence saying so. The drafting supports it — the Penal Code contains a separate article of exceptions extending “only to waiting period” (§§ 27650–27670), which would be pointless if a full § 27545 exemption did not already carry the waiting period with it.

A note on reading § 27540 yourself: AB 1078 repealed and re-added both § 27535 and § 27540, so Article 1 currently displays two versions of each. The operative ones are those marked operative April 1, 2026.

The multiple-purchase limit does not apply — and that limit changed in 2026

California’s one-handgun-per-30-days rule is no longer one. As of April 1, 2026, § 27535(a) reads: “A person shall not make an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than three firearms cumulatively within any 30-day period.” The change came in AB 1078 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 570), signed October 10, 2025. A great deal of published guidance still says “one.” AB 1078’s own legislative digest also notes that a federal district court order, in a case then pending appeal, had enjoined enforcement of the prior limit — so anyone relying on this rule for other purposes should check its current status.

Either way it does not reach an intrafamilial transfer, because § 27535 regulates an “application to purchase” — the dealer-submitted DROS application — and this transfer generates none.

When the family member is out of state

Full guide: California family firearm transfer from out of state: what actually works covers all six scenarios (living gift, sale, inheritance, sending out, moving in, moving out) with the cost stack for each.

This is where people get contradictory answers, including from dealers. Two bodies of law apply and they point the same direction.

California: § 27585(a) says a California resident “shall not import into this state… any firearm that the person purchased or otherwise obtained on or after January 1, 2015, from outside of this state unless the person first has that firearm delivered to a dealer in this state.”

Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3) bars an unlicensed person from receiving in their state of residence a firearm obtained outside it, and § 922(a)(5) bars the out-of-state transfer itself.

Inheritance is the exception that matters here. Section 922(a)(3) excepts a person who “lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence” — but only “if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,” which is exactly the condition that defeats an inherited assault weapon or a Roster-nonconforming handgun coming into California. Section 27875(b) mirrors it on the state side, switching off § 27585(a) where “[t]he person acquires ownership of the firearm from an immediate family member by bequest or intestate succession,” subject to the same FSC, infrequent, 18-and-over and 30-day conditions.

Federal law has other exceptions that state law does not mirror — § 922(a)(3) also excepts firearms obtained in conformity with § 922(b)(3), and § 922(a)(5) excepts “the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.” Those do not create a California import right, because § 27585 still applies.

Note how much narrower § 27875(b) is than § 27875(a). The in-state exemption covers a gift from a living relative. The interstate relief does not. An out-of-state parent gifting a firearm to their California child while alive gets no relief from either statute — that firearm goes through a California dealer, which means a § 27540 delivery with the 10-day wait, the FSC and a DROS entry.

Two things we will not tell you, because we could not verify them:

• Whether the Roster exemption survives a dealer-facilitated interstate intrafamilial transfer. Section 32110(b) reaches exemptions from § 27545, and a § 27585 delivery is not one. Dealers discuss coding these a particular way to preserve the exemption; we found no DOJ statement confirming that a Roster-nonconforming handgun may lawfully be delivered this way. This is a real risk point, not a technicality.
• What dealers charge. Fees for handling an interstate intrafamilial transfer vary widely by shop, and we are not going to publish a range we have not measured.

One distinction worth drawing carefully, because it comes up constantly and the two situations are not the same.

Section 27875(a) exempts a transfer “by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means” — language broad enough on its face to reach a parent genuinely selling a firearm they already own to their adult child. Money in the transaction does not obviously put you outside the section. We should flag two things about that reading, though, because this page holds itself to citing what it asserts: we found no DOJ statement, regulation or case confirming that an intrafamilial sale qualifies, and DOJ’s own CFARS intake language is gift-framed — it describes the report as being for a firearm “acquired in-state as a gift from an immediate family member.” If your transfer involves money, that mismatch is worth resolving with the Bureau of Firearms or with counsel before you file.

What is unambiguously a different thing is a straw purchase: arranging for a family member to acquire a firearm on your behalf, with your money or on the promise of reimbursement, so that the paperwork records them as the buyer when you are the real one. Where the purchase goes through a dealer, misidentifying the actual buyer on the federal form is chargeable under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which reaches a knowingly false statement made to a licensed dealer in connection with acquiring a firearm. That is the ordinary federal hook even when everyone involved is eligible to own a gun.

A separate and much heavier federal offence, 18 U.S.C. § 932, applies only in narrower circumstances — where the person buying knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that the true recipient is a prohibited person or intends to use the firearm in furtherance of a felony, terrorism or drug trafficking. It is titled “Straw purchasing of firearms,” which is almost certainly why a good deal of published commentary treats it as a general prohibition. Its elements are narrower than its title.

If the firearm is a handgun and the recipient is under 21, see the warning above — § 27505(a) bars the sale regardless of everything in this section.

The practical line is simple: did the family member buy the firearm for themselves and later decide to part with it, or did they buy it for you?

Intrafamilial, operation of law, or a dealer transfer — which one is yours

BOF 4544A serves two legally distinct paths. The form says so, citing “California Penal Code sections 27875 or 27920, respectively.” Filing under the wrong one is the most common error in this area.

Spouses and registered domestic partners belong in the middle column, not the left one. A spousal firearm transfer is exempt from § 27545 as an operation-of-law transfer under §§ 16990(g) and 27920 — the mechanism is a transmutation of property under Family Code § 850. That carries a formality requirement most people miss: Family Code § 852(a) says a transmutation “is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration.” A verbal gift between spouses does not accomplish it. Family Code § 850 speaks of married persons; registered domestic partners reach the same place through the parity rule in Family Code § 297.5.

Several widely-read pages fold spouses into the intrafamilial list. That is how readers end up filing the wrong report.

One overlap worth knowing: a parent’s firearm passing to a child by will fits the language of both sections — § 27875(a) expressly covers transfer “by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or other means.” Which report DOJ wants turns on whether the child receives directly or through an executor. If an estate representative is involved, that is the operation-of-law path.

What it costs to get this wrong

The penalty mechanism is worth understanding properly, because it is not what most pages say. Section 27875 does not carry its own general penalty. What happens instead is this: fail any condition in § 27875(a), and the exemption never applied — which means the transfer was an ordinary private transfer conducted without a dealer, in violation of § 27545. Section 27545 sits in Article 1, and Article 1 is what § 27590 penalises.

• Transferring without a dealer when the exemption did not apply — including because the report was never filed — is a misdemeanor under § 27590(a) generally, but where a handgun or a centerfire semiautomatic rifle is involved it is a wobbler under § 27590(c)(5): up to a year in county jail, or a term under § 1170(h), or a fine of up to $1,000, or both.
• Putting false information on the report: misdemeanor under § 27875(c). The form is signed under penalty of perjury.
• Knowingly transferring to a prohibited person: two, three or four years (§ 27590(b)(1)). The “cause to believe” version under § 27500(b) is separately punishable under § 27590(c)(1), and § 27590(d) adds one, two or three years consecutive where a firearm transferred in violation of § 27500(b) is later used in a felony.
• Giving or lending an assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle outside the permitted channels: four, six or eight years (§ 30600).

Frequently asked questions

Is the report actually mandatory, or is it optional?

Mandatory. It is one of the five conditions of the exemption in § 27875(a). Skip it and the transfer was never exempt.

Do I need a notarized letter or a bill of sale?

Neither the statute nor the form requires one. The form is signed under penalty of perjury, which is the declaration that matters. A dated letter costs nothing and is useful if the sequence of events ever needs establishing, but no law requires it.

Can I put several firearms on one report?

On the paper form, two per form, with additional copies for more, and only one applicant per report. We could not verify whether CFARS caps the number on a single online submission or whether one $19 covers several firearms online — that would require an authenticated CFARS session. Note that § 27875(d) authorises DOJ to charge a per-additional-firearm fee, and CFARS currently publishes only a flat $19 for this report.

Does the 10-day waiting period apply?

Not to an in-state intrafamilial transfer — it applies to a dealer delivery, and there is no dealer. If the firearm has to come through a dealer for any reason, it does apply.

Does this create a registration record?

It creates a DOJ record of the transaction, and DOJ runs an eligibility check against state records and NICS under § 27875(f) after filing. That is the design of the statute, not a side effect. If that matters to you, it is a reason to get advice before transferring — not a reason to skip a mandatory filing, since omitting it is what exposes you to the penalties above.

Can I just lend a firearm to my adult child instead?

Yes, and the loan rules cover a wider circle of relatives — § 27880 reaches a spouse, registered domestic partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild, “whether by consanguinity, adoption, or steprelation.” But all six of its conditions apply: the loan must be infrequent, for a lawful purpose, no longer than 30 days, the borrower must hold a valid FSC, and for a handgun the firearm must be registered to the lender.

My parent lives in another state and wants to give me a firearm. Do I just file the $19 form?

No. Unless you are inheriting it, both federal law and § 27585 route it through a California dealer. See out-of-state family above.

I received a firearm from my father years ago and never filed anything. What now?

There is no published late-filing procedure or amnesty that we could find. Because the missed report means the exemption never applied, the exposure runs through § 27545 and § 27590 — and for a handgun or centerfire semiautomatic rifle that is a wobbler, not a simple misdemeanor. That is a conversation to have with a California firearms attorney, not something to resolve from a web page.

What about an AR lower receiver, a featureless build, or a registered assault weapon?

A registered assault weapon cannot be transferred to a family member while the owner is alive. BOF 4544A cannot be used to report one, and it puts the classification question on the applicant. Where an AR-pattern rifle’s configuration is unclear — common in California — that question is better resolved before the transfer than after, since DOJ can request photographs under § 27875(e) and the penalty for getting it wrong runs to eight years.

If your transfer needs a dealer

Several situations on this page end at a licensed dealer: a relationship outside parent-child and grandparent-grandchild, a firearm coming from out of state, a recipient without a safety certificate, or too many transfers in a calendar year. When you get there, you want a shop that has done one before and will tell you in advance what it charges and how it will process the transfer.

Find a licensed FFL dealer in California →

Last verified against primary sources: August 2026, and independently re-checked line by line against the operative statutory text. Sections 27875, 27920, 27590 and 31700 were amended effective January 1, 2025; §§ 27535 and 27540 were replaced by AB 1078 operative April 1, 2026. If you are reading this well after that date, check the linked sections for later amendments. Where this page could not verify something, it says so rather than filling the gap.

Related California transfer guides

• What you need to transfer a gun in California — DROS, safety certificate, waiting period, the general overview
• California private party transfer — the $10 dealer-fee cap and how a PPT actually runs
• California family firearm transfer from out of state — living gifts, inheritance, moving in and out, shipping rules