"No we can't. You appear to have no understanding of the law. You seem to be making this stuff up as you go along"
Apparently we *can*, as I called a friend earlier who was a prosecutor here for about a decade. I asked him a hypothetical question or three, and he was of the opinion that if I "lent" a firearm and was not in immediate supervision of the object in question, IE: I allowed it to be taken home to the household of the person to whom I lent it, he would consider it a "transfer" in respect to the laws regarding posession and transfer of firearms in our state (Wisconsin). As a follow on to the hypothetical, he stated that if that person was a prohibited person and I was knowlagable of that fact, I could be prosecuted for violation of Wisconsin firearms laws for transferring a firearm to a prohibited person. His comment was that even if I expected to get it back tomorrow, I was not able to contol it's disposition any longer, and thus I had conducted a transfer. This was his unambiguous opinion.
It also does not address the concept of "ownership", simply compliance or lack of compliance with state laws REGARDING GUN SALES AND TRANSFERS.
For the life of me I cannot imagine why anyone is not differentiating between the two subjects, and that I am not commenting AT ALL on the contractual basis of ownership v/s exectations of return after temporary posession.