The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1, 2011, 09:56 AM   #26
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
[1] Under federal law, any transfer (with a few, narrow exceptions, e. g., by bequest under a will) from a resident of one State to a resident of another must be through an FFL.

[2] In the case of handguns, it must be an FFL in the transferee's State of residence.

[3] In the case of long guns, it may be any FFL as long as (1) the long gun is legal in the transferee's State of residence; and (2) the transfer is in compliance with the laws of the State in which it takes place; and (3) the transfer complied with the law of the transferee's State of residence.

[4] In connection with the transfer of a long gun, some FFLs will not want to handle the transfer to a resident of another State, because they may be uncertain about the laws of that State. And if the transferee resides in some States (e. g., California), the laws of the State may be such that an out-of-state FFL will not be able to conduct a transfer that complies.

[5] There are no exceptions under the applicable federal laws for gifts, whether between relatives or otherwise, nor is there any exception for transactions between relatives.

[6] The relevant federal laws may be found at: 18 USC 922(a)(3); 18 USC 922(a)(5); and 18 USC 922(b)(3).

Last edited by Frank Ettin; July 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 11:47 AM   #27
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,185
No bills of sale. It's not a sale it's a gift.
Va and Florida do not have gun registration.

Sonny drives up and Dad says enjoy them. Sonny is legal to have them in VA.
Sonny sticks the guns (unloaded) in the truck of his car.
Sonny drives back to Fla. Sonny is legal in Fla.
Sonny heads for the range and starts sighting in.

An FFL transfer is not needed.

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 12:24 PM   #28
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
AFS, fiddletown just cited the USC that says you are flat out wrong. He and Aguila Blanca, both lawyers, say you are wrong. Why would you give advice that is illegal?

Note: It's against TFL rules to advocate intentionally breaking the law.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 12:30 PM   #29
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
...Sonny drives up and Dad says enjoy them. Sonny is legal to have them in VA.
Sonny sticks the guns (unloaded) in the truck of [his car.
Sonny drives back to Fla. Sonny is legal in Fla.
Sonny heads for the range and starts sighting in.

An FFL transfer is not needed...
Wrong. If your advice is followed, Sonny and Dad have committed federal felonies.

See my immediately preceding post. An FFL is needed for a transfer of a firearm from a resident of one State to a resident of another -- even if they are parent and child.

Let's bread it down:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
...Sonny drives up and Dad says enjoy them. Sonny is legal to have them in VA...
Maybe Sonny is legal to have the guns in Virginia, and maybe not. See 18 USC 922(a)(5), emphasis added:
Quote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and

(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;...
So Dad, who lives in Virginia, can't give Sonny, who Dad must know lives in Florida (another State) a gun. Except he can loan him a gun for temporary use for a lawful, sporting purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
...

Sonny sticks the guns (unloaded) in the truck of [his car.
Sonny drives back to Fla. Sonny is legal in Fla....
No Sonny is not legal. He has committed a federal felony. See 18 USC 922(a)(3), emphasis added:
Quote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—
...

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;...
Note that in subparagraph (B) the reference to (b)(3) of 18 USC 922 refers to the section allowing an out-of-state FFL to effect the transfer of a long gun.

So if Sonny gets a gun from Dad in Virginia, he violates 18 USC 922(a)(3) by just driving it back to his home in Florida.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 12:34 PM   #30
Redbeardsong
Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2010
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter View Post
No bills of sale. It's not a sale it's a gift.
Va and Florida do not have gun registration.

Sonny drives up and Dad says enjoy them. Sonny is legal to have them in VA.
Sonny sticks the guns (unloaded) in the truck of his car.
Sonny drives back to Fla. Sonny is legal in Fla.
Sonny heads for the range and starts sighting in.

An FFL transfer is not needed.

AFS
Wrong.
Redbeardsong is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 12:45 PM   #31
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,943
What if dad loans sonny the guns and he takes them back home then dad passes away before he can return them?
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 12:49 PM   #32
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,185
BATF answer to this exact question:

It totally depends on local laws as to how the inheritance takes place. As far as the federal government is concerned, a gun can be taken across state lines to deliver as either an inheritance or gift as long as it is legal for the person receiving the gun to own it at their location. The transfer does not have to go through a FFL unless state law requires it.

These might help.

Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2000 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-ex...b/2000_ref.htm)
ATF Online - Publication 5300.5 State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/st.../22edition.htm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 01:05 PM   #33
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
BATF answer to this exact question:

It totally depends on local laws as to how the inheritance takes place. As far as the federal government is concerned, a gun can be taken across state lines to deliver as either an inheritance or gift as long as it is legal for the person receiving the gun to own it at their location. The transfer does not have to go through a FFL unless state law requires it.
(emphasis mine)

I can't get your links to work, but we don't have any information to indicate that this is an inheritance. The OP said it was a gift. That's a different deal.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 01:12 PM   #34
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by armsmaster270
...What if dad loans sonny the guns and he takes them back home then dad passes away before he can return them?...
The statutes refer specifically to bequest (a gift under a will) or intestate succession (transfer of someone's property who dies without a will). These things can take place only after one has died. And the loan exception referred to in 922(a)(5) doesn't excuse taking the guns home to another State in violation of 922(a)(3).

If Sonny takes the guns home to Florida while Dad is still alive, Sonny has already committed a federal felony, and Dad's subsequent death won't change that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AirForceShooter
BATF answer to this exact question:

It totally depends on local laws as to how the inheritance takes place. As far as the federal government is concerned, a gun can be taken across state lines to deliver as either an inheritance or gift as long as it is legal for the person receiving the gun to own it at their location. The transfer does not have to go through a FFL unless state law requires it....
And where exactly is that answer? Your links don't work for me either.

The statutes are the law and control, and the statutes don't say anything about a "gift." They only refer to bequest or intestate succession, and that happens only after death. If Dad is still alive, any rules relating to inheritance are irrelevant.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 01:39 PM   #35
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
Guns willed to an individual, and given at death do not required a FFl to do the transfer as far as the ATF is concerned.

US Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 922
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
From US Code Title 18 Part 1, Chapter 44 Section 922 (Page 7 – 8.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 02:01 PM   #36
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryM
Guns willed to an individual, and given at death do not required a FFl to do the transfer as far as the ATF is concerned....
Yes, we've said that. But why is it relevant? Where do you see anything about Dad having died and having left Sonny the guns in a will.

And of course, state inheritance laws would apply. That might involve probate and court supervision of the distribution of the assets of the estate.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 02:30 PM   #37
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,725
I'm still likeing the "long term loan" idea. Legal transfer hasn't taken place yet and if Dad croaks, the inheritance part takes over.
Doyle is online now  
Old July 1, 2011, 02:35 PM   #38
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,477
Quote:
What if dad loans sonny the guns...
Since others are already beating the inheritance issue to death, let me address the "loan" part.

18 USC 922(a)(5)(B) allows the interstate loan of firearms, but only under specific circumstances.
Quote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(5) for any person (other than a [licensee]) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a [licensee]) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
(emphasis mine)

In other words, a loan would only be legal for lawful sporting purposes. "Sporting purposes" is one of those nebulous terms that's only been defined under case law, but it generally means hunting or target competition, and it's usually tied to a specific hunt or event. IOW it's generally not legal for Pappy to lend a gun to Junior to store it indefinitely or to keep it for self-defense, even if the gun could also be used for "sporting purposes" from time to time.

*Footnote: IIRC this was well covered in a thread about a year ago about the legality of storing firearms for an indefinite period of time at an out-of-state relative's house. I can't find the specific thread, but IIRC the consensus was that an FFL transfer was technically required since the relative didn't have any definitive and specific plans to use the guns, even though he/she went hunting from time to time.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 03:02 PM   #39
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
fiddletown,
Sorry for the confusion.
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 05:02 PM   #40
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle
I'm still likeing the "long term loan" idea. Legal transfer hasn't taken place yet and if Dad croaks, the inheritance part takes over.
You haven't been paying attention.

(1) A loan is a transfer. It's a transfer of possession.

(2) Dad may temporarily loan a gun to Sonny. But if Sonny takes it home to Florida, he violates 922(a)(3). (see post 29)

Last edited by Frank Ettin; July 1, 2011 at 06:57 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 06:54 PM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryM
...Sorry for the confusion....
That's quite alright. I'm sorry that I was snippy.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 09:04 PM   #42
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,301
Quote:
It totally depends on local laws as to how the inheritance takes place.
For it to be an inheritance for the purpose of skirting the federal requirement for an FFL to be involved in the transfer, it must be a bequest in a will. The father is not dead so it's not going to qualify as an inheritance for the purposes of this federal law. It is a gift (or sale--doesn't really matter) and therefore an FFL must be involved.
Quote:
I still wonder since this is between the OP's father and himself, who would know the difference unless there is an ownership record or registration showing his father as the owner?
That is an issue of whether or not it would be possible to prosecute the persons involved, it has no bearing on whether or not what they do is legal.

It's possible, depending on a number of circumstances that they might be able to make the transfer without ever getting caught, but that's moot to the initial question of legality. If they make the transfer (other than as a bequest in a will) then they have committed federal felonies.
Quote:
I mention this because my understanding is that if the father sells 10 or more firearms in a year, he's "in the business" of dealing in firearms.
I don't believe that there is a 10 firearms per year limit, and my understanding is that it is perfectly legal to sell as many firearms as you have legally acquired in your private collection as rapidly as you see fit. In other words, if you've amassed a couple of hundred firearms over several decades and get tired of guns & decide to take up knitting, you can sell them all in one day if you want. What's going to get you into trouble is if it becomes clear that you're making a living or significant income by buying and selling firearms on a regular basis.
Quote:
On a related matter, I recently sold a revolver face to face to another Kansas resident.
If you are both Kansas residents and you had no reason to believe he was disqualified from owning/purchasing the firearm in question then you broke no laws.
Quote:
I cannot recommend breaking any law either, but I think we as a society have gone crazy.
I'm certainly not saying I agree with the laws, but in the interest of staying out of jail, it's important to understand them and abide by them.
Quote:
Humor aside -- it sounds to me like the OP can legally carry his own guns from VA to FL.
Given the way federal law reads, the guns aren't legally his since he obtained them via an illegal transfer.
Quote:
Is he only going to get in trouble if he happens to be found carrying the guns and he blurts out "my father just gave these to me the other day" instead of just saying "I own these guns and am taking them home."
I can see him getting stopped with a car full of guns (or having a car accident with a car full of guns) and being asked to explain his situation. If they do any checking on his story (which may or may not be likely) he could be in some serious trouble--and so could his dad.
Quote:
I suppose it is safe to presume that at least some of the guns to be given to the OP were either registered to his father or are of such recent vintage to be registered to someone. Therefore the paper trail needs to be made accurate.
Because the charter of TFL is the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership, it's against TFL rules to advocate illegal behavior.

To answer your question, a thing is illegal because it's against the law and a thing is legal because it's not against the law. In other words, the criterion for legality is the law. It's NOT whether or not you are likely to get caught.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old July 1, 2011, 10:40 PM   #43
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,324
Quote:
AFS, fiddletown just cited the USC that says you are flat out wrong. He and Aguila Blanca, both lawyers, say you are wrong. Why would you give advice that is illegal?
Thanks for the plug, Sir, but I am not a lawyer. There have been a few rather prominent attorneys and judges in my family tree, which may account for my interest in the law, but mostly I try to stay on top of gun law to keep myself (and others) out of gun trouble.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old July 1, 2011, 10:49 PM   #44
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doyle
I'm still likeing the "long term loan" idea. Legal transfer hasn't taken place yet and if Dad croaks, the inheritance part takes over.
I'm not liking the "long term loan" idea at all, because IMHO it's not legal. Go read the laws. The laws provide for "temporary" loans (without defining how long "temporary" loans are) for "lawful sporting purposes" (without defining what constitutes a "lawful sporting purpose").

Various BATFE pronouncements and enforcement actions strongly suggest that "temporary" is something FAR short of "take it home from VA to FL and keep it as long as you like ... like forever." It's more like "Sorry your gun broke, you can use my spare for the rest of the afternoon/weekend."

As to "lawful sporting purposes," the BATFE in assessing guns for importation has decided that even sanctioned practical shooting competitions (IPSC/IDPA) are NOT "lawful sporting" events. (Not that they are unlawful events, only that the BATFE seems to only recognize traditional bullseye competition as legitimately "sporting." So cowboy action shooting would appear not to be covered, either.) So exactly what "lawful sporting purpose" is the son borrowing Dad's entire collection for ... irrespective of the length of the purported "loan"?

Much of the advice in this thread is likely to get someone in real trouble if they act on it.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; July 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old July 2, 2011, 12:10 AM   #45
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Aguila Blanca, my apologies, I had thought from some other threads that you were a lawyer. I may have assumed that because you've cited appropriate codes, and my lookups haven't contradicted your statements.

Still, my bust...
MLeake is offline  
Old July 2, 2011, 07:23 AM   #46
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
Darn. I thought I was getting all sorts of legitimate, free legal advice. Now I find that some of you do not even hang a shingle.

I suspect that the friend of the OP has already retrieved the guns that now belong to him. And frankly that really disturbs me.

I can't condone violating laws, however I know there are laws in some states that prohibit certain friendly behaviors between a man and his wife. Certainly those laws are supposed to protect society. But what happens in my bedroom stays in my bedroom. Extrapolate if you wish.

OP: Tell your friend that it is illegal to just drive up from Florida and pick up his gifted guns. Tell him that he should use dealers and ship them. Refer him to a lawyer to solidify your freely received counsel. Then you will know in your heart that we can all rest well at night.

I think this subject has been thoroughly covered from all sorts of angles and sincerely pray it will be closed soon.:barf:
__________________
It is unethical to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.
Eagle Eye is offline  
Old July 3, 2011, 10:04 AM   #47
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"I can't condone violating laws,"

You did earlier. What has changed your mind?

"I still think if I was the OP, and I was going to VA for a visit, I would bring my guns back to me and keep my mouth shut as to the ownership trail "
johnbt is offline  
Old July 3, 2011, 12:56 PM   #48
Eagle Eye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 178
johnbt

Quote:
"I can't condone violating laws,"

You did earlier. What has changed your mind?
I have become educated by the lawyers as well as the self proclaimed experts on what the laws are. Call me a changed man.
__________________
It is unethical to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed.
Eagle Eye is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14740 seconds with 9 queries