Form 4 to Form 4 Transfer?

ArizonaJim · October 8, 2006, 09:53 PM

Can weapons be transferred, within the same state, Form 4 (other) to Form 4 (me) without the use of a SOT holder?

I understand that you must go from Form 4 --> SOT when the weapon is going out of state.

All I have ever experienced is a SOT ---> Form 4 (me), in state.

Thanks,

raymond- · October 8, 2006, 09:59 PM

in-state requires single F4: from SELLER to BUYER. SOT is not required to
broker this deal, but needed for interstate.

ArizonaJim · October 8, 2006, 10:04 PM

That's what I thought.

Also, if I wanted to use an SOT for intermediary, is a $200 tax required for the Form 4 SELLER to the SOT? If not, I could see an advantage to using the SOT.

The reason I ask is because I am looking at an NFA where the owner and the possessor are not the same individual. Getting it to an SOT (if not too costly) would be a good way to avoid any problems 3 months down the road.

Thanks again,

Hkmp5sd · October 8, 2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

The reason I ask is because I am looking at an NFA where the owner and the possessor are not the same individual.

Someone "owns" an NFA item yet it is on a Form 4 in someone elses possession?

Yes, a Form 4 to an SOT is another $200.

ArizonaJim · October 8, 2006, 10:28 PM

Yes,

I have heard of this before, and it is legal.

One can own an NFA but not actually take possession of it. There are two types of "ownership" in a sense.

Basically, someone invests equity (money) in the weapon, but the possessor (the prior owner/possessor) never transfers the weapon, keeping it in thier own safe.

The new "owner" holds controlling interest in the weapon but cannot "possess" it without the presence of the tax stamp holder.

Not ideal or typical, but I have seen and heard of it happening.

My first NFA was like this. I wasn't 21 years of age yet, but "owned" controlling interest in an NFA item. Once i turned 21, I tranferred it to me.

I have also run into people who owned NFA while it was possesed by an SOT.

Hkmp5sd · October 9, 2006, 03:29 PM

Don't know that I'd want to spend $15,000 for a machinegun and have someone else on the Form 4, especially if that person wasn't family. If they died, you'd have a time trying to get it back from whoever "inherited" it.

raymond- · October 10, 2006, 09:30 AM

i dont know squat.....but on the surface, this dual ownership thing seems to
set up a potential problem: financial ownership v legal ownership v registered
ownership v possession. In such instances (where at any time) any one of the
several 'owners' can contest legal standing. This sounds like it's half a breath
away from lawyers, legal wrangling, and court being involved in sorting out the
devil in the details.

hmmm....what is the advantage in this multiple ownership again?

shaggy · October 10, 2006, 10:30 AM

Quote:

hmmm....what is the advantage in this multiple ownership again?

Depends upon the intentions of the equitable owner. For example, I own several MGs and suppressors which are held on F3's by various dealers, as well as one MG held by a private individual on a F4. Since I haven't decided if I want to keep any of them, it makes more sense to leave them where they are rather than pay a $200 tax to transfer them to myself. If I do the transfer and later decide to sell or trade them off, it'll cost me an extra $200 each to go to another dealer or in-state individual.

You are correct, however, that the legal owner could theoretically contest another's financial interest, but its a losing proposition for them if you are careful and maintain proper records. For each NFA item held by another person, I retain proof of payment (my cancelled check), an unexecuted form 4 signed by the seller (to show their intent to transfer the particular weapon to me), letters & emails documenting the deal. For deals over a certain dollar limit, I usually draw up a short sales contract and have the seller sign prior to payment.

raymond- · October 11, 2006, 03:55 PM

thx for crystalizing this part of ownership for me. it does give one options. r-

James K · October 11, 2006, 08:19 PM

I will note that an SOT FFL dealer is not necessarily needed to do an interstate (between states) transfer of a machinegun, IF the machinegun is over 50 years old (or is on the specific C&R list) AND the transferee (buyer) has a C&R FFL. The fact that the gun is a C&R makes transfer across state lines to a C&R licensee perfectly OK without involving a Class 3 dealer. A person considering purchase of C&R machineguns might well find it worth while to obtain a C&R license to save time and money.

Also, no SOT FFL dealer is needed for intrastate (within a state) transfer unless state law requires it. Once the Form 4 application is approved, the transferor (seller) can give the transferee the gun.

Jim

MisterPX · October 12, 2006, 01:59 AM

The downside of the aforementioned C&R MG's, is that they often command a premium because they're C&R.

James K · October 12, 2006, 08:18 PM

I don't think C&R machineguns command a premium because they are C&R, but because of what they are. Even without today's astronomical prices, guns like the TSMG, MP.38/40, STEN, BREN, M1919, would command premiums because of their historical value. The fact that they are C&R may make transfer easier and/or cheaper to a C&R licensee, but the $200 saved is small potatoes compared to the cost of those guns today.

I was simply pointing out that IF one is going to buy a C&R machinegun from an out of state source, having a C&R license will speed the transaction and save money.

Jim

October 8, 2006, 09:53 PM	#1
ArizonaJim Junior Member Join Date: June 14, 2005 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 9	Form 4 to Form 4 Transfer? Can weapons be transferred, within the same state, Form 4 (other) to Form 4 (me) without the use of a SOT holder? I understand that you must go from Form 4 --> SOT when the weapon is going out of state. All I have ever experienced is a SOT ---> Form 4 (me), in state. Thanks,

October 8, 2006, 09:59 PM	#2
raymond- Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 179	in-state requires single F4: from SELLER to BUYER. SOT is not required to broker this deal, but needed for interstate. __________________ raymond- 47.5N 122.2W

October 10, 2006, 09:30 AM	#7
raymond- Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 179	i dont know squat.....but on the surface, this dual ownership thing seems to set up a potential problem: financial ownership v legal ownership v registered ownership v possession. In such instances (where at any time) any one of the several 'owners' can contest legal standing. This sounds like it's half a breath away from lawyers, legal wrangling, and court being involved in sorting out the devil in the details. hmmm....what is the advantage in this multiple ownership again? __________________ raymond- 47.5N 122.2W

October 11, 2006, 03:55 PM	#9
raymond- Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 179	thx for crystalizing this part of ownership for me. it does give one options. r- __________________ raymond- 47.5N 122.2W

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

October 8, 2006, 10:04 PM	#3
ArizonaJim Junior Member Join Date: June 14, 2005 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 9	That's what I thought. Also, if I wanted to use an SOT for intermediary, is a $200 tax required for the Form 4 SELLER to the SOT? If not, I could see an advantage to using the SOT. The reason I ask is because I am looking at an NFA where the owner and the possessor are not the same individual. Getting it to an SOT (if not too costly) would be a good way to avoid any problems 3 months down the road. Thanks again,

October 8, 2006, 10:28 PM	#5
ArizonaJim Junior Member Join Date: June 14, 2005 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 9	Yes, I have heard of this before, and it is legal. One can own an NFA but not actually take possession of it. There are two types of "ownership" in a sense. Basically, someone invests equity (money) in the weapon, but the possessor (the prior owner/possessor) never transfers the weapon, keeping it in thier own safe. The new "owner" holds controlling interest in the weapon but cannot "possess" it without the presence of the tax stamp holder. Not ideal or typical, but I have seen and heard of it happening. My first NFA was like this. I wasn't 21 years of age yet, but "owned" controlling interest in an NFA item. Once i turned 21, I tranferred it to me. I have also run into people who owned NFA while it was possesed by an SOT.

October 9, 2006, 03:29 PM	#6
Hkmp5sd Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2001 Location: Winter Haven, Florida Posts: 4,303	Don't know that I'd want to spend $15,000 for a machinegun and have someone else on the Form 4, especially if that person wasn't family. If they died, you'd have a time trying to get it back from whoever "inherited" it.

October 11, 2006, 08:19 PM	#10
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I will note that an SOT FFL dealer is not necessarily needed to do an interstate (between states) transfer of a machinegun, IF the machinegun is over 50 years old (or is on the specific C&R list) AND the transferee (buyer) has a C&R FFL. The fact that the gun is a C&R makes transfer across state lines to a C&R licensee perfectly OK without involving a Class 3 dealer. A person considering purchase of C&R machineguns might well find it worth while to obtain a C&R license to save time and money. Also, no SOT FFL dealer is needed for intrastate (within a state) transfer unless state law requires it. Once the Form 4 application is approved, the transferor (seller) can give the transferee the gun. Jim

October 12, 2006, 01:59 AM	#11
MisterPX Senior Member Join Date: April 25, 2006 Location: Amerika's Doyleland Posts: 809	The downside of the aforementioned C&R MG's, is that they often command a premium because they're C&R.

October 12, 2006, 08:18 PM	#12
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	I don't think C&R machineguns command a premium because they are C&R, but because of what they are. Even without today's astronomical prices, guns like the TSMG, MP.38/40, STEN, BREN, M1919, would command premiums because of their historical value. The fact that they are C&R may make transfer easier and/or cheaper to a C&R licensee, but the $200 saved is small potatoes compared to the cost of those guns today. I was simply pointing out that IF one is going to buy a C&R machinegun from an out of state source, having a C&R license will speed the transaction and save money. Jim