Long gun thru mail, Fed-x, UPS-new twist - Page 2

johnwilliamson062 · February 5, 2010, 02:51 PM

Agree with Blume 357.
Having terrible trouble on swapgiant with a rumor that you can transfer to someone in a neighboring state. All kinds of people from Kentucky and Indiana are posting up for trades, adamantly claiming they don't need to use an FFL b/c the states touch, then fading away when the laws are posted.

stungunmike · February 7, 2010, 10:45 PM

Why couldn't he just send it to himself, and have the occupant sign for it. Then call them up and give them permission to open his mail?

I dunno. There's always a loophole somewhere.

dogtown tom · February 7, 2010, 11:06 PM

Quote:

stungunmike: Why couldn't he just send it to himself, and have the occupant sign for it. Then call them up and give them permission to open his mail?
I dunno. There's always a loophole somewhere.

Because to do what you just described would not be shipping a firearm to yourself. As you described it, the shipper has no intent to actually ship to himself, but to the occupants of that address.

There is no such thing as a loophole. Either the law allows it or not. in this case the shipper AND recepient would be in violation of Federal law.

February 5, 2010, 02:51 PM	#26
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	Agree with Blume 357. Having terrible trouble on swapgiant with a rumor that you can transfer to someone in a neighboring state. All kinds of people from Kentucky and Indiana are posting up for trades, adamantly claiming they don't need to use an FFL b/c the states touch, then fading away when the laws are posted. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; February 5, 2010 at 03:05 PM.

February 7, 2010, 10:45 PM	#27
stungunmike Junior Member Join Date: January 14, 2010 Posts: 3	Why couldn't he just send it to himself, and have the occupant sign for it. Then call them up and give them permission to open his mail? I dunno. There's always a loophole somewhere.