October 20, 2013, 12:27 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
It is also notable that the examples cited by Frank recognize that an owner of a firearm may have multiple residences. It is lawful to transport firearms between your vacation home and your regular residence. Residence would thus seem to carry the same meaning as your current abode, without the legal requirements of "domicile." Also notable is that 922 does not apply to loans of firearms. Hence, if brother "loaned" his firearms to his brother for use and safe keeping, he may recover then on his return to Wyoming and transport them wherever he wishes. He may also, in my view, give possession of the firearms to a a common carrier (e.g. moving company) for transport from Wyoming to California, again without contravening 922.
|
October 20, 2013, 01:03 AM | #27 | ||||||||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Who said that it did? Quote:
Quote:
Let's look at the applicable statutes:
You may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)) a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But if you were to take the gun back to your home State with you, you would be violating 18 USC 922(a)(3), which has no "loan" exception, thus becoming eligible for five years in federal prison and a lifetime loss of gun rights. Since there is no loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a load of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence. Quote:
And a judge will interpret the statute according to its plain meaning, absent precedent to the contrary. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42: I've provided definitions for "possession" and "transfer." And let's look at the statutes again:
In 922(a)(3) the statute refers to transporting or receiving a firearm obtained -- words broader than ownership and consistent with possession. In 922(a)(5), the references to "transfer", "sell", "transport" and "deliver" are also consistent with possession and broader than ownership. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Note that transportation and delivery by common carrier must still comply wit the other provisions of federal law, which would include 18 USC 922(a)(3) and 18 USC 922(a)(5).
__________________
"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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 20, 2013 at 11:17 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||||||||||||||
October 20, 2013, 06:00 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 2013
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,705
|
How about you just pack up the guns, drive to California and deliver them to the rightful owner. Nothing illegal here, you stop off in S.F. and have a nice bowl of clam chowder in a sourdough bread bowl (yummy). You get a nice trip out of it and he gets his guns back and everyone walks away happy.
|
October 20, 2013, 06:31 AM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
October 20, 2013, 09:48 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
Did anyone address my question about the original owner putting them in a clearly marked and locked container, and keeping the only key, as a way to retain possession, while leaving them with his brother in Wyoming?
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” Last edited by g.willikers; October 20, 2013 at 09:55 AM. |
October 20, 2013, 10:24 AM | #31 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's the way the law reads. Is this what the Congress actually intended? Barring documentation showing otherwise, I believe the answer to be, yes. Our federal legislators certainly know the difference between owning and possessing. If they wanted to mean ownership, they knew how to word the law in that manner. They didn't. There is a very old saying; "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." That goes to the heart of what Frank is trying to point out. This sort of thinking is contrary to the way many (if not most) people think. I would go so far as to say that many people violate this particular law, everyday. They can, because they have not run afoul of other laws, to be caught with violating this one. The fact remains that the law is/was still violated. |
||
October 20, 2013, 11:29 AM | #32 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Specifically ATF has said (emphasis added):
__________________
"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 |
|||
October 21, 2013, 03:01 PM | #33 |
Member
Join Date: October 18, 2013
Location: San Diego,ca
Posts: 20
|
so if i own a (example) 12ga pump shotgun and live in (example) wisconsin, and i move to (example) california and i take it with me during the move,i have to take it to a FFL in california? even if it is over 50 years old? i posses a C&R03FFL.
__________________
guns enemies are rust,bubba and politicians. |
October 21, 2013, 03:49 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
If you're moving to another state and taking a firearm with you when you move, the firearm remains in your possession, so there's no reason to go to an FFL: no transfer between two people has taken place.
You do, however, have to be sure ahead of time that you'll be complying with the laws of the state you're moving to concerning the types of firearms you're allowed to possess, registration, if that's required, and any permits required by that state. But those things are off-topic for this thread.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
October 21, 2013, 09:00 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
It seems to me that when multiple people (at least one of them being a lawyer) are reading federal and state laws and can't agree on an answer, that the costs of simply driving to California and transferring the firearms via FFL has to be much cheaper than the potential risk of breaking laws you don't fully understand.
I do believe you as a private citizen can also mail a gun to an FFL, so you could mail it to an FFL in California if that worked better for you. There would be a transfer fee, but I'd chalk it up to life experience and the cost of moving. I'd bet you could even find an FFL who would cut you a deal on a bulk transfer.
__________________
Certified Gunsmith (On Hiatus) Certified Armorer - H&K and Glock Among Others You can find my writings at my website, pottsprecision.com. |
October 24, 2013, 01:46 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Only FFL 01 Dealers, 02 Pawnbrokers, 07 Manufacturers, and certain types of government agents (i.e. LE and military) may lawfully mail handguns. 03 Collector FFLs- aka C&R licensees- are specifically prohibited from mailing handguns other than legal antiques. Additionally, there's a caveat regarding firearms that utilize a separate lower receiver that can be assembled into a rifle OR a handgun, e.g. AR's. In order to be considered a rifle under the postal regulations, the entire rifle- or all of the parts required to assemble one- must be in the package. OTOH bringing such a weapon into CA is a whole 'nother can of worms, so this is likely irrelevant here. I'm aware that the OP specified that no handguns are included in the lot, but I felt obligated to explain this anyway, so nobody misconstrues anything.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
|
|