October 28, 2017, 06:26 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 20, 2017
Posts: 8
|
Legal Question,
I live in NV, there is a fellow who lives in Utah that's willing to trade his portable generator for a long gun I own. Would that be legal? I don't want to break any laws! Neither he nor I have a FFL.
Thanks in advance! |
October 28, 2017, 06:56 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 2, 2017
Location: SE Kansas
Posts: 116
|
You have to send modern firearms through an FFL.
|
October 28, 2017, 07:08 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
With only one exception (which does not apply in this case) legally transferring ownership of a firearm across state lines (from a resident of one state to a resident of another state) requires the services of an FFL.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
October 29, 2017, 12:04 AM | #4 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Now let's look at federal law on interstate transfers --
__________________
"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 29, 2017, 12:59 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2006
Posts: 10,963
|
There is no federal requirement to use an FFL on an in-state transfer of a handgun.
I realize that's not what you said, but it appears that is what you said. However some STATES require using FFLs for in-state handgun transfers. |
October 29, 2017, 01:15 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The OP described a transfer of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another. That requires an FFL under federal law (since none of the exceptions appear to apply). Federal law requires the use of an FFL when the parties to a transfer are residents of different States even if they are together in one of those States (or a different State) and do the transfer fact-to-face (see 18 UASC 922(a)(5)). So indeed federal does require the use of an FFL for an in-state transfer of a gun, whether a long gun or a handgun, if one party is a resident of one State, and the other party is a resident of another State. Understand that comments which may have the appearance or effect of encouraging violation of the law will be not be tolerated.
__________________
"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 29, 2017 at 07:43 AM. Reason: modify tone |
|
October 29, 2017, 12:41 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,013
|
So, if I understand correctly, an in-state transfer only escapes the federal requirement to use an FFL when the parties to the transfer are both residents of that same state, and that state has no requirement of its own to the contrary. Does this also mean the transaction must take place inside the borders of that state? For example, suppose two residents of the same state meet at a deer camp in another state and agree upon a transaction involving one of the firearms they brought with them. Do they have to wait until they get home, or can they do it then and there?
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor NRA Certified Rifle Instructor NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle |
October 29, 2017, 02:50 PM | #8 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Doing the transaction in the other State results in the transferee violating federal law (18 USC 922(a)(3), emphasis added): The transferor can also be prosecuted under 18 USC 2: True, these are technical violations if both the State in which the deer camp is located and the State in which the parties live don't require formalities with a private firearms transaction. And one would think that a federal prosecutor would in the exercise of his prosecutorial discretion not bother with it. But discretion means discretion and can't necessarily be counted on. It might also be different in the parties to the transaction lived in Oregon which now has universal background checks, and the deer camp was in Idaho, which doesn't. So the parties avoid a background check by not waiting until they get home to do the deal.
__________________
"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 29, 2017, 03:20 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
October 29, 2017, 05:22 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
I've a stupid question... after all, you can't waste a God given talent lest He'll likely take it away... and I'm really good at asking them.
If my father has in his possession a hand gun or two that I gave to him to use for home protection, and he moves from this state to another, that would be a violation of federal law? If I were to once again take possession of them at some point after he's moved and bring them home, that would be a violation of federal law?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
October 29, 2017, 05:40 PM | #11 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 30, 2017 at 12:52 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||
October 29, 2017, 06:46 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Thank you Frank
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
October 30, 2017, 10:34 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
I am having trouble un-convulting here.
So say I buy a firearm in State "X", I then move to State "Y" and become a resident there. I go back to visit family in State "X" bringing back said firearm. Can I then let someone possess it that is a resident of State "X"? (or someone from "Y" who came with me for that matter?)
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 31, 2017, 12:16 AM | #14 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's possible to construct bizarre hypotheticals around GCA68. However, the statutes say what they say, and courts will apply the statutes as written and as I've outlined unless there is legal authority leading to a different conclusion.
__________________
"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 31, 2017, 01:13 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
Thanks. It's really not that bizarre. We go visit family all the time and often bring our new toys out to play with when we get there. I did not think we were breaking the law but you can never be too sure.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
October 31, 2017, 01:20 AM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
By bizzare I was really thinking in terms of convoluted situations that could lead to strange or apparently unreasonable results.
__________________
"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 31, 2017, 06:17 AM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
October 31, 2017, 10:58 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
At the federal level, things have been covered. You might need to check state laws though. For example, WA state defines "transfer" VERY broadly, and requires a background check for each one (with potentially ridiculous results for innocent activities)...which is one reason so many of us object to "universal background checks"--sounds decent, but potentially criminalizes handing a gun to a friend to look at.
|
November 3, 2017, 02:14 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
|
|
November 3, 2017, 04:16 PM | #20 | ||
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 |
||
November 3, 2017, 04:18 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
^^^Concur
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
November 3, 2017, 04:34 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 11, 2009
Posts: 506
|
Quote:
At what point would the crime have been committed though? It can't have been at the time the firearm was transferred, since that was a temporary loan. Can something I did in the past - that was legal at the time I did it - become a crime later? That doesn't sound right! |
|
November 3, 2017, 04:47 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Seems like it would be the moment the transfer ceased to be for "temporary use for lawful sporting purposes." So, the first time someone says, "Nah, just keep it" would likely be the point a law is clearly broken.
|
November 3, 2017, 05:54 PM | #24 | |
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 |
|
November 4, 2017, 09:16 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 2, 2017
Location: SE Kansas
Posts: 116
|
Sometime soon after the sporting event was over is probably when the law is broken. Maybe they would have to have the gun back to its original owner within a few days. Just my guess
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|