National Federal law on interstate firearms transfer. Summary: use an FFL

[Librarian]

Some of this is spread out in several threads, but it really needs to be collected in one place

Feds have regulated interstate transfer since 1968 - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968 and https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...l/USCODE-2019-title18-partI-chap44-sec922.htm

A transfer is any action that results in the series 'A had a gun, now B has it' - examples: sale, loan, trade, inheritance

An interstate transfer is one from a resident of one state to a resident of a different state; the geographic location of the gun or the parties involved is not relevant to the law.

Inheritance means the donor is dead, (That works better when there is a will stating 'Grandson Bob Smith is to receive my Colt Python, sn 99999'; 'everybody knows Gramps wanted Bobby to have the Python' is much less good.) Fedlaw says inheritance from whomever is exempt from the FFL requirement of interstate transfer

Transfer from living Gramps to Bobby is probably legal, but it is not inheritance, and would require using an FFL if, say, Gramps lives in Oregon and Bobby lives in Idaho. (Any two different states)

That's the same requirement for any living transferor to a transferee who lives in a different state. It's in 18 USC 922(a)(5). It does not matter if the state where you currently may be has no-FFL-transfer - that applies to folks who live in that state, not visitors.

Interstate transfer of a handgun requires using an FFL in the state of residence of the transferee.

A violation of 18 USC (a)(5) is punishable by
-- 5 years in prison and/or
-- $10,000 fine and
-- lifetime loss of gun rights, as a convicted felon.

That's per gun and for all participants in the activity.

Now that you know, you get to decide what to do. I suspect this law is the most commonly violated gun law in the country, because it does not make sense, so it just would not occur to anyone

Read More

 

[Librarian]

There is an exception to the law for lending while staying in state.

I, a resident of Oregon, could visit Texas and borrow a TX-resident's rifle to hunt hogs - no Federal problem.

But I can't take it back to OR with me.

Similarly, I could bring one of my guns and lend it to a TX resident, but I cannot leave the gun in TX.

Both 'take to OR' and 'leave one in TX' require 'blessing of FFL'

 

[baker3gun]

I gave my daughter a gun when she was 18.

She went to college in CA. The gun stayed here in OR, because no guns allowed in dorms; penalty of expulsion, etc.

At year 5, she moved off campus as a grad student, and she got a CA drivers license. Essentially, she became a new permanent CA resident instead of a temporary resident.
She drove home, got her gun, and drove back.
She filed a form for new CA resident bringing a gun into CA.
The CA DOJ approved the form.

My take:
CA law is unconstitutional. You have to register firearms and notify the state that you purchased ammo.
The "transfer" itself was not difficult. $20 fee. Approval took a long time, about a year.
The CA law has no purpose. It doesn't create any benefit to society. It only creates a registry. It doesn't prevent any crime, ever, and it never will.

It's irrational, mindless, emotion-based policy that many Californians discovered that they don't like, when they went to buy a gun after city governments started allowing looters to burn cities.

Anyway, for purposes of conversation on a transfer thread, here is an example of an unusual "transfer" situation that occurred without involving a licensed FFL.

 

[Librarian]

'Twas a serial thing; you did not transfer to a resident of a different state, but it was 2 OR residents in OR, so no Federal involvement.

As to CA, well, I agree with the sentiment as an escapee from there in 2019.

 

[The Heretic]

The CA law has no purpose. It doesn't create any benefit to society. It only creates a registry.

There are several intentional purposes:

1) The registry itself, serves as a list for eventual confiscation and a list of gun owners, whether they still have guns or not. Same goes for ammo purchases.

2) Discouragement of gun ownership by putting bureaucracy obstacles in their way.

3) Turning non-compliant citizens or citizens ignorant of the law, into criminals.

The purpose of any gun control is not to benefit "society" in any way, the purpose is to control the populace.