Loaning a handgun to a friend whose from out of state?

[solv3nt]

You're on a forum, my friend, opinions are what you're going to get. If you want hard and fast, firm answers, you're probably going to have to contact the ATF directly, or pay an attorney to find out for you.

The ATF has nothing to do with it. Since he's in Oregon, he has Oregon law to deal with, as the ATF doesn't care if you loan a gun to someone that is legal to possess said firearm.

 

[etrain16]

The ATF has nothing to do with it. Since he's in Oregon, he has Oregon law to deal with, as the ATF doesn't care if you loan a gun to someone that is legal to possess said firearm.

I thought I read earlier that someone was leaving the state with the loaned gun. You're right, if they are in fact just staying in Oregon.

 

[solv3nt]

I thought I read earlier that someone was leaving the state with the loaned gun. You're right, if they are in fact just staying in Oregon.

The ATF also allows for interstate loans as well, you can't sell your gun to a person in another state, but you can loan it to them for a short period.

 

[USAF Medic]

I appreciate the responses, but I only wanted to know the legalities of loaning a handgun, I don't want opinions, although my views align with the majority of posters. I just don't want to break any laws that could get myself and my friend in trouble. Thanks.

If your friend is over 21 and not a prohibited person, then he has a right to keep and bear arms. The activity is legal .
As liberal as it is. Oregon is still not New York or Chicago. If you are concerned, ask the pertinent county's sheriff's office.
Or district attorney.
Also with Obama in office. I fully understand where you are coming from.
DON

 

[scrandall01215]

I am suprised most of you have any friends.

Who said I do? Lol
Stacy

 

[Dave Workman]

WHY WORRY About It!!!
There Unconstitutional laws so there null and void. Period!!
Stacy

Ignore this kind of advice!
You're the one who would be prosecuted if somebody decided to push a case. In order for it to be held unconstitutional, it must first be ruled unconstitutional in court, not on an internet forum. Don't be a test case.

You cannot legally loan that handgun if a background check is required because an FFL will not do a check on a handgun for someone from out of state.

That's partly what the SAF lawsuit against I-594 is all about up in Washington. That one is currently on appeal at the 9th Circuit in order to establish standing for the plaintiffs.

 

[scrandall01215]

Ignore this kind of advice!
You're the one who would be prosecuted if somebody decided to push a case. In order for it to be held unconstitutional, it must first be ruled unconstitutional in court, not on an internet forum. Don't be a test case.

You cannot legally loan that handgun if a background check is required because an FFL will not do a check on a handgun for someone from out of state.

Straight from the the SHEEPS mouth!
Stacy

 

[solv3nt]

Ignore this kind of advice!
You're the one who would be prosecuted if somebody decided to push a case. In order for it to be held unconstitutional, it must first be ruled unconstitutional in court, not on an internet forum. Don't be a test case.

You cannot legally loan that handgun if a background check is required because an FFL will not do a check on a handgun for someone from out of state.

That's partly what the SAF lawsuit against I-594 is all about up in Washington. That one is currently on appeal at the 9th Circuit in order to establish standing for the plaintiffs.

Unlike Washington, the new Oregon law specifically has a clause to allow for lawful hunting and target shooting.

 

[Koda]

Unlike Washington, the new Oregon law specifically has a clause to allow for lawful hunting and target shooting.

i thought that was only if both parties were in the field at the same time....?

 

[solv3nt]

i thought that was only if both parties were in the field at the same time....?

The new law doesn't specifically address the definition of "lawful hunting/target shooting", and the legislature didn't pass an amendment prior to ending the 2015 session.

 

[Koda]

well if they didnt pass the amendment, the way I read it was both persons had to be in the field while hunting, one could borrow a gun. Dont think it had any clause for fishing...

the poorly written caviat was you couldnt loan or borrow a gun from a friends house to take with you fishing without a background check.

I could be wrong since I got burnt out following the law after it was signed into law.

 

[Kid@Heart]

I know this is a mistake, but here it goes anyway...

Why is anyone on this PUBLIC forum making a recommendation to some anonymous person that they ignore a state law?

1. How you feel about the law has nothing to do with it.
2. The original post sounds way too fishy. "I have a friend..."
3. Some of you are recommending this person volunteer to test the resolve of our local judicial system by stuffing themselves into the wringer, nads first.
4. "It's my right." is not a rational argument, even if true. You could spend years of your life and all of your treasure to win the case. Read the book by Miguel de Cervantes.
5. Blowing a whole bunch of hot air on a forum full of like-minded folks doesn't further the cause.

This battle has to be won at the ballot box or by an organization like SAF taking it through the courts. YOU as an individual don't stand a chance.

 

[Deebow]

Does he do things to get thrown in jail? Then I wouldn't worry about it.

I say tell him he can borrow it and Big Boy Rules apply.

 

[The Heretic]

WHY WORRY About It!!!
There Unconstitutional laws so there null and void. Period!!
Stacy

Because you will still wind up in court and/or jail and paying a lawyer regardless.

 

[Kid@Heart]

By the way,

I would tell him to bring his own damn gun.

 

[xtratoy]

this thread is a depressing example of what gun control has done to this country, and with no effect on crime...

Sort of like the war on poverty or the war on drugs........