Private Transfer on Indian Reservation?

[solv3nt]

I understand but USC 18 922 says "purchase or otherwise obtain" which you are still doing

Are you referring to this?
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides

The best I can tell, the interstate weapons clause is to prevent the sale of a firearm to individuals that are residents of other states, not for two residents of the same state. I am rather curious of the subject, so if have a different US code that prevents the transfer of firearms to two individuals residing in the same state, then please post the code.

 

[solv3nt]

But what about the interstate provisions of the USC being struck down in court as 'unconstitutional' earlier this year? So far, no one has challenged that ruling (at least that I'm aware of), so, technically, it should be legal to do a purchase across state lines.

I'm not going to test that myself, of course, but it's supposedly the case now. YMMV

I don't believe that two residents of the same state fall under interstate commerce, as they are both residents of the same state, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[slimmer13]

Are you referring to this?
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides

The best I can tell, the interstate weapons clause is to prevent the sale of a firearm to individuals that are residents of other states, not for two residents of the same state. I am rather curious of the subject, so if have a different US code that prevents the transfer of firearms to two individuals residing in the same state, then please post the code.

Sorry no time to cut and paste but it's section a3

 

[solv3nt]

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport
into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person
is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it
maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise
obtained by such person outside that State, except that this
paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires
a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other
than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or
receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to
purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not
apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in
conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall
not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any
State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

My interpretation, consult your lawyer, is that this is forbidding the transfer of a firearm from someone that is a resident of another state.

 

[etrain16]

I don't believe that two residents of the same state fall under interstate commerce, as they are both residents of the same state, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd be happy to, if I knew for certain myself, I'm just digging in to the information, but it's a curiosity that may warrant further research.

 

[solv3nt]

I'd be happy to, if I knew for certain myself, I'm just digging in to the information, but it's a curiosity that may warrant further research.

The last thing that I would suggest would be to break federal law, as the penalty is much stricter than the misdemeanor slap on the wrist of a state law. Consult your lawyer.

 

[mjbskwim]

Well at some point you have to walk off the reservation,then you are back in your home state and all the laws apply.Now if you have to defend yourself with the gun you just traded on the res,OR,even worse,the gun you just traded to someone you don't know,gets used in a shooting somehow,then they are going to want receipts from the store you transferred it at.
No problem? WE just say it was traded before the law? Will the other guy do the same? He's just shot someone in his house and all skeered,he may say anything.
Just a thought.
Personally,yeah,never mind,hehehe
The law doesn't have to have any effect IF you only deal with guns that were purchased private sale before the law took effect and you deal with folks you know will either not use that gun for self defense or you know will not fold.
But just some shmuck I never met? Not a chance.It will only cost you money if the gun is used for defensive needs

 

[etrain16]

The last thing that I would suggest would be to break federal law, as the penalty is much stricter than the misdemeanor slap on the wrist of a state law. Consult your lawyer.

I agree with you there. But, it would appear, currently, that interstate transfer (whether or not that applies to two residents of the same state conducting a transaction in another state is not clear), is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. An attempted stay on this ruling was also shot down in March. So, it appears that interstate is currently legal, pending any court challenges, of course.

I for one am not interested in being the first to test that theory.

 

[mjbskwim]

I agree with you there. But, it would appear, currently, that interstate transfer (whether or not that applies to two residents of the same state conducting a transaction in another state is not clear), is declared unconstitutional and unenforceable. An attempted stay on this ruling was also shot down in March. So, it appears that interstate is currently legal, pending any court challenges, of course.

I for one am not interested in being the first to test that theory.

Again it all sounds good and may ,in fact, be legal. But again,if something happens,the LEOs will use your state of confusion to try to mix you up about the gun.
Now if you can,under the duress of just ending someone's life,tell the cops you have had that gun for years,or know the other guy can also,then do it any way you want.
But I have never shot anyone and I'm not sure how the whole thing would go down