Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Transfer legal question

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by KalamaMark, Dec 3, 2014.

  1. KalamaMark

    KalamaMark Kalama Wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    263
    I've read the ATF FAQ's, but I still have a question that some of you might be able to answer.

    Can two residents of the same state legally complete a transfer of a firearm while in another state?

    From my research, it is very clear that both parties have to be residents of the same state, but I can't find anything that says they have to BE in their home state during the transaction.

    For example... Mark and Bob are legal residents of Washington. They are on a hunting trip in Oregon. While at hunting camp in Oregon, Mark decides he likes Bob's deer rifle, and offers a fair price. Bob accepts, and they complete the transaction with a handshake.

    Were any federal or state laws violated in this hypothetical transaction?

    Thank you for your educated thoughts and opinions. Citations of actual laws with links would be most helpful!
    Thanks!
     
  2. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,478
    Likes Received:
    7,723
    Maybe you could have today, but certainly not tomorrow.
     
  3. KalamaMark

    KalamaMark Kalama Wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    263
    I'd encourage you to read the text of what you are thinking of, Jbett98, and ponder again.
     
  4. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,478
    Likes Received:
    7,723
    I was just being facetious Mark, nothing more.
     
  5. KalamaMark

    KalamaMark Kalama Wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    263
    It's all good... but I think I might be on to something(probably not), and I wanted to ask the opinions of those who have a deeper understanding.
     
  6. jbett98

    jbett98 NW Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    6,478
    Likes Received:
    7,723
    I see where you're going with this question, and good luck with getting a positive answer.
     
  7. rick benjamin

    rick benjamin USA, Or, Damascus Secure the drama Silver Supporter 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    2,779
    So both are residents of one state (WA).
    Both go to (OR) and transfer ownership of a firearm.
    Both return to (WA).
    You are both in violation of (OR) and Federal law.
    You are non-resident transactors.
    The gun must pass through an FFL.

    My opinion is my own, a legend in my own mind.
     
  8. KalamaMark

    KalamaMark Kalama Wa Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    263
    Thanks for your input and opinion, Rick..your opinion is the common initial reaction, but I've been unable to find the laws that support that.
     
  9. rutilate

    rutilate Vancouver and Surrounds Active Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    80
    I've had the same question and asked it of legal scholars as well but haven't found a clear answer.
     
  10. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,583
    In a PRACTICAL sense (given the scenerio outlined above) both parties are residents of the same state and temporarily sojurning outside their home state and return then no "interstate transfer" has actually occurred in the end. That being said, there's a few things to consider.

    1.
    Since Washington now has in effect (as of today) a UBC requirement on ALL firearms transfers. You could wind up in the soup with your state if it could be proven a transfer did in fact happen, because the end result is WA Resident-A had possession of a particular firearm, now WA Resident-B has possession of that particular firearm and Washington's new UBC requirement doesn't stipulate the LOCATION of where that transfer takes place between two WA residents... Or does it?

    2.
    Consider that it could be argued the outlined scenerio is interstate commerce because it involves more than one state which would require an FFL, and it could still land you in the soup with the Feds.

    3.
    Does the state this "handshake deal" occur in have a UBC requirement or any other restrictions on the sale of firearms? If so, you'd be subject to those state laws as well, and again you could wind up in the soup with another state.

    The ol' adage, "don't start none, won't be none" comes to mind. o_O
     
  11. etrain16

    etrain16 Oregon Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,549
    Likes Received:
    19,905
    Interesting, but consider your example carried a bit further:

    1. Mark buys a gun from a dealer after 594 passes, the gun is now registered to Mark.
    2. Your transaction in Oregon takes place, Bob now has the gun, no FFL was involved
    3. Bob, later, decides to sell to someone else in Washington, now using an FFL since he's in the state
    4. Transaction is flagged because that gun is supposed to belong to Mark and there's no record of it 'legally' changing hands in the state.
    5. Mark and Bob now have questions to answer and potentially face federal and/or state charges.

    Just a further thought on your example. Would it be legal? Hard to say, my gut says no, and I wouldn't do it for that reason. And, other than an example such as I call out, how would they ever know? If your guns were never officially registered through a transaction, how would they know a transfer took place?

    That said, if it wasn't illegal, I would imagine there will be a lot of WA residents meeting each other in the parking lots at Jantzen Beach in the future ;)
     
  12. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,583
    Parsing laws is as productive as arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. :rolleyes:

    In the end, people will still do what they want regardless.
     
    Redcap, rick benjamin and pokerace like this.
  13. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Out of my own morbid curiosity, please quote your source.
     
  14. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Sidestepping a little bit, after reading i594, the main goal is to prevent FTF sales in Washington without a background check. That said, Washington law doesn't apply outside of Washington.

    For example, a California Politician had to resign his job because he posted a picture of a cougar that he had shot in Idaho. California has a ban on shooting cougars, but it is legal in Idaho. He eventually had to resign his job over the boiling pot, but legally, California didn't have a leg to stand on.

    Another example, prior to Oregon legalizing dope, an Oregonian could go across the river to Vantucky and buy "legal" weed from a store and smoke it in Oregon. As long as said individual wasn't driving under the influence, or possessing weed, the individual wouldn't be violating Oregon law.

    Prostitution is illegal in Washington and Oregon, however, if a resident of Oregon or Washington traveled to Las Vegas, and hired a hooker, which is legal in Nevada, they would NOT be in violation of Oregon or Washington law.

    Please note, this is not legal advice, just my own personal interpretation of the law.
     
    IronMonster likes this.
  15. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,583

    The last line states his source... personal opinion.
     
  16. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    He specifically says "You are in violation of state and federal law". What law?
     
  17. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,583

    The "law of personal opinion". It's quite prevalent within the Executive Branches of Federal & State government these days, yes? :rolleyes:
     
  18. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    Unlicensed Persons Questions

    Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?
    A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


    Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

    A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

    [18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


    http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons
     
    Stomper likes this.
  19. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,914
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    As a side note, I didn't know that prohibited persons could own "antique firearms".

    1. Can a person prohibited by law from possessing a firearm acquire and use a black powder
    muzzle loading firearm?

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) prohibits felons and certain other persons from possessing or
    receiving firearms and ammunition (“prohibited persons”). These categories can be found at 18
    U.S.C. § 922(g) and (n) inhttp://atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf.
    However, Federal law does not prohibit these persons from possessing or receiving an antique
    firearm. The term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock,
    flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898. The definition includes any replica of an antique firearm if it is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or uses rimfire or conventional centerfire ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States, and which is not readily available in ordinary channels of commercial trade. Further, any muzzle loading rifle, shotgun, or pistol which is designed to use black powder or black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition, is an “antique firearm” unless it (1) incorporates a firearm frame or receiver; (2) is a firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon; or (3) is a muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination
    thereof. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), (a)(16).

    http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf
     
  20. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,913
    Likes Received:
    19,583
    There it is... The first part of the answer to the second question!

    I read that this morning at 4am and it didn't "click", because it was 4am. Now it's 8:14am and it "clicks", because it's now 8:14am! :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2014