Suppose for a moment that Sister1 lives in State1 and her sister (Sister2) lives in State2.

Sister1 has a house and a good safe; Sister2 has an apartment and no safe -- and travels for work all the time.

Sister2 buys a shotgun and asks Sister1 to store it for her between visits to her apartment.

If Sister1 agrees to store the shotgun, would that activitybe considered a "transfer" under BATFE rules? Are these gals breaking the rules? Does this come down to a semantics problem -- ownership versus possession?

I don't know if it is going to matter at all, but if it is we would need more details. What state, city and kind of shotgun? I assume it is not a short barreled or anything, but certain shotguns may be illegal in some states (CA, NY).

I don't know for sure if it is illegal anywhere, but I would guess it is different in Chicago then it is here in Kennesaw.

These two are in small towns in WV and VA (nothing major like Richmond, Charleston, or the NoVA area). And the shotgun is nothing crazy -- it's an old-school over and under. (An Ithaca, maybe?)

It's certainly not as if these two are into the high-dollar make-people-nervous sorts of arms....

what goes on between siblings or parents and child should not be any of the government business if the firearms are not class III or otherwise restricted.
My brothers and dad live in Oklahoma, I live in Missouri. We use each others guns from time to time for hunting trips, range days, etc. I do not believe there should be any problem with that.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
Suppose for a moment that Sister1 lives in State1 and her sister (Sister2) lives in State2.

Sister1 has a house and a good safe; Sister2 has an apartment and no safe -- and travels for work all the time.

Sister2 buys a shotgun and asks Sister1 to store it for her between visits to her apartment.

If Sister1 agrees to store the shotgun, would that activitybe considered a "transfer" under BATFE rules? Are these gals breaking the rules? Does this come down to a semantics problem -- ownership versus possession?

This isn't an issue of ATF rules, it's an issue of FEDERAL LAW. It's an interstate TRANSFER of a firearm, and it's illegal unless it's done through an FFL.

However, as I've repeatedly advised, don't just take my word for it, seek the advice of an attorney competent on the various federal, state, and local laws affecting that transfer.

quote:

Originally posted by Armadillo66:
what goes on between siblings or parents and child should not be any of the government business if the firearms are not class III or otherwise restricted.

Family relationships have no bearing on the various federal laws regarding interstate transfers. If it's an interstate transfer it must be done through an FFL, regardless of the relationship between the people who want to conduct the transfer.

However, as I've repeatedly advised, don't just take my word for it, seek the advice of an attorney competent on the various federal, state, and local laws affecting that transfer.

quote:

Said by ATF FAQ:
B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]

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]

I'd think what you're doing is "loaning" the shotgun to the other person for storage. I think ATF sees this as ok, but I would verify with either a local ATF branch or with a lawyer.

quote:

Originally posted by psychephylax:

quote:

Said by ATF FAQ:
B. UNLICENSED PERSONS

(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? [Back]

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]

I'd think what you're doing is "loaning" the shotgun to the other person for storage. I think ATF sees this as ok, but I would verify with either a local ATF branch or with a lawyer.

Definitely check with an expert, because the way this was explained to me was the loaning would be very brief, such as handing someone your shotgun at the skeet range, and letting them shoot a round, or a shop renting out a pistol for an hour while someone shot at the range. However, giving someone the firearm to take away and store for a period of time, is not lending for a sporting purpose.

However, as I've repeatedly advised, don't just take my word for it, seek the advice of an attorney competent on the various federal, state, and local laws affecting that transfer.

How 'bout it former military? I was never stationed overseas, but lots of I guys I knew that were, had to store their private weapons with friends/family all the time.

What a bunch of garbage that questions like this have to even be asked.

Yep. But having to ask sure beats having a batch of black Suburbans (and helicopters!) show up at one's house!

Thanks, all, for the advice. I'll pass it along.

I think what Jester814 was trying to say that it's sad that we even have to deal with these type of laws. At least that's the way I read it.

quote:

Originally posted by proud2pak:
I think what Jester814 was trying to say that it's sad that we even have to deal with these type of laws. At least that's the way I read it.

I don't disagree. I took a [lame] shot at making a joke about overreaction on the part of "authority." Clearly, I didn't do a good job of it....