quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
That is totally wrong. You need to do an FFL transfer. I don't get any of the above comments to the contrary. 10 minutes and its legal. Otherwise it is not.

This. Federal law supersedes state law, not the other way around. Some phenomenally bad advice being offered in this thread.

I believe Rick Lee and I are the only people offering advice who actually hold federal firearms licenses.

Since 1968, all legal interstate transfers of firearms have gone through licensees.

It is not a “gray area.”

Not doing so is a federal felony under 18 USC §922.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
I believe Rick Lee and I are the only people offering advice who actually hold federal firearms licenses.

Since 1968, all legal interstate transfers of firearms have gone through licensees.

It is not a “gray area.”

Not doing so is a federal felony under 18 USC §922.

I am an FFL also and you are correct. I just never responded because you had it covered.

I researched this to transfer a gun to my son in a different state.

The feds say no exceptions, FFL needs to transfer the gun.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:.
…Since 1968, all legal interstate transfers of firearms have gone through licensees.

It is not a “gray area.”…

True, except for lawful bequests.

However what constitutes an interstate transfer?

That’s not as black and white as are the two people residents of the same state because GCA of 1968 defines residency as being present in a state with the intent of making a home there. The ATF gives examples of a college student living out of state on or off campus as residing in the state of the college and allowed to purchase fire arms in his home state or college state. Another example is a members of the armed forces stationed in a state other than their home states. A third example from the ATF:

May a person who resides in one state and owns property in another state purchase a firearm in either state?

If a person maintains a home in two states and resides in both states for certain periods of the year, they may, during the period of time they actually reside in a particular state, purchase a firearm in that state. However, simply owning property in another state does not alone qualify the person to purchase a firearm in that state.

[27 CFR 478.11]

The question now becomes: What does it mean to be present in a state with the intent to make a home? I haven’t looked at that because the above ATF example covers me and my family. I’m guessing just visiting a relative or taking a vacation doesn’t count. For the future, I’ve wondered about traveling the country for six months in an RV.

Give her the gun. Don't ask, don't tell.

I work at a FFL. Michigan has its own pistol registration since 1927, a whole different thing there.

Handgun crossing a state line, transfer must go through a FFL. No exemptions for gifting, inheritance, whatever. That’s Federal law.

It is simply ASTOUNDING that members of this forum are suggesting/encouraging a violation of Federal Law here! A 'wink & a nod', and cute comments are NOT a Defense when it come to violations of Federal Gun Laws. You can 'think' this is somehow a 'Gray Area', but I assure you it is NOT! The law is Black and White, and when it comes to transfers between 'Unlicensed Persons' (Non-FFLs) that are NOT residents of the same state, the firearm must be transferred via a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the transferee’s state of residence. This has been Federal Law since the passage of the GCA (Gun Control Act) in 1968.

Why would anyone want to act outside of the law here, or suggest doing so? To comply with the law is not a significant burden, and to do otherwise is just not worth the risk, no matter how minimal one perceives it, or thinks it unnecessary. Violations of 18 USC §922 are a great way to become a 'Prohibited Person', and to suggest that a member involve his daughter (and the mother of his grandchildren!) in a Federal Felony is irresponsible! This is SIGforum, NOT Reddit!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
It is simply ASTOUNDING that members of this forum are suggesting/encouraging a violation of Federal Law here! A 'wink & a nod', and cute comments are NOT a Defense when it come to violations of Federal Gun Laws. You can 'think' this is somehow a 'Gray Area', but I assure you it is NOT! The law is Black and White, and when it comes to transfers between 'Unlicensed Persons' (Non-FFLs) that are NOT residents of the same state, the firearm must be transferred via a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the transferee’s state of residence. This has been Federal Law since the passage of the GCA (Gun Control Act) in 1968.

Why would anyone want to act outside of the law here, or suggest doing so? To comply with the law is not a significant burden, and to do otherwise is just not worth the risk, no matter how minimal one perceives it, or thinks it unnecessary. Violations of 18 USC §922 are a great way to become a 'Prohibited Person', and to suggest that a member involve his daughter (and the mother of his grandchildren!) in a Federal Felony is irresponsible! This is SIGforum, NOT Reddit!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
It is simply ASTOUNDING that members of this forum are suggesting/encouraging a violation of Federal Law here! A 'wink & a nod', and cute comments are NOT a Defense when it come to violations of Federal Gun Laws. You can 'think' this is somehow a 'Gray Area', but I assure you it is NOT! The law is Black and White, and when it comes to transfers between 'Unlicensed Persons' (Non-FFLs) that are NOT residents of the same state, the firearm must be transferred via a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the transferee’s state of residence. This has been Federal Law since the passage of the GCA (Gun Control Act) in 1968.

Why would anyone want to act outside of the law here, or suggest doing so? To comply with the law is not a significant burden, and to do otherwise is just not worth the risk, no matter how minimal one perceives it, or thinks it unnecessary. Violations of 18 USC §922 are a great way to become a 'Prohibited Person', and to suggest that a member involve his daughter (and the mother of his grandchildren!) in a Federal Felony is irresponsible! This is SIGforum, NOT Reddit!

you understand your member title is, "Shall Not Be Infringed" correct?

^^ Cute...Did you real all of the words? It is not an 'Infringement' on ones 2nd Amendment Rights to comply with Federal Law here. I also understand the consequences of violating Federal Law, which in this case would/could likely result in one being classified as a 'Prohibited Person'! Then what...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^ Cute...Did you real all of the words? It is not an 'Infringement' on ones 2nd Amendment Rights to comply with Federal Law here. I also understand the consequences of violating Federal Law, which in this case would/could likely result in one being classified as a 'Prohibited Person'! Then what...

sure, lets look at all the words

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jefferson:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The law existing at all is an infringement.

I can understand how many people might feel that the law is an infringement, and that it should not be the law. However, as a general rule I try to understand what the law is and comply with it as it is, not as I think it should be. ymmv.

Of course I agree with the responses by the FFL posters, and those knowledgeable. Yes, supposed to go through an FFL.

I’ve even driven to a State, set the gun on the counter & let the dealer process the gun for the buyer. Not biggie, cost wasn’t too much.

Let’s say the gun later gets stolen, then used in a higher profile crime. After that it gets traced to the buyer, leading to questions. That’s not totally far fetched.

Another scenario, a 22 y/o child leaves home after college, moves to a nearby State. While home that child used a firearm, maybe even ‘owned’ it, gift or bought it. After the child gets settled, the parent wants to drive over and give him ‘his’ gun. I think that scenario is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
After that it gets traced to the buyer, leading to questions. That’s not totally far fetched.

how would such a trace occur? There, by law is no database of SNs for the BATFE or FBI.

I think they go to the manufacture, Ruger, whoever. They trace the SN to a dealer, then the 1st legal buyer, Start there.

After that it can get fuzzy. If I buy a new gun, then legally sell it to another buyer, FTF, in state, no worries if used in a crime later. If I sold it private party across State lines, or to a known felon, could be an issue.

There was a high profile crime years ago in WI, the perp was killed. I think the girlfriend got 7 years for buying a gun for him. Yes, different point than what this thread is about. Just saying, if things went sideways with a gun, anyone along the way that did an illegal step ‘could’ be prosecuted.


https://www.atf.gov/resource-c...ional-tracing-center

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

how would such a trace occur? There, by law is no database of SNs for the BATFE or FBI.

That is easy.

BATFE has information printed right on the recovered gun to start, namely the name and location of the manufacturer or importer.

BATFE calls them and says: Where'd the gun go?
Manufacturer/Importer says: To this federally licensed firearms dealer.

BATFE calls that dealer, who says it was shipped to this federally licensed dealer or was transferred via 4473 to this private individual. The dealer then sends BATFE a copy of the 4473.

BATFE calls the buyer. Asks if they have the gun or not.

Any criminal investigation of unlicensed transfers begins here.

Plus, are you so naive as to think BATFE doesn't have a gun owner database? Read this Congressional memo from 2014 on the topic. Its gotten way worse, since.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:
I work at a FFL. Michigan has its own pistol registration since 1927, a whole different thing there.

Handgun crossing a state line, transfer must go through a FFL. No exemptions for gifting, inheritance, whatever. That’s Federal law.

Do you mean MI law, because it is not federal law? In addition to the exception I noted in my previous post which I’m 100% sure of and the ATF agrees with, inheritance is a specified exception in the federal law:

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

18 U.S. Code § 922 (3)(A)

The ATF agrees with that as well.

18 U.S. Code § 922 (3)(C) is fun as well:

“shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;”

Which seems to exempt firearms acquired before 1968.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
It is simply ASTOUNDING that members of this forum are suggesting/encouraging a violation of Federal Law here! A 'wink & a nod', and cute comments are NOT a Defense when it come to violations of Federal Gun Laws. You can 'think' this is somehow a 'Gray Area', but I assure you it is NOT! The law is Black and White, and when it comes to transfers between 'Unlicensed Persons' (Non-FFLs) that are NOT residents of the same state, the firearm must be transferred via a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the transferee’s state of residence. This has been Federal Law since the passage of the GCA (Gun Control Act) in 1968.

Why would anyone want to act outside of the law here, or suggest doing so? To comply with the law is not a significant burden, and to do otherwise is just not worth the risk, no matter how minimal one perceives it, or thinks it unnecessary. Violations of 18 USC §922 are a great way to become a 'Prohibited Person', and to suggest that a member involve his daughter (and the mother of his grandchildren!) in a Federal Felony is irresponsible! This is SIGforum, NOT Reddit!

I have had conversations with people who were thinking of buying the parts to assemble a suppressor but forego registration. I always ask why they are willing to take the chance of getting a felony, never voting again and losing gun rights to save $200 and some paperwork. It just does not make sense to me. Why try to avoid a $30-$50 transfer fee and possibly commit a felony? Is it really worth the risk for the payoff?

How about the hypothetical.

Dad drives from one state to another, "gifts" gun to adult offspring (who is otherwise "not prohibited"), and somehow it ends up as an item on the BATF's "to do list" for whatever reason.


How much in court costs to fight (and not even get into the issue of whether or not the firearm remains in the possession of the BATF), risking possible felony and lose 2nd amendment as well as ridding one of all their firearms?

Is it worth the few dollars to prevent that from happening?

We laugh at "Sovereign Citizens" not because they believe they are right in their stand, but because of the foolishness of trying to "have court" in the manner they do and how that works out for them.

Saying "Piss on all this infringement" by violating laws on books, no matter how egregious we may see them (I do). My fighting them by violating them, are not likely to change anything for everyone else, and few if any of those same people are going to spend a nickel in my defense, or spend a minute in FPMITAP.

We do the whole "grass roots level" find like minded folks, vote, work with legislation and move the piece on the board within the legal confines of our system.

Every person that breaks any law in such manner, is providing more reason and justification for more infringement, not less.