I just talked to the BATF&E ...

My it was anti-climatic.

I had a question about transferring a rifle from NJ to TX by car for the purposes of gifting it from one non-licensee to another. So, I called my Houston division office.

They answered my question in a very professional and matter-of-fact way about the federal law and gave me some advice on how to store it for the trip in order to best comply with most state laws and then thanked me for calling after making sure thier answer was complete and clear.

They didn't do any of the things I'd been led to believe are SOP such as:
Stomp my puppies.
Burn down my house.
Imprison me without a lawyer (or food and water).
Declare me an enemy non-combatant.
Revoke my citizenship.
Heck they weren't even unpleasant.

Maybe .... just maybe .... and remember this is a hypothetical .... They aren't out to disarm and kill all the red blooded gun owners and stomp the CotUSA after burning the BoR before breakfast every morning. They might, just may be, a bunch of folks doing a day-to-day job.

It's an interesting thought anyway, I think I'll ponder it a while and see how it sits later.

I'm personally of a renewed faith in the way gov't employees are able to handle authority. Really refreshing. Though, it's still light outside. I'll edit my post if I get an 0'dark-thirty wake up fron the JBTs and thier flash banging, puppy-stomping, house-burning insertion team.

By the way, it IS legal to tote a rifle from one state to another if you are giving it away as a present. Federally, anyway. Check your state laws. It's also best to store it unloaded, in the trunk, in a locking rifle case and with a zip-tie or some-such through the action or breech. Apparently.

Anyone else dealt with the BATF&E and lived to tell the tale? I'm sure they must have overlooked at LEAST one other citizen who needed "the treatment" when they were just too busy to do it right then.

dude, you've been watching too many movies. it will take at least a few hours for them to forge the signatures of judges for a warrant, and do their paperwork to get the black helicopters requisitioned. besides, they like to invade under cover of darkness. be patient

Has a feeling you might see an in-ordinate amount of black suburbans along the route you intend to take :D

Kidding

So, I called my Houston division office.

Texans are Texans.

Call the New Jersey office tomorrow and ask the same question, let us know how that goes :evil:

Congratulations, you are now on The List. All your bases belong to us. BWAHAHAHAHAH.

Seriously, the human element is hard to anticipate.

Call the New Jersey office tomorrow and ask the same question, let us know how that goes

That's an interesting challenge, I'll take you up on it. I'm feeling lucky, I live in H-town anyway .... NJ ATF can't get me from, what? 1800miles away. I should be safe.

I will do the same thing in the morning to the NJ office and report my findings. Besides, this is an effort to keep my mom out of legal dutch. A second opinion is well worth the time and effort.

Call the New Jersey office tomorrow and ask the same question, let us know how that goes Better yet, call the San Francisco office and ask them if its legal to modify the disconnector on an SKS to make it full auto. Make sure you give your name and address.

All your bases belong to us. BWAHAHAHAHAH. If you're gonna quote obscure, poorly translated Japanese video games, get it right.
The actual quote is "All your base are belong to us!" :D

"You have no chance to survive make your time. HA HA HA HA..." ;)

They aren't out to disarm and kill all the red blooded gun owners and stomp the CotUSA after burning the BoR before breakfast every morning.

That's a different department from the one you talked to.

You are on the way to destruction
You have no chance to survive make your time

the JBT are the actual teams, the anti american gun hatters are the higher ups. the people you talked to are no differant than grocery store customer service. they are there to smile, say yes sir, no sir and be general public relations. they are nice people and deserve respectful treatment. :)

There's no doubt, the organization as a whole is our enemy. The individual people aren't necessarily so bad, and generally pleasant, as people are in general.

The BATFE agent you spoke with is an idiot who set you up for a federal felony.

If you believe him it shows how naive you are. Hope you enjoy your new roommate in your cell.

Not sure if they mentioned this but last I checked to transfer to someone in another state you need to go through an FFL, even if delivering in person

They also forgot to mention that many municipalities in NJ dont follow many of the federal gun laws (or their own state laws for that matter), speficially the one the BATF were refering to (USC TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44) which is why they are in the middle of several law suites with individuals as well as organizations both at the state and federal level.

The BATFE agent you spoke with is an idiot who set you up for a federal felony.

If you believe him it shows how naive you are. Hope you enjoy your new roommate in your cell.

That's a fairly bold and inflammatory statement.

Care to back it up with any facts? Or, should I just assume you are correct based on the long and intimate relationship we share? I'd be interested to see what you know that I don't on this very specific subject.

I really couldn't find anything in the BATF&E FAQ or in my google searches that would lead me to believe that a bequeathment or gift given across state lines, in person, violated any federal laws. Now, I'm hip to the fact that a purchase made across state lines gets real fuzzy, but only because of state law. Federal law is actually quite clear about it.

It's my mom giving me my dad's rifle, he passed on, she's passing it down. It's not like I'm buying a rifle from NJ and trying to avoid the FFL transfer fees and paperwork by having it hand delivered.

BTW, as an aside, it's a very nice rifle with a huge pant-load of history. Both in battle and personal. I'm really stoked to finally get to own this one. It's kind of an honor, really.

Most of the times I've had a question for the ATFE, they've been extrodinarily helpful. Not that I've dealt with them all that much, but I haven't had any bad interactions in the 5 or 6 times I've called the local office...

That's a fairly bold and inflammatory statement.

Care to back it up with any facts? Or, should I just assume you are correct based on the long and intimate relationship we share? I'd be interested to see what you know that I don't on this very specific subject.


No problem. Bequeathment is fine. Any other transfer, including gifts, between non-licensees require an FFL.
§ 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful --

(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;

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/18usc_chap44.pdf

bequest or intestate succession

Still on the borderline, be careful.....
I'm paranoid so I'd go so far as to have mom write all that down somewhere.

Bequeathment is fine.

This means to make a gift via a will. My understanding is that the gift being made here is not being done via a will, so the transfer would still require going through an FFL.

The advice offered by the ATFE agent is contingent on what information was provided, and is not binding on the gov't. If the transfer is considered illegal, telling the judge "ATFE told me I could" will get you laughed at.

The advice offered by the ATFE agent is contingent on what information was provided, and is not binding on the gov't.

Which is why it is wise, when dealing with ATF, to write them with your question and get an official written ruling in reply.

Which is why it is wise, when dealing with ATF, to write them with your question and get an official written ruling in reply.

The recent incident with the Atkins Accelerator shows that ATFE's rulings aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

And if the ATFE is anything like the SEC or IRS (and I'm pretty sure it is), there is something in the regs or (in the case of the SEC) the letter itself that says the advice cannot be relied upon. The SEC, in fact, requires companies to respond in writing to their advice and indicate their understanding that the SEC's comments cannot be used as a defense.

They are setting up road blocks as we speak :uhoh:

I disagree. The Atkins ruling proves the usefulness of having an AFT written response. Without the first ruling, Atkins and everyone that bought one of their stocks would be automatically busted for possessing a machinegun. By having that ruling, the people that bought the stocks are screwed, but not under indictment.

When questioning gun laws, especially NFA stuff, written rulings are the only way to somewhat protect yourself.

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

An agency that is given the task of infringing on a liberty guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to "not be infringed" is by its nature evil.

My understanding is that the gift being made here is not being done via a will, so the transfer would still require going through an FFL.

Hence the "intestate succession" portion

Intestate by definition means no will was present.

I cannot understand why this thought process even exists. :barf:

Your mom gave you some of your dad's property, and you called the government to ask permission to have it.

Mom gave it to you, it is now yours. I am assuming that it is not an NFA weapon, nor "registered". As a long arm, it is now yours to drive around all over the USA.

Why ask the fed gov if you can take it home? Your mom didn't have to give you a bill of sale, background check, or a 4473, did she? There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

It's their business because there is a federal law on point, and which states that however a person obtains a weapon (except for the narrow category of inheritance) it constitutes a covered transaction.

I cannot understand why this thought process even exists.

Your mom gave you some of your dad's property, and you called the government to ask permission to have it.

Mom gave it to you, it is now yours. I am assuming that it is not an NFA weapon, nor "registered". As a long arm, it is now yours to drive around all over the USA.

Why ask the fed gov if you can take it home? Your mom didn't have to give you a bill of sale, background check, or a 4473, did she? There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

I understand your frustration. She hasn't given it to me yet. I called to make sure she wouldn't be violating Federal law by doing so. I didn't "ask permission to have it" I simply wanted clarification of existing Federal law. It isn't as if I don't think I have a right to own it. I do, however, want to keep my mom, and myself, out of prison.

Since Federal law actually covers this "transaction" (and it is one, contrary to intuitive scrutiny) I wanted to make sure I understood what it said.

This means to make a gift via a will. My understanding is that the gift being made here is not being done via a will, so the transfer would still require going through an FFL.

There are actually 2 definitions of that word:
1. to dispose of (personal property, esp. money) by last will: She bequeathed her half of the company to her niece.
2. to hand down; pass on.

I'd say this transaction, even if it wasn't covered by "intestate succesion" would be covered by definition number two.

But then I don't pretend to be a lawyer or an expert on Federal firearms law .... that's why I called the ATF

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

An agency that is given the task of infringing on a liberty guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to "not be infringed" is by it's nature evil.

That is the heart of the matter. The same goes for all these other unelected, largely unaccountable alphabet soup agencies that exist outside of the federal government's enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution.

Was it left to you specifically in the will? Or as part of a general "personal property goes to..." general leaving of property. If it wasn't in the will as being left to you legally speaking it needs to go through an FFL because it is a gift, not something left to you in the legal sense. Now if you want to thumb your nose and say it's none of their buisness thats fine and well and your buisness.

If I were in your shoes, I would probably not be so responsible. I would ask my mom to lock the gun in a case, lock the gun with a trigger or action lock, and lock the trunk, and don't give any reason to have your car searched!

Just because you don't agree with a law or set of laws, does not justify not following them though. What can I say? I'm a little torn, but tend to lean toward the lazy side :D

bequest or intestate succession
Still on the borderline, be careful.....
I'm paranoid so I'd go so far as to have mom write all that down somewhere.
Have mom write what down?

Mom can't write anything down. If his father specifically left the rifle to him in his will, it's a bequest. If his father died with NO will, it's intestate succession. If his father died leaving a will that either didn't mention the rifle, or left everything to his wife, or in any other way failed to convey the rifle specifically to his son ... picking up the rifle in NJ and driving across state lines with it is illegal. In short -- if the deceased left a will, there is NO intestate succession.

Aguila-
That's the thing, everything said points to dad didn't specifically leave him the rifle as either a specific statement or a general leaving of a bulk group of property "all firearms" "all other personal property" etc. Everything said points that it was left to mom or no one in particular and mom is giving it to him. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that and it was in some way shape or form left to him specifically in a will. If it was it's perfectly legal if not....

Just because that BATFE guy said it is fine does not mean you are legally safe, if by some chance you get caught "well so and so at the BATFE office said..." doesn't stand up in court. Even in writing you can still get in hot water. Like I said before you can thumb your nose at the goverment if you want, in fact more power to you if you so feel the need cause the law is BS. But make that decision informed with the fact that if that rifle was not listed going to you in a will and it is simply mom giving it to you taking it without doing paperwork is illegal.

Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by

DirksterG30 Today 08:50 AM

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

An agency that is given the task of infringing on a liberty guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to "not be infringed" is by it's nature evil.

That is the heart of the matter. The same goes for all these other unelected, largely unaccountable alphabet soup agencies that exist outside of the federal government's enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution.



Everyone knows, or ought know, that it is a court of competent jurisdiction that determines what is legal, and what is not. Certainly not government employees, in a government agency, even if they think they have such powers, really do not have the power, or wisdom, for ruling on matters of law.

I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee. If the question is about an agencies regulation, then ask away, as I understand it it the agency that is the authority on their own regulations, not the court.

Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen.

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.



Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by



Where is the bashing?? We don't have a Department of Philosophy and Religion do we? The poster didn't say that the BATFE is full of Nazi SS wannabes did he? No, he simply said that the Agency and many others should not exist as they are unconstitutional.

One may say about your statement that it is intentionally inflammatory. But would that make it true?

Everyone knows, or ought know, that it is a court of competent jurisdiction that determines what is legal, and what is not. Certainly not government employees, in a government agency, even if they think they have such powers, really do not have the power, or wisdom, for ruling on matters of law.

Actually, federal agencies who are granted the authority to issue regulations interpreting federal laws within their purview are granted considerable discretion by the courts where said regulations are concerned. So, unless the agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by any rational argument, the court will defer to what the agency says is legal.

By the way, the agency has the discretion to disavow agent's actions, by stating that the agent was wrong and the person should have known the agent was wrong.

If his father specifically left the rifle to him in his will, it's a bequest. If his father died with NO will, it's intestate succession. If his father died leaving a will that either didn't mention the rifle, or left everything to his wife, or in any other way failed to convey the rifle specifically to his son ... picking up the rifle in NJ and driving across state lines with it is illegal.

No that's not necessarily true. Intestate succession means there was no will so you can't automatically assume mom will get everything. She's likely the executor and if she has been given authority to distribute the estate then it most certainly is intestate succession.

Sounded like from the previous readings there was no will.

So, if mom is the executor then she needs to write something down for him, as I said. This isn't hard from the estates standpoint, it's only made hard becuase NJ is run by morons.

IANAL and all that, but I've been through this no will crap and it's nasty.


The lesson here for everyone : Write a will, even if it's just a simple little thing.

Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by...

Hook686, how is observing that the BATFE is unconstitutional bashing?

I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee. Don't you think it is reasonable that the agency that enforces a certain law should know what that law is? Maybe I am a bit unrealistic, but I do expect the BATFE to KNOW the laws they are charged with enforcing.

Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen. Please explain what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Seems to me it is irrelevant who any of us voted for.

Texas-
If there is no will, this can vary sometimes by state law so this is generaly speaking, the spouse or next of kin legally gets everything. They can distribute this as they wish but it isn't in the legal capacity of executing a will.

Texas-
If there is no will, this can vary sometimes by state law so this is generaly speaking, the spouse or next of kin legally gets everything. They can distribute this as they wish but it isn't in the legal capacity of executing a will.


The reality of the situation may be that in the absence of a will or specific bequest, the difficulty and expense of transferring through an FFL is far less than that associated with hiring a lawyer to work out the issues of whether an FFL is necessary.

Have we honestly sunk so far into the goo that a son cannot take possession of his father's rifle without having to hire a lawyer:fire:
Every time I think we have hit bottom, there is yet another lower rung to this abyss.
:(

This "rung" has been in place since 1968.

This "rung" has been in place since 1968.

True, but I doubt that many law enforcement personal back in '68 would have thought that getting Dad's rifle needed a lawyer to do it (as I am sure that is not what the "spirit" of the law is about).

Enjoy the rifle and have a great road trip.:)

True, but I doubt that many law enforcement personal back in '68 would have thought that getting Dad's rifle needed a lawyer to do it (as I am sure that is not what the "spirit" of the law is about).

Actually, the letter of the law deals with the issue. If the rifle passed through a will, bequest, or intestate succession, then it may be transferred without an FFL. If the rifle passed to the mother, who then decided to pass it along, it may not be transferred across state lines except through an FFL. So, the spirit and the letter of the law are absolutely consistent: no transfer of firearms across state lines from one non-licensed person to another non-licensed person.

And it doesn't require a lawyer to get the rifle. That's only if you want to use the exception in the law which requires you to know and understand the various state inheritance laws at issue. If not, send it through an FFL.

Having wills isn't recommended just because lawyer want to get paid. It's also recommended because so much of the legal structure around property deals with how to dispose of property upon one's departure from this mortal coil, and a will is a great way of avoiding problems that will arise with almost absolute certainty if a will is not in evidence.

Having wills isn't recommended just because lawyer want to get paid. It's also recommended because so much of the legal structure around property deals with how to dispose of property upon one's departure from this mortal coil, and a will is a great way of avoiding problems that will arise with almost absolute certainty if a will is not in evidence.

I understand what you are saying Buzz, but you contradict yourself (to me). There is "so much legal structure" because a lawyer wants to get paid.:neener:

Look out the window! They're here!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/busdriver72/heli.jpg






:) :) :)

Today, 09:12 AM #38

DirksterG30


wrote:
Quote:
Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by...

Hook686, how is observing that the BATFE is unconstitutional bashing?


Quote:
I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee.

Don't you think it is reasonable that the agency that enforces a certain law should know what that law is? Maybe I am a bit unrealistic, but I do expect the BATFE to KNOW the laws they are charged with enforcing.


Quote:
Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen.

Please explain what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Seems to me it is irrelevant who any of us voted for.


Dirkster, my post was not intended to flame, or repudiate another. It is simply my thought that I am not a court of competent jurisdiction, so it matters not what I think is reasonable, or unreasonable. If the court has ruled on it, it seems to me the constitutional process alluded to, has been duely served. For me to reject that decision, in deference to my personal opinion, strikes me as rather counter-constitutional.

My post was more along the lines of getting sound legal opinion, as opposed to surveying forums, or agencies by telephone.

The reference to George Bush and the vast majority that are alleged to have mandated his agenda had to do with what I have observed to be an increase in the power of federal administrative law, as practiced, and a reduction in constitutional law, as referenced in this post. My personal observation, not a legal decision.

You call somebody on the phone and the clerk is polite. Wow. Thank you for sharing.

I guess that polite clerk undoes the reality of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and thousands of less publicized but equally as outrageous confiscations of private property by that agency. Hey ... if they suspected, even a llittle, that one of your shotguns had a barrel 1/8 of an inch too short, you would see a very differnt face than the one painted by that clerk.

They didn't do any of the things I'd been led to believe are SOP such as:
Stomp my puppies.
Burn down my house.
Imprison me without a lawyer (or food and water).
Declare me an enemy non-combatant.
Revoke my citizenship.

These are hard to accomplish even for a federal government agency over the telephone. Just wait for your next home 'visit" (er ... inspection).

Dirkster, my post was not intended to flame, or repudiate another. It is simply my thought that I am not a court of competent jurisdiction, so it matters not what I think is reasonable, or unreasonable. If the court has ruled on it, it seems to me the constitutional process alluded to, has been duely served. For me to reject that decision, in deference to my personal opinion, strikes me as rather counter-constitutional.

Hook686,

I for one am not going to defer to how a particular court rules as to whether something is constitutional or not. After all, the Constitution was not written in a mysterious language that only the legal elites can understand. Most anyone can understand quite well what the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, means.

The courts are known to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their purposes. What would you say if the courts ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to political speech? Would you defer to their judgment then?

All of that is somewhat tangential to our discussion, though. We are talking about the BATFE; I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the consitutionality of the BATFE has ever been addressed in a court. What I believe is crystal-clear is that the Constitution specifically proscribes the limits of the federal government's power, and the BATFE falls outside of those limits, and is therefore unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment says our rights shall not be infringed, and the BATFE definitely infringes on our 2nd Amendment rights.

So, what did the NJ office tell U? I am curious. U said U would call them too.

Anyone else dealt with the BATF&E and lived to tell the tale?

I've called them and they've been cordial. I was looking to purchase a NYS legal Kalashnikov (fearing that I'd get accepted to a doctoral program upstate instead of the good old south) and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't in violation of any state or local laws. I called branches in upstate NY and my previous residence. I also called local police to check for any city ordinances... noone banged down my door, I lived to tell about it. Folks, the people who work for the BATF are just that PEOPLE. Not mythical creatures, not pawns of the Illuminati... people. They're not going to purposely mislead you either, or else their own butt will be on the line in a federal court for entrapment. I think the BATF is goofy and useless, but hey, it's there.

Mr. Koresh sorry for the late reply to your E-Mail on transporting weapons to Texas but................

All of my interactions with BATF&E have been most cordial.
Most have just been routine questions or applications for NFA items. The employees and agents have, to date, been the most courteous and helpful people I have ever had interactions with who were government employees.

Including the interactions I've had with an agent since reporting the loss of a suppressor in a rollover motor vehicle accident.

Hook686,

I for one am not going to defer to how a particular court rules as to whether something is constitutional or not. After all, the Constitution was not written in a mysterious language that only the legal elites can understand. Most anyone can understand quite well what the Constitution, or more specifically the Bill of Rights, means.

The courts are known to twist the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit their purposes. What would you say if the courts ruled that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to political speech? Would you defer to their judgment then?

All of that is somewhat tangential to our discussion, though. We are talking about the BATFE; I may be mistaken, but I do not believe the constitutionality of the BATFE has ever been addressed in a court. What I believe is crystal-clear is that the Constitution specifically proscribes the limits of the federal government's power, and the BATFE falls outside of those limits, and is therefore unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment says our rights shall not be infringed, and the BATFE definitely infringes on our 2nd Amendment rights.


Dirkster ... We are different people, with different belief systems. This is clear to me. I would, and do, defer to a ruling by a court. To me, the constitution lays out a 'process' of government. When I start obviating that process, I become the one acting in an unconstitutional manner.

As I understand it, the federal courts have ruled that a federal agency, such as BATFA, is the master of its Regulations, which certainly must not be in violation of law, especially the 'Law of the Land'. If you think the BATFA is in violation of law, then you do have a process for ameliorating the matter.



infringe - Main Entry:infringe
Pronunciation:in-frinj
Function:verb
Inflected Form:infringed ; infringing
Etymology:Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at BREAK
Date:1513

transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another *infringe a patent*
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive verb : ENCROACH — used with on or upon *infringe on our rights*
synonyms see TRESPASS
–infringer noun


It sure seems to me that it is the courts, not individual citizens, that our constitution establishes as the whether, or not, law has been violated. Until that time, is not the BATFA innocent of wrong doing ?

My reference to my view of the Bush Administration is much an assessment that individuals are deciding the meaning of law, The President referred to himself as the 'Decider', as I recall). Somehow I view this to be more like the Taliban, than a constitutional republic.

As I said, we obviously see things different. I support the 'Law of the Land', and those lesser laws so lawfully rendered. If this means that some day that the only legal firearm to own, would be a Brown Bess, then I reckon I'd buy a Brown Bess.

So, what did the NJ office tell U? I am curious. U said U would call them too.


I called them and left a message with a lady named "Ronnie" .... we'll see what she says when/if she returns the call.

Ya know after reading the replies in this thread it may be just as easy to have mom stop by the local pawn shop and transfer it to me there. That way it has gone through an FFL and nobody will have to fret about it. I just hate the idea. But, then I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir on that note.

To clarify. Mom is driving fron NJ to here with the rifle to transfer it to me in TX. There was no will. You ALL should have a will. It IS silly to have to worry about all of this.

there is no transaction
means there wasn't a transaction. :)