Legal advice on getting a gun as a present


PDA






hipeflip
December 23, 2003, 05:19 PM
I live in Colorado and my parents live in AZ. I just came home for the holidays to find out my dad had found some of the guns he had gotten me as a kid. He said i can have them but I want to make sure I do everthying correct. My father purchased both guns legally in AZ a number of years ago and they are under his name. I am a resident of colorado (and can legally own firearms) and will be taking them home on thursday(dec 25th). What I am wondering is should I have him write something out or is there something special I have to do? Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Happy holidays

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal advice on getting a gun as a present" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ksnecktieman
December 23, 2003, 07:35 PM
There is nothing federal that you have to do. In Kansas you would not have to do anything. I do not know of any state laws that would keep you from getting them from your father now. If you have any doubt your post has the key,,,,,,,, "my dad had found some of the guns he had gotten me as a kid.",,,,,,, As far as the law is concerned they are yours, from the past. They are not a new purchase. I would not concern myself about it.

Preacherman
December 23, 2003, 07:44 PM
I agree with ksnecktieman. The guns are your property already - they have simply been in the possession - perhaps "custody" would be a better word - of your father for a while. You can take them with you without qualms.

If you want to jump through hoops, just in case, then your father would have to ship them to a FFL in Colorado, and you'd have to pay a transfer fee to that FFL (for each gun) and pass a background check before taking possession of them. IMHO, unnecessary, but as I said, if you want to jump through hoops, that's the way to do it...

Hkmp5sd
December 23, 2003, 08:07 PM
ยง 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful

(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; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

clubsoda22
December 23, 2003, 09:22 PM
In PA, your dads guns are your guns, no paperwork needed. I do not know if CO is the same way.

AJ Dual
December 24, 2003, 10:15 AM
Hkmp5sd has it.

Yep, the Federal jurisdiction over guns comes from the Interstate Commerce Clause (or ICC Incredibly Contorted Clause...)

A gift by definition isn't "commerce" so you're free to take them home.

The "commerce" ocurred when your father originally bought the guns from the dealer.

No4Mk1*
December 28, 2003, 02:46 AM
Does this mean that any firearm may be gifted to a friend or family member in another state as long as all state laws are obeyed? What AJ Dual said seems correct, but I want to make sure.

publius
December 28, 2003, 07:56 AM
A gift by definition isn't "commerce" so you're free to take them home.


I wouldn't be so sure (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031105.shtml).

For most of our history, the Courts foiled congressional attempts to use the "Commerce Clause" to sabotage the clear meaning of the Constitution, particularly the Ninth and 10th Amendments. The courts began caving in to congressional tyranny during the 1930s. That tyranny was sealed in 1942, by a little known U.S. Supreme ruling in Wickard vs. Filburn.

Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his government allotment. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. He was fined anyway. The court reasoned that had he not grown the extra wheat he would have had to purchase wheat -- therefore, he was indirectly affecting interstate commerce.


If I gift was never commerce, we'd probably see a whole bunch of people who didn't make any income last year (thus don't have to pay any taxes), but did plenty of work for friends, who were grateful and gave them gifts. :scrutiny:

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal advice on getting a gun as a present" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!