Holding Gun(s) for a friend

[limpingbear]

As far as i know, If the firearms were originally purchaced in Nevda, and are left there in the care of someone else, as long as that someone else is legaly able to own firearms then you are good to go. There is no Registration in Nevada, the state doesnt care.

 

[CmdrSlander]

As far as i know, If the firearms were originally purchaced in Nevda, and are left there in the care of someone else, as long as that someone else is legaly able to own firearms then you are good to go. There is no Registration in Nevada, the state doesnt care.

The guns were purchased in Georgia, the OP's boyfriend's friend is storing them in Nevada at their house because they are not legal in California.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

Where the guns were purchased is not relevant (GA)
Where does the friend currently reside (what drivers license does he hold)?

You are in Nevada( (What drivers license do you/BF hold).

If friend has GA drivers license and you/BF have Nevada, then go through FFL to make transfer. If Both of you have Nevada, then just store the guns for him.

Bottom line, if both of you currently reside in the same state then make a face-to-face transfer. If you currently reside in different state, make an FFL transfer.

When returning the guns, you will have to re-transfer through FFL since you will both be from different states (California and Nev.)

 

[RedTag]

Ok so i did some research on this.. first there is no transfer through an FFL required since you are not transferring ownership of the weapons. A FFL gets involved when there is a xfer of ownership, not storage!

Second, if you are planning on keeping the firearms in Clark Co. for longer than 30 days the sheriffs dept says that you should register them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Ok so i did some research on this.. first there is no transfer through an FFL required since you are not transferring ownership of the weapons. A FFL gets involved when there is a xfer of ownership,...

Mind sharing with us where you did your research and exactly what it said and on what you base your opinion.

The federal law on the subject reads (18 USC 922(a)(3) and (5), emphasis added):

18 U.S.C. 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;​

...

(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;
​

....

Sure looks to me like that covers a lot more than just a "transfer of ownership."

 

[Sam1911]

I was just going to post what Frank posted.

Putting firearms in the possession of a resident of another state is covered in 18 U.S.C. 922.

This sounds like a transfer that should go through an FFL.

Now there is a question of "loaning" a firearm, which is legal, but I'll quote NavyLCDR:

There is also debate as to whether a person can accept a loan of a firearm from a person outside their own state of residence because there is no loaning exception in 18 USC 922 (a)(3):

§ 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;

It would seem like if you, from out of state, come to my state, I can loan you a firearm in my state....but it seems like it would be illegal for you to accept that loaned firearm in your state.

 

[BSA1]

I noticed that the posters that are proregister live in states with more restrictive whereas free state gun owners do not believe it is necessary.
So I looked at question 12a on the Form 4473 which asks;

Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to
you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)

My honest answer is no I am not the actual buyer therefore it is not a transfer,

 

[Sam1911]

My honest answer is no I am not the actual buyer therefore it is not a transfer,

Which doesn't solve the problem of importing/receiving guns into your home state, not through an FFL, as required under 18 USC 922 (a)(3).

 

[Frank Ettin]

...My honest answer is no I am not the actual buyer therefore it is not a transfer,

[1] Not being a "buyer" doesn't mean it's not a transfer. Transfer refers to possession.

[2] For the failure of your analysis to solve the 18 USC 922(a)(3) problem, see Sam's post, above.

[3] Your analysis also doesn't satisfy the requirement or 18 USC 922(a)(5) that one may not in general "transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver" any gun to someone he knows or has reason to believe is a resident of another State.

[4] Violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3) or 18 USC 922(a)(5) is a felony under federal law punishable by a fine and/or up to 5 years in the federal pokey.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Firearm registration is largely a myth. Most states don't require registration of ANY firearms, and those that do usually only require it for "assault weapons".

"Most" and "usualy" will get some folks in trouble.

MA, for instance. requires registration of all firearms; I doubt we are unique, but I don't know. There is no problem here with (if you are both properly licensed, or if the friend is a new resident within the grace period applying for his license, etc.) holding firearms for a friend who also lives in MA, if they are properly stored (safe storage law) and if it is not done for nefarious reasons (concealing sought evidence, concealing assets, etc.).

When I moved here, I had a friend in my former state hold some guns for me (both residents of the same state). When he sent them on to me, we used a MA-based FFL, as I was now a resident of a different state.

IANAL.

 

[Sam1911]

MA, for instance. requires registration of all firearms; I doubt we are unique, but I don't know.

Not completely unique, but pretty unique. Only a small handful of states require registering any type of firearm.

I suspect if you hold them long enough, it might reasonably be considered a transfer.

Again, though, it isn't a matter of length of time. If they were residents of the same state (in "most" states) they could transfer them however, whenever they wished. But they are not, and the guns are going to the possession of residents of another state. As Frank's pointing out in Post 34, that violates various parts of 18 USC 922(a).

 

[BSA1]

I played a government bureaucrat for 23 years so I speak from a lot experience.

The first rule is to answer the question exactly as they are asked.

Second rule is not to volunteer any information.

The answer to question 12A is No.

Why would you volunteer any information that is not asked for especiallly to a agency such as BATF?

But if you are so determine to rat on yourself what about a owner renting a storage unit, placing his guns there and then moving to another state? Seems to me the circumstances are the same...the storage unit is owned as is the house by someone else.

 

[dogtown tom]

TurtlePhish ...In the eyes of the law, they're all transfers. Loaning a friend a gun gets treated the same way as selling a gun to a complete stranger.

Not true.
Federal law allows the temporary loan of a firearm to a resident of your state or another state for sporting purposes. (ie using a friends shotgun or rifle when hunting out of state).

hso ...He's not loaning the firearm so there's no transfer. The owner is just storing them in NV at a friend's place.

It most definitely is a transfer of possession and requires an FFL.
Ownership has NOTHING to do with the legal interstate transfer of a firearm.

RedTag Ok so i did some research on this.. first there is no transfer through an FFL required since you are not transferring ownership of the weapons. A FFL gets involved when there is a xfer of ownership, not storage!

You need to continue with your research 'cause you are seriously in error.
Firearm transfers have NOTHING to do with "ownership".

 

[Frank Ettin]

I played a government bureaucrat for 23 years so I speak from a lot experience...

And that experience is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I'm a retired lawyer and have over 30 years experience in the practice of law -- including reading and interpreting statutes and understanding how courts will apply statutes. That experience is relevant to this question.

...The answer to question 12A is No....

You need to read the 4473 more carefully. If you answer "no" to 12A, no dealer will let you have the gun.

...But if you are so determine to rat on yourself what about a owner renting a storage unit, placing his guns there and then moving to another state? Seems to me the circumstances are the same...the storage unit is owned as is the house by someone else....

More lousy analysis.

Renting a storage unit leaves the renter with dominion and control over what he puts in it, subject to his fulfillment of his obligation to pay rent. So anything placed in the storage unit remains in the possession of the renter of the unit. There is no transfer of possession.

But if you give some guns to a friend to hold for you, you have transferred possession of the guns to that friend. He now has access to, and control of, those guns.

One possibility might be to leave the guns with the friend in a locked cabinet or trunk to which only you have the key. Then, perhaps, your friend would not actually have possession of the guns. I mention that only as a possibility because I haven't done any research on that particular question, so I can't be sure that a court would see it that way.

 

[hermannr]

wrong, with a loan ownership does not transfer and is legal between persons from different states..there is no "time" involved...it can be for as long or short a time as needed.

From the ATF Q&A web site:

"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"

Think about it...you come to my state and want to shoot at a local competition...you have not brought your own gun...This happened to ME in NY (I am from WA, now you know why I did not have my own gun) I had not planned on competing, but my BIL talked me into it...one of his friends loaded me his weapon, another a couple boxes of ammo...all totally legal...even in NY (let alone NV)

 

[Frank Ettin]

...with a loan ownership does not transfer and is legal between persons from different states..there is no "time" involved...it can be for as long or short a time as needed...

Not exactly.

18 USC 922(a)(5) provides a limited exception for (emphasis added):

...the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes...

If you're unlucky, a judge will be deciding if your particular "loan" was actually (1) temporary; and (2) for lawful sporting purposes. He would be deciding based on the totality of the circumstance.

As far as I know, no court of appeals has decided what "temporary" means for the purposes of the statute. Perhaps you could be a test case and help make some law on the subject.

In any case, it's pretty clear that this (a)(5) exception is meant to cover such things as loaning someone a gun to compete in a match or an outfitter renting a client a gun for a guided hunt or loaning a buddy a gun to go target shooting or hunting with you. How it will work in more "creative" application is uncertain until some courts of appeals start ruling on the question.

 

[BSA1]

Government bureaucrats are trained to complete forms exactly the way the agency wants it.

Lawyers answer forms in a way that best benefits their client. It interpertation of the law was the same we would not need lawyers.

Are you counseling the clent to lie on Question 12A?

Another person owns a storage unit.
A friend own a storage unit .i.e. room, gun case.

Both have access to the storage unit. The owner of the rental storage unit can enter it whenever they what with a pair of bullet cutters or saw.

Is the standard is exchange of money for rent?

If the answer to 12A is No then a transfer was not needed. Why would the dealer have the gun?

 

[hermannr]

Hej Frank!

I know, as a lawyer you would want a court ruling...I am going by how another lawyer (our AG) wrote about "temporary" in an opinion he made on what is a "school" for gun purposes. It is a good read if you care to take the time...IMHO, I think he does a very good job of defining "temporary"

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=9238

 

[Frank Ettin]

Government bureaucrats are trained to complete forms exactly the way the agency wants it....

And that has nothing to do with the question nor the application of 18 USC 922(a)(3) or (a)(5). The question is whether a particular act is a transfer of a firearm between residents of different States.

...Are you counseling the clent to lie on Question 12A?...

I have no client, and I'm not counseling anyone to do anything.

...Another person owns a storage unit...

Just as another person owns the apartment you rent. But you continue to possess your property in your apartment. And you continue to possess your property in your rented storage unit.

...The owner of the rental storage unit can enter it whenever they what with a pair of bullet cutters or saw...

Just as your landlord can enter your apartment with the key he retained (or a battering ram). But neither may enter legally, except as permitted by the rental agreement.

The owner of a rental unit may retain a right to enter in an emergency or if the renter defaults. But if he enters under other circumstances, he has violated the rental agreement.

...If the answer to 12A is No then a transfer was not needed. Why would the dealer have the gun?...

A transfer is a transfer of possession. A transfer of possession of a gun, under most circumstances, from a resident of one State to a resident of another State requires under federal law that the transfer take place through an FFL (18 USC 922(a)(3) and (a)(5)).

...I know, as a lawyer you would want a court ruling...I am going by how another lawyer (our AG) wrote about "temporary" in an opinion he made on what is a "school" for gun purposes. It is a good read if you care to take the time...IMHO, I think he does a very good job of defining "temporary"

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=topic&id=9238...

Nice AG Opinion, but completely irrelevant here.

[1] An AG Opinion isn't law, although it might be considered persuasive.

[2] But here the AG of the State of Washington was looking at a particular state statute and was addressing a specific question regarding that statute. It's inapplicable in any other context.

[3] Note that the state statute he was looking at doesn't even include the word "temporary."

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Are you counseling the clent to lie on Question 12A?...

BTW, this seems to be cleared up in the instructions on the form itself. Looking at the electronic copy of the form I have (ATF F 4473 (5300.9) PART I (10-2001)), there are instructions on the second page (headed "IMPORTANT NOTICES") regarding the completion of the form. With respect to question 12 A, the first notice reads (emphasis added):

1. For purposes of this form, you are the actual buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself ...

 

[dogtown tom]

Originally Posted by BSA1
...Are you counseling the clent to lie on Question 12A?...

Which would be difficult...as there is no Question "12A" on a Form 4473.

There IS a Question 11.a, however.

Ya'll need to toss out those outdated 4473's.....you're about four versions behind.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ya'll need to toss out those outdated 4473's.....you're about four versions behind...

Yup, I guess my electronic version is outdated.

Could you perhaps oblige me with a link to a current version? Since I'm not an FFL, I've had to make do with what I could find through a Google search.

Also, could you confirm whether on the current versions there's a note regarding 11a similar to the note I quoted in my post 45?

 

[Texan Scott]

For the original poster: just ask the friend to ship the guns to an FFL in your county of residence. He wants them stored; the cost of transferring them is his responsibility, and a small price to pay to ensure that A) his guns are kept safe while he's gone, and B) that a federally licensed dealer in your county ensures that all legal questions and issues related to your possesion of them are answered and sorted out properly. A real friend won't ask you to jeopardize your legal standing to do him a 'favor', or save a couple bucks. If he's not willing to do it in a way that is UNMISTAKABLY, UNARGUABLY LEGAL, don't do it.

 

[Alland]

I think this is the latest version of the 4473.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think this is the latest version of the 4473.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Thank you. I appreciate it.

And I see that on page 4 of 6, the instructions for completing question 11a (formerly 12A) includes (emphasis added):

...For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself...

That seems to make it crystal clear that the 4473 applies not just to a buyer, but to any transferee.