Shipping rifles to Alaska???

Status
Not open for further replies.

larry_minn

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
1,455
Location
Minnesota
Relative was given guns from his dad decades ago. Father has been storing them as son moving around in AK. (and has guns he wants with him up there/ set at his folks in CO)
With CO new laws he is concerned. (the giving was done decades ago, written down, signed....)
So my question is. My understanding is you can mail/ship guns to yourself in country. COULD I (as his unpaid agent) box up his rifles, ship HIS RIFLES to him???
Or would they have to go to FFL in AK? (some are really not worth shipping/ FFL fees....) I was hoping to put 2-3 rifles in each package.. :)
 
They would have to go through an FFL. Period. End of story.

Also, I recommend the rifles be in a padded soft case inside their box. Shippers can be real monkeys, and occasionally you'll run into an anti-gun employee who deliberately damages guns (my shotgun's choke suffered damage during shipping that could only be intentional).
 
larry_minn
....So my question is.....COULD I (as his unpaid agent) box up his rifles, ship HIS RIFLES to him???
Paid or unpaid, an "agent" has no more leeway under Federal law than anyone else........so, NO you cannot ship a firearm interstate directly to another person.

Ownership of the firearms does not matter, possession does.

Or would they have to go to FFL in AK? (some are really not worth shipping/ FFL fees....) I was hoping to put 2-3 rifles in each package..
Yep
 
larry_minn said:
Relative was given guns from his dad decades ago. Father has been storing them...
Father has possession and would be transferring possession to someone else. It's therefore an interstate transfer and must, under federal law, go through an FFL.

Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):


Let's look at the statutes:

  1. 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    ...

    (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...

  2. And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
    (a) It shall be unlawful—
    ...

    (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;

larry_minn said:
...some are really not worth shipping/ FFL fees...
Violation of the federal interstate transfer laws can get the transferor and transferee up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine (plus a bonus of a lifetime loss of gun rights). I can't imagine any shipping or FFL fees being more expensive than that.
 
Of course, if the son flew back to Colorado for a visit, he could then take possession and make the shipment to himself back in Alaska.
 
Yeah he should just do it himself on a visit. That's how I've dealt with the issue before. CAVEAT--that's assuming he didn't transfer possession.
 
Last edited:
Of course, if the son flew back to Colorado for a visit, he could then take possession and make the shipment to himself back in Alaska.

No, he may not. That would mean he took (illegal) possession BEFORE a legal transfer was done.
 
Of course, if the son flew back to Colorado for a visit, he could then take possession and make the shipment to himself back in Alaska.

Thats what I suggested. That with savings in FFL fees, him being able to take many back in checked bags... it would pay for his trip. There are some screwy dynamics going on. (like most families) and I want to keep FIL from getting into trouble.
I hinted yrs ago when he was down to take a couple back. He didn't want to bother.
I "knew" I couldn't ship them to him except thru FFL. From everything I had read. Just thought it couldn't hurt to ask if anyone knew of exception. (that I could check out) I would NOT try to slip them "under radar"
I know they are son's as I recall first time I visited/saw gun cabinet he said "These were my guns, I gave them to my son....."But he wouldn't mind you looking at them."
 
Did he transfer them to his father in CO? If so that would be correct. But it sounded like he was just storing them in Colorado.

Here's an example. If I go to Oregon and ship arms to myself from Alaska, I pick them up and stick them in the attic of my parent's house for my own use down there. Several years later I decide to send them back so I reverse the process. It is my understanding that no transfer took place to anyone but me. Though I do make that extra clear by locking them up and keeping the key. It is in effect a gratuitous lease of a little spot of attic space with no physical access to the firearms themselves by anyone but me. That's distinct from, say, tossing your firearms in your dad's gun closet without any clear understanding of what that meant. Is my method enough? I hope so, but I don't know.

The real question here, and this may be something to clear up from the BATFE, is how they view the law of bailment in the context of firearm transfers. There's an often confusing legal zone between something like a storage unit, which is typically not a bailment, and say storing your unlocked, unsecured firearm at an FFL which almost certainly would be a transfer of legal possession. It gets fuzzier when you're talking about family arrangements.
 
Last edited:
smalls???? For some reason it won't let me quote you. Ok now it works.

[Of course, if the son flew back to Colorado for a visit, he could then take possession and make the shipment to himself back in Alaska
/I]


No, he may not. That would mean he took (illegal) possession BEFORE a legal transfer was done.



Why would that be wrong? Son owns guns, he has owned them for decades, while he was still CO resident. (is my understanding)
I stored a gun there for a while myself. Was flying half dozen times a yr easy. So rather then deal with airport I just left pistol, ammo, holster,etc in CO at FILs. (with his permission) I took it back home as his (adult) grandkids were poking thru house when grandparents not home... I had it locked in case, gun cable lock thru barrel.... but hand grinder can remove anything.
My wife left her rifle there for over 20 yrs. (in military) She brought it home. (as transfer was done while she was CO resident) Maybe MI has state laws that require this? Mn and CO do not (that I am aware of)
 
Cosmoline said:
Did he transfer them to his father in CO?...
Of course he did. There would have been no formalities required. The father now has possession. Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

If one wants to store guns with someone, he should assure that whoever he stores them with does not have access to them, e. g., in a locked case to which the other person doesn't have a key. That's why ATF advises that when you ship your guns to yourself in care of someone else the person receiving them should be instructed not to open the package.

Cosmoline said:
...I pick them up and stick them in the attic of my parent's house for my own use down there. Several years later I decide to send them back so I reverse the process. It is my understanding that no transfer took place to anyone but me...
On what do you base your belief? As noted in the definitions of "transfer", a change is possession, not necessarily ownership, is a transfer. And as used in 18 USC 922(a)(5) "transfer" includes a change in possession even if not a change in ownership.

Possession means:
1 a : the act of having or taking into control...

Cosmoline said:
...Though I do make that extra clear by locking them up and keeping the key. It is in effect a gratuitous lease of a little spot of attic space with no physical access to the firearms themselves by anyone but me...
And that (locking them up so only you have access) can makes all the difference. You should understand that details count.

larry_minn said:
...Son owns guns,..
So what? See above. "Transfer" is about possession, not necessarily ownership.
 
Last edited:
On what do you base your belief?

The lack of any bailment of the firearms and the lack of physical access to the firearms. Unless there's a bailment possession has not changed. Though in hind sight is would seem wise to make things abundantly clear and put it in writing.

I don't know what this guy did with his firearms specifically, and we're getting the information third hand, but if his dad has the guns mixed up in his own stuff and could take them out and shoot them then I think we have bailment at the very least and transfer of possession. As you say the details count, and we don't have the details.
 
Cosmoline said:
The lack of any bailment of the firearms and the lack of physical access to the firearms...
In your situation, as you described it, your guns were locked up so no one but you had physical access. So I'd agree that there was no transfer.

Cosmoline said:
...Unless there's a bailment possession has not changed...
Or access gives possession, and that is a factor from which bailment may be inferred.

Cosmoline said:
...I don't know what this guy did with his firearms specifically, and we're getting the information third hand, but if his dad has the guns mixed up in his own stuff and could take them out and shoot them then I think we have bailment at the very least and transfer of possession. As you say the details count, and we don't have the details.
And since we have no reason to conclude that the father did not have access to, and thus possession of, the guns, I would not assume that he did not. This downside of a mistake in that direction, i. e., incurring unnecessary FFL fees, is much less serious than of a mistake in the other direction, i. e., becoming eligible for up to 5 years in a federal slammer.
 
BATFE actually discusses basically this point in their FAQ on what to do with NFA items if you move to a state that doesn't allow NFA items.

Q: If an individual is changing his or her State of residence and the individual’s application to transport the NFA firearm cannot be approved because of a prohibition in the new State, what options does a lawful possessor have?
NFA firearms may be left in a safe deposit box in his or her former State of residence. Also, the firearm could be left or stored in the former State of residence at the house of a friend or relative in a locked room or container to which only the registered owner has a key. ...
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

If keeping the guns in a locked room or container to which only the owner has the key is good enough for BATFE on machine guns, it seems likely they would accept the same standard for non-NFA items.

I have no idea how that applies to the original question of shipping, but when it comes to storing guns out of state in someone else's home that seems to be BATFE recommended practice/kosher so long as those storing the guns do not have access to them.
 
Interesting theoretical. If person A puts his gun collection into a locked safe in person B's house before moving out-of-state, could person B legally ship the entire locked safe to person A later, without violating federal law?

If so, it could be argued that a hard-sided case with a lock is the same as a safe, and as long as only the owner has the key to it (and it hasn't been picked or broken open), it would be legal for anyone to ship said hard-sided case to the original owner, across state lines. Again, theoretically speaking.
 
Last edited:
General Geoff Interesting theoretical. If person A puts his gun collection into a locked safe in person B's house before moving out-of-state, could person B legally ship the entire locked safe to person A later, without violating federal law?
Absolutely not.
That would still be an interstate shipment of firearms and subject to the same regulations as any other shipment.

If so, it could be argued that a hard-sided case with a lock is the same as a safe, and as long as only the owner has the key to it (and it hasn't been picked or broken open), it would be legal for anyone to ship said hard-sided case to the original owner, across state lines. Again, theoretically speaking.
You could argue that, but you would lose.;)
 
That would still be an interstate shipment of firearms and subject to the same regulations as any other shipment.

How is a locked container any different from a sealed shipping package?

Basically what I'm getting at is that if person A puts a rifle into a shipping container, seals it, addresses it to himself, and puts postage on it, then that shipping package could sit for months or years and still be given to a courier by any party, and be shipped legally across state lines to person A. What you're saying is that only person A is allowed to put it in a shipping container, regardless of access to the firearm? What's so special about a cardboard box with name and address on it?
 
So under Dogtown's theory, it works like this...

You can drive your cased/locked rifle to another state, leave it at a friend's house in that state, and return home to your own state. As long as you retain the keys to the case, no transfer has taken place.

You can then get on an airplane, fly back to your friend's place, pack the cased rifle up in a box and ship it via UPS to yourself care of a hotel in Alaska where you plan to stay. No transfer has taken place.

But the hotel cannot ship the unopened box back to you in your home state. You would need to go to the hotel and send it to yourself.
 
You can drive your cased/locked rifle to another state, leave it at a friend's house in that state, and return home to your own state. As long as you retain the keys to the case, no transfer has taken place.

No, because you can't leave it under your friend's possession without a transfer.

Whether he knows it's a firearm or not is irrelevant. Just like being in possession of stolen goods, you don't really need to know they're stolen to get pinched.

I know a lot of us are either broke or just cheap, but with very few exceptions you are NOT going to get around FFL fees. Legally, anyway.
 
No, because...

The BATFE specifically disagrees with you. They say the friend does not have possession because they do not have the key/access and therefore it is not a transfer.
 
Citation, please?

Something tells me the BATFE doesn't want people just leaving guns wherever the hell they please, locks or no locks.
 
Right, but that gun started in State A, and cannot be brought to State B.

We're now talking about taking the gun from State B to State A, and leaving it.

Minor difference, but still a difference. And I'm not convinced it'll fly.
 
The theory behind why it flies is what matters. It comes back to what the lawyers call bailment.

I can rent a safe deposit box in another state and store guns there. They are not transferred to the bank simply because they are stored by a bank, because the bank has no access. Same is true for a friend's house. If I forklift my gun safe into a friend's garage I am not transferring those guns in a legal sense...unless I also give them the combo to the safe.

That's why you can legally ship a gun to yourself at the hotel in Alaska. The actual recipient (some employee of the hotel) is not the legal recipient and does not have access to the gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top