Legally ship a firearm to yourself
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
- Status
Very likely, and transfer with sale
Most likely. So I'll reprise my usual explanation.
The federal laws relating to the transfer of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another (i. e., the Gun Control Act of 1968 or GCA68) are about physical possession, not ownership. GCA68 was Congress' responding to enormous public pressure after the assassinations by gunfire of three wildly popular public figures -- JFK, RFK and MLK. The law was intended to regulate and control the interstate transfer of firearms. It was structured so that to the extent reasonably possible any transfer of possession of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another would have to go through an FFL.
And in the context of the concerns intended to be addressed by Congress through GCA68, it's possession and not ownership that matters. Someone who has a gun in his possession can use it, whether or not he has legal title to it.
- The federal laws I'm referring to are about possession, not necessarily ownership.
- Possession means:
- And let's look at federal case law addressing what possession means. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
- Transfer is also about possession, not ownership.
Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/transfer:
- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transferred:
- http://law.yourdictionary.com/transfer:
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/transfer:
- Let's look at the statutes:
- 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
- And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
- 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
- Note carefully the words of those statutes. Words, like "transport", "receive", "obtained", "transfer", "give", "transport", and "deliver" do not necessarily imply ownership and include possession. They will be read and applied by a court according to their ordinary meanings. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 (United States Supreme Court, 1979), at 42:
- Possession means:
Could be. How is that relevant?
deadin
Member
Well, it's said that ignorance of the law is no defense, so anybody that has read this thread doesn't even have that as an excuse...
To be fair, that saying originally referred to malum in se, rather than malum prohibitum laws. It was supposed to be logical. But you're right. That's a moot point now.
CapnMac
Member
Sadly, this applies to great rafts of law.
Which is a consequence of our heavily legislated society.
Many of us are familiar with the hoary old saw about there being 22,000 "gun laws" on the books, then don't consider the impact upon each of us, individually, in great depth. Which is entirely understandable--life is complicated and requires great attention to many, many details.
18 USC 922 offers us no relief for inconvenience, or for lack of common enforcement; it simply is the law.
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,507
Agreed. Seems the question was asked, answers were given. Don't like the answers then there are two choices, abide by the law or not. Pretty simple.
There are a whole host of laws that don't make any sense, and are broken every day, doesn't make them any less of law in the eyes of the judge.
That is irrelevant and completely meaningless.
And the fact that one lawyer hasn’t seen something doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened or won’t happen.
i dont see the upside in not transferring the firearm through an FFL in Virginia. It costs a few bucks but its worth it not to potentially face a felony charge. theres always a chance an unforeseen occurance or circumstance could bring it to light penny wise and pound foolish.
Interesting and not at all surprising but still not relevant to this discussion on this particular forum.
I believe that the OP's question has been answered and that this one has drifted far enough.
- Status
