Family member firing handgun in my name

[Kleanbore]

I maintain that your interpretation of "transfer" is too broad and is not legally applied to these situations, otherwise patrons at gun shows in the Commonwealth would be prohibited from even touching firearms they don't own.

Is that because you you do not believe that the law should be so applied, or do you have a basis for your assertion?

And this doesn't even begin to address the commonality of people handling and shooting each other's firearms at established ranges.

Absent case law, does "commonality" have a legal meaning?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I maintain my position....

How nice for you. Of course that doesn't mean you're correct. And as usual, you're wrong.

Your cited section of PA law does not account for things like picking up and examining a firearm for sale by an FFL at a gun show, for instance....

No, but then again, there's a whole lot more to Pennsylvania gun transfer laws. For example, see
18 PA Cons Stat § 6111(c), emphasis added:

...Any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person shall do so only upon the place of business of a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or county sheriff's office,... The provisions of this section shall not apply to transfers between spouses or to transfers between a parent and child or to transfers between grandparent and grandchild.

In any event, if an FFL is doing business at a gun show (lawfully pursuant to 27 CFR 478.1000), that would be his place of business.

....I maintain that your interpretation of "transfer" is too broad and is not legally applied to these situations,...

So what? Support your position with citation to applicable case law.

... And this doesn't even begin to address the commonality of people handling and shooting each other's firearms at established ranges....

How would you know? We've already established your profound ignorance of what the actual, relevant laws are.

 

[General Geoff]

How would you know?

Good question, I will return to this thread once I have consulted a Pennsylvania attorney regarding my concerns.

Carry on gentlemen.

 

[Kleanbore]

Good question, I will return to this thread once I have consulted a Pennsylvania attorney regarding my concerns.

That will be a good time for you to obtain a ciation of case law or other v=basis for the opinion.

The troublesome thing here lies in the question of why the legislature would have specifically excepted "the loaning or giving of a firearm to another in one's dwelling or place of business if the firearm is retained within the dwelling or place of business..." from the prohibition had they not intended the law to apply everywhere else.

If this has not been addressed already by the courtw=, and if the definition of "transfer" has not been established, one can expect the subject to hinge upon that very question--but only if there is a conviction, an appeal, and a precedential court ruling on the appeal.

Until that happens' or unless it already has, or until the legislature ahas amended the code, any opinion that there may be other exceptions would be pure conjecture.

 

[mavracer]

No, but then again, there's a whole lot more to Pennsylvania gun transfer laws. For example, see
18 PA Cons Stat § 6111(c), emphasis added:

Again that is for the sale or transfer of ownership. They don't have to fill out a 4473 and perform a NICS check every time they let someone hold a gun.
If you want to say this applies to some temporary transfer, loan or rental please cite some case law where it does.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Again that is for the sale or transfer of ownership....

Cite legal authority supporting that contention.

Note possession is broader than ownership. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):

...The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession.... Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,...

...If you want to say this applies to some temporary transfer, loan or rental please cite some case law where it does.

The plain language of the statutes support that conclusion. In addition, various state laws set out express exceptions for certain temporary transfers. So, as noted above for just two examples, Pennsylvanian law has an express exception from the transfer formalities certain temporary transfers in one's home or place of business; and California law as express exceptions to cover loans to family member (Penal Code 27880) and rental of firearms at ranges (Penal Code 27735).

 

[Kleanbore]

If you want to say this applies to some temporary transfer, loan or rental please cite some case law where it does.

The law provides an exception for loans (which are by definition temporary) of firearms retained in a dwelling or place of business. Does that not imply that other loans are prohibited?

The absence of case law does not prove anything--it leaves the question to be answered.

Yeah it's gonna be tough to pull up something that doesn't exist to prove that it doesn't exist.

Obviously, one cannot prove a negative.

It would be a lot easier if you would just cite a case where a spouse was charged with a crime for allowing a "non prohibited" spouse temporary use of a gun in PA.

Doesn't the law make an exception for transfers between spouses?

Charges or the lack thereof do not establish legality.

 

[mavracer]

Cite legal authority supporting that contention.

I can't site a legal authority for something that doesn't exist.
You only need to fill out a 4473 if you transfer ownership. If you have some proof otherwise please so it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I can't site a legal authority for something that doesn't exist.
You only need to fill out a 4473 if you transfer ownership. If you have some proof otherwise please so it.

Phooey!

The applicable federal statute requiring that dealer do the background check (18 USC 922(t)) reads:

...(1)Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless ....

So the statute refers to "transfer", not "sell".

 

[Kleanbore]

You only need to fill out a 4473 if you transfer ownership.

The question was about a transfer of a firearm under a law that also addresses transfer of ownership with a Form 4473, loans, and other things.

It is unfortunate that the legislature did not take the time to codify something less subject to confusion. That leaves it up to the courts, who decide only after there has been a conviction and an appeal based on the issue at hand.

 

[Kleanbore]

unless there is a state law that controls temporary loans for lawful purpose they're legal.

Yes indeed--In PA, it's as long as the firearms are retained within the residence or place of business, or within some other specific exceptions.

Have we not been through that?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Legal Forum Guidelines require citation to legal authority when appropriate. Posters have been starting to forget the need to support their opinions when dealing with legal issues.

A number of posts have been deleted, and this is now closed.