Quantcast

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION FOR FFL OR ATF LURKER

Discussion in 'Legal' started by TEX, Dec 8, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TEX

    TEX Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    90
    Years ago (1985-1990) I knew two gentlemen that were in the situation described below. They handled it (several times) by simply Fedex-ing the items back and forth labeled as machined parts. I told them it was a bad idea, but lost touch with them quite some time ago and so don’t know if it ever caused them a problem. Over the years I have posed the question to a number of FFL dealers and, predictably, they said it should be shipped both ways to an FFL and a yellow form filled out. Emailed the ATF about once, but never got a reply.

    The Situation

    A man passes away in Oklahoma. He has two sons, one living in Arkansas and the other living in California. At the time the fellow passes on he owned two firearms; a pistol and a shotgun. After burying Pop in Oklahoma the brothers decide they should each have 50% ownership of both firearms. California son decides he wants the pistol for now and the Arkansas son decides he wants the shotgun for now. So each son departs, by car, for home with the firearm of their choice. A year later they both mutually decide that they would swap firearms for awhile, but don’t wish to drive to one or the other’s state. Three questions, maybe four;

    1.Was assuming 50% ownership legal at a Federal level, or would they have to make a choice and take 100% ownership of one of the firearms?

    2.Was driving each firearm to their state of residence, and crossing state lines, and never filling out any BATF forms at a FFL, legal at a Federal level for the pistol, for the shotgun?

    3.Now that they have decided to swap for awhile, and not wishing to drive the distance, what is the least troublesome way to accomplish the swap and stay within the law?

    TEX
     
  2. Fly320s

    Fly320s Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,827
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I'm not a FFL or an ATF agent.

    Answers:

    1. Yes. There are no laws that I am aware of that restrict ownership to just one person.

    2. No, not legal. A person may only take possession of a handgun in that person's state of residence. A long gun may be transferred to an individual in a state other than that individual's state of residence, but it must be through an FFL. Since neither brother was a resident of OK, and no FFL was used to transfer the guns, then it wasn't a legal transfer under current laws.

    3. The only way to swap would be to do the full transfer through a FFL.

    Now, since all the official answers are finished, here's my two cents. Tell the brothers to help get the laws changed. And keep their mouths shut about the previous swapping.
     
  3. TEX

    TEX Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    90
    Thanks for the reply Fly320s. I told them it sounded like a mine field to me. My understanding is that they can inherit a firearm without doing the paperwork, but since they lived in different states at the time, I suppose the Kosher way would have been to go to a Oklahoma FFL and have him ship it to a FFL in thier state and then do the paperwork in each of their respective states. As far as swapping with 50% ownership, I bet you could call 5 different ATF offices and get 2-3 different answers.

    However, and this is not actually the way it went down, they could have always claimed that their Dad gave them the guns while they were still living at home in Oklahoma (both 1950 era guns), but they chose to leave them in their Dad's safe keeping. So, technically, they would have already owned them, they were just retreiving them and taking them home after Pop passed away. Academic at this point, but interesting.
     
  4. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Absent any documentary evidence to the effect, I think they would be fighting a long, uphill and costly battle, assuming, of course, that this came to the attention of the authorities.
     
  5. cropcirclewalker

    cropcirclewalker member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    In the Woods close to Arkansas
    They could both get C&R licenses for like $30.00 each (I don't know fer sure how much) and since both firearms are '50s vintage they both qualify as C&R (at least by 2009) so they could transfer them back and forth at will.

    Provided they logged them in and out like .gov wants. :D

    Thirty some bux is lots cheaper than driving back and forth every year or whatever.

    Sometimes I am so clever that it makes my jaw hurt.
     
  6. Fly320s

    Fly320s Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,827
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Good idea, Crop.

    Just make sure that both guns are California legal.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice