I just talked to the BATF&E ...

[rangermonroe]

I cannot understand why this thought process even exists.

Your mom gave you some of your dad's property, and you called the government to ask permission to have it.

Mom gave it to you, it is now yours. I am assuming that it is not an NFA weapon, nor "registered". As a long arm, it is now yours to drive around all over the USA.

Why ask the fed gov if you can take it home? Your mom didn't have to give you a bill of sale, background check, or a 4473, did she? There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

 

[buzz_knox]

There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

It's their business because there is a federal law on point, and which states that however a person obtains a weapon (except for the narrow category of inheritance) it constitutes a covered transaction.

 

[HKUSP45C]

I cannot understand why this thought process even exists.

Your mom gave you some of your dad's property, and you called the government to ask permission to have it.

Mom gave it to you, it is now yours. I am assuming that it is not an NFA weapon, nor "registered". As a long arm, it is now yours to drive around all over the USA.

Why ask the fed gov if you can take it home? Your mom didn't have to give you a bill of sale, background check, or a 4473, did she? There is no 'transaction', and therefore none of their business.

I understand your frustration. She hasn't given it to me yet. I called to make sure she wouldn't be violating Federal law by doing so. I didn't "ask permission to have it" I simply wanted clarification of existing Federal law. It isn't as if I don't think I have a right to own it. I do, however, want to keep my mom, and myself, out of prison.

Since Federal law actually covers this "transaction" (and it is one, contrary to intuitive scrutiny) I wanted to make sure I understood what it said.

This means to make a gift via a will. My understanding is that the gift being made here is not being done via a will, so the transfer would still require going through an FFL.

There are actually 2 definitions of that word:
1. to dispose of (personal property, esp. money) by last will: She bequeathed her half of the company to her niece.
2. to hand down; pass on.

I'd say this transaction, even if it wasn't covered by "intestate succesion" would be covered by definition number two.

But then I don't pretend to be a lawyer or an expert on Federal firearms law .... that's why I called the ATF

 

[DirksterG30]

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

An agency that is given the task of infringing on a liberty guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to "not be infringed" is by it's nature evil.

That is the heart of the matter. The same goes for all these other unelected, largely unaccountable alphabet soup agencies that exist outside of the federal government's enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[Lupinus]

Was it left to you specifically in the will? Or as part of a general "personal property goes to..." general leaving of property. If it wasn't in the will as being left to you legally speaking it needs to go through an FFL because it is a gift, not something left to you in the legal sense. Now if you want to thumb your nose and say it's none of their buisness thats fine and well and your buisness.

 

[MrPeter]

If I were in your shoes, I would probably not be so responsible. I would ask my mom to lock the gun in a case, lock the gun with a trigger or action lock, and lock the trunk, and don't give any reason to have your car searched!

Just because you don't agree with a law or set of laws, does not justify not following them though. What can I say? I'm a little torn, but tend to lean toward the lazy side

 

[Aguila Blanca]

bequest or intestate succession

Still on the borderline, be careful.....
I'm paranoid so I'd go so far as to have mom write all that down somewhere.

Have mom write what down?

Mom can't write anything down. If his father specifically left the rifle to him in his will, it's a bequest. If his father died with NO will, it's intestate succession. If his father died leaving a will that either didn't mention the rifle, or left everything to his wife, or in any other way failed to convey the rifle specifically to his son ... picking up the rifle in NJ and driving across state lines with it is illegal. In short -- if the deceased left a will, there is NO intestate succession.

 

[Lupinus]

Aguila-
That's the thing, everything said points to dad didn't specifically leave him the rifle as either a specific statement or a general leaving of a bulk group of property "all firearms" "all other personal property" etc. Everything said points that it was left to mom or no one in particular and mom is giving it to him. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that and it was in some way shape or form left to him specifically in a will. If it was it's perfectly legal if not....

Just because that BATFE guy said it is fine does not mean you are legally safe, if by some chance you get caught "well so and so at the BATFE office said..." doesn't stand up in court. Even in writing you can still get in hot water. Like I said before you can thumb your nose at the goverment if you want, in fact more power to you if you so feel the need cause the law is BS. But make that decision informed with the fact that if that rifle was not listed going to you in a will and it is simply mom giving it to you taking it without doing paperwork is illegal.

 

[Hook686]

All this member bashing ???

Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by

DirksterG30 Today 08:50 AM

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

An agency that is given the task of infringing on a liberty guaranteed by our Bill of Rights to "not be infringed" is by it's nature evil.

That is the heart of the matter. The same goes for all these other unelected, largely unaccountable alphabet soup agencies that exist outside of the federal government's enumerated powers as spelled out in the Constitution.

Everyone knows, or ought know, that it is a court of competent jurisdiction that determines what is legal, and what is not. Certainly not government employees, in a government agency, even if they think they have such powers, really do not have the power, or wisdom, for ruling on matters of law.

I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee. If the question is about an agencies regulation, then ask away, as I understand it it the agency that is the authority on their own regulations, not the court.

Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen.

 

[pacodelahoya]

The problem isn't that the BATFE is rude and will kick down your door and stomp on your puppy.

The problem is that the BATFE exists.

Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by

Where is the bashing?? We don't have a Department of Philosophy and Religion do we? The poster didn't say that the BATFE is full of Nazi SS wannabes did he? No, he simply said that the Agency and many others should not exist as they are unconstitutional.

One may say about your statement that it is intentionally inflammatory. But would that make it true?

 

[buzz_knox]

Everyone knows, or ought know, that it is a court of competent jurisdiction that determines what is legal, and what is not. Certainly not government employees, in a government agency, even if they think they have such powers, really do not have the power, or wisdom, for ruling on matters of law.

Actually, federal agencies who are granted the authority to issue regulations interpreting federal laws within their purview are granted considerable discretion by the courts where said regulations are concerned. So, unless the agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by any rational argument, the court will defer to what the agency says is legal.

By the way, the agency has the discretion to disavow agent's actions, by stating that the agent was wrong and the person should have known the agent was wrong.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If his father specifically left the rifle to him in his will, it's a bequest. If his father died with NO will, it's intestate succession. If his father died leaving a will that either didn't mention the rifle, or left everything to his wife, or in any other way failed to convey the rifle specifically to his son ... picking up the rifle in NJ and driving across state lines with it is illegal.

No that's not necessarily true. Intestate succession means there was no will so you can't automatically assume mom will get everything. She's likely the executor and if she has been given authority to distribute the estate then it most certainly is intestate succession.

Sounded like from the previous readings there was no will.

So, if mom is the executor then she needs to write something down for him, as I said. This isn't hard from the estates standpoint, it's only made hard becuase NJ is run by morons.

IANAL and all that, but I've been through this no will crap and it's nasty.


The lesson here for everyone : Write a will, even if it's just a simple little thing.

 

[DirksterG30]

Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by...

Hook686, how is observing that the BATFE is unconstitutional bashing?

I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee.

Don't you think it is reasonable that the agency that enforces a certain law should know what that law is? Maybe I am a bit unrealistic, but I do expect the BATFE to KNOW the laws they are charged with enforcing.

Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen.

Please explain what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Seems to me it is irrelevant who any of us voted for.

 

[Lupinus]

Texas-
If there is no will, this can vary sometimes by state law so this is generaly speaking, the spouse or next of kin legally gets everything. They can distribute this as they wish but it isn't in the legal capacity of executing a will.

 

[buzz_knox]

Texas-
If there is no will, this can vary sometimes by state law so this is generaly speaking, the spouse or next of kin legally gets everything. They can distribute this as they wish but it isn't in the legal capacity of executing a will.

The reality of the situation may be that in the absence of a will or specific bequest, the difficulty and expense of transferring through an FFL is far less than that associated with hiring a lawyer to work out the issues of whether an FFL is necessary.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Have we honestly sunk so far into the goo that a son cannot take possession of his father's rifle without having to hire a lawyer
Every time I think we have hit bottom, there is yet another lower rung to this abyss.

 

[buzz_knox]

This "rung" has been in place since 1968.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

This "rung" has been in place since 1968.

True, but I doubt that many law enforcement personal back in '68 would have thought that getting Dad's rifle needed a lawyer to do it (as I am sure that is not what the "spirit" of the law is about).

 

[45Badger]

Enjoy the rifle and have a great road trip.

 

[buzz_knox]

True, but I doubt that many law enforcement personal back in '68 would have thought that getting Dad's rifle needed a lawyer to do it (as I am sure that is not what the "spirit" of the law is about).

Actually, the letter of the law deals with the issue. If the rifle passed through a will, bequest, or intestate succession, then it may be transferred without an FFL. If the rifle passed to the mother, who then decided to pass it along, it may not be transferred across state lines except through an FFL. So, the spirit and the letter of the law are absolutely consistent: no transfer of firearms across state lines from one non-licensed person to another non-licensed person.

And it doesn't require a lawyer to get the rifle. That's only if you want to use the exception in the law which requires you to know and understand the various state inheritance laws at issue. If not, send it through an FFL.

Having wills isn't recommended just because lawyer want to get paid. It's also recommended because so much of the legal structure around property deals with how to dispose of property upon one's departure from this mortal coil, and a will is a great way of avoiding problems that will arise with almost absolute certainty if a will is not in evidence.

 

[Dr. Dickie]

Having wills isn't recommended just because lawyer want to get paid. It's also recommended because so much of the legal structure around property deals with how to dispose of property upon one's departure from this mortal coil, and a will is a great way of avoiding problems that will arise with almost absolute certainty if a will is not in evidence.

I understand what you are saying Buzz, but you contradict yourself (to me). There is "so much legal structure" because a lawyer wants to get paid.

 

[busdriver72]

Look out the window! They're here!

 

[Hook686]

Today, 09:12 AM #38

DirksterG30


wrote:
Quote:
Why all the bashing each other and Government employees, such as by...

Hook686, how is observing that the BATFE is unconstitutional bashing?

Quote:
I'm not sure who is more a 'dull tool', the government employee giving a legal interpretation, or the citizen asking for one, from the government employee.

Don't you think it is reasonable that the agency that enforces a certain law should know what that law is? Maybe I am a bit unrealistic, but I do expect the BATFE to KNOW the laws they are charged with enforcing.


Quote:
Did you vote for George Bush ? If you are reading this, you most likely did, so go easy on your fellow citizen.

Please explain what this has to do with the discussion at hand. Seems to me it is irrelevant who any of us voted for.

Dirkster, my post was not intended to flame, or repudiate another. It is simply my thought that I am not a court of competent jurisdiction, so it matters not what I think is reasonable, or unreasonable. If the court has ruled on it, it seems to me the constitutional process alluded to, has been duely served. For me to reject that decision, in deference to my personal opinion, strikes me as rather counter-constitutional.

My post was more along the lines of getting sound legal opinion, as opposed to surveying forums, or agencies by telephone.

The reference to George Bush and the vast majority that are alleged to have mandated his agenda had to do with what I have observed to be an increase in the power of federal administrative law, as practiced, and a reduction in constitutional law, as referenced in this post. My personal observation, not a legal decision.

 

[lance22]

Apples n' Oranges

You call somebody on the phone and the clerk is polite. Wow. Thank you for sharing.

I guess that polite clerk undoes the reality of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and thousands of less publicized but equally as outrageous confiscations of private property by that agency. Hey ... if they suspected, even a llittle, that one of your shotguns had a barrel 1/8 of an inch too short, you would see a very differnt face than the one painted by that clerk.

 

[F4GIB]

They didn't do any of the things I'd been led to believe are SOP such as:
Stomp my puppies.
Burn down my house.
Imprison me without a lawyer (or food and water).
Declare me an enemy non-combatant.
Revoke my citizenship.

These are hard to accomplish even for a federal government agency over the telephone. Just wait for your next home 'visit" (er ... inspection).