Selling gun cross State lines

[Birch Knoll]

I've sold a bunch of guns to people that do not live in my state. I normally just mail or ship them into the state where they live. Sometimes they come here and just get it from me. It's all good.

I wouldn't say it's all good. Did you not know that was illegal, or did you not care?

 

[BK]

I wouldn't say it's all good. Did you not know that was illegal, or did you not care?

You assume too much. Or maybe you aren't assuming enough. Either way, it's definitely all good here.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Ya, ok... you're an FFL.

 

[CollinLeon]

You didn't read the law.
What you propose above is a felony and federal law is pretty darn clear that it is.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unli...ensed-transfer
Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State.

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.

Not the statement "A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law"... As such, one could easily make an argument that a 99 year rental would be perfectly legal.

Besides, 99 years is not *forever*... Just ask the Brits about their Hong Kong lease... [snicker]

 

[GMcBoozer]

Overall the "99 year rental" sounds like a bad idea. I also think the person who originally said it in this thread was half joking. But who knows, right?

 

[CollinLeon]

Overall the "99 year rental" sounds like a bad idea. I also think the person who originally said it in this thread was half joking. But who knows, right?

Actually, I was the one who originally said it... Yeah, it was a bit tongue in cheek, but if you look at the actual written text from the ATF website, there's nothing prohibiting it. I'm an engineer... If you don't write your requirements document properly and you leave loopholes, you have no reason to complain when you get something that meets your written requirements, but doesn't do what you really want...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Not the statement "A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law"... As such, one could easily make an argument that a 99 year rental would be perfectly legal....

But it's still a lousy idea and unlikely to be upheld or even useful.

[1] You'll have a hard time convincing a judge that a 99 year lease is temporary for a lawful sporting purpose. I suspect that when congressional intent is researched there will be evidence that the kind of arrangement contemplated is something on the order of a shooting range that rents guns for brief periods of use on premises, outfitters who might rent guns to clients for a few day's use during a guided hunt, or the fellow loaning his visiting friend a gun so they could go hunting or target shooting.

[2] And while one could make the argument that a 99 year lease is not forever and is therefore okay, a judge doesn't have to go along. Do you have any legal authority to suggest that a judge might actually buy that bridge?

[3] And while 18 USC 922(a)(5) allows one to temporarily loan or rent a gun to someone from another State (for a lawful sporting purpose), 18 USC 922(a)(3) still makes it illegal for him to take it back home with him.

 

[CollinLeon]

[3] And while 18 USC 922(a)(5) allows one to temporarily loan or rent a gun to someone from another State (for a lawful sporting purpose), 18 USC 922(a)(3) still makes it illegal for him to take it back home with him.

But his taking it back home with him would be his problem, not mine. <evil-grin>

Hypothetically, could not a person take their firearm across state lines and then rent that firearm to a person in that state?

Just shows you how much BS we have to go through because the leftists don't understand that the Founding Fathers really meant what they said when they said "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". They didn't put any exceptions in there... None whatsoever... Even the people on the right have become so used to the infringements upon our 2nd Amendment rights that they think that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to restrict certain firearms or restrict certain people from having firearms. If you believe in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, then you should realize that EVERY firearm law that came after the 2nd Amendment is obviously unconstitutional.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Just shows you how much BS we have to go through because the leftists don't understand that the Founding Fathers really meant what they said when they said "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

As a practical matter, it's really not difficult as long as one understands the rules. I've bought a number of guns outside my home State with the transfer handled, by prior arrangement, by an accommodating, local FFL.

...Even the people on the right have become so used to the infringements upon our 2nd Amendment rights that they think that it is perfectly acceptable for the government to restrict certain firearms or restrict certain people from having firearms....

It's well settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation. There are many example even with respect to the RKBA, going back to the early 19th Century (as cited in the majority opinion of SCOUTUS in Heller).

...If you believe in the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, then you should realize that EVERY firearm law that came after the 2nd Amendment is obviously unconstitutional.

In the real world, a law isn't unconstitutional unless and until a proper court says so. Your opinion on the question is irrelevant. An opinion of a court on a matter of law, including, for example, the constitutionality of a law, will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such things, and $2.00, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The Constitution provides, in Article III:

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,....

You're welcome to live in your alternate universe. But if you wish to live in your alternate universe, you're in no position to give people advice on how to conduct their business in the real world. You'll get them into trouble.

 

[Art Eatman]

Nuthin' like thread drift during the night...