Shipping a handgun across state lines

Status
Not open for further replies.

MoreIsLess

Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
734
Location
Atlanta, GA
A family member of mine who lives in SC accidentally left a handgun at my house (I live in GA) while visiting. They would like to get it back without driving 5 hrs. to pick it up. Can I ship it to them via FFL even though I am not the owner of the gun?
 
Yes. Just go to the FFL with the gun and the information on the receiving FFL (and on the recipient of the gun) and tell him you want to ship it. The FFL will direct you from there.
 
A family member of mine who lives in SC accidentally left a handgun at my house (I live in GA) while visiting. They would like to get it back without driving 5 hrs. to pick it up. Can I ship it to them via FFL even though I am not the owner of the gun?
Neither of those states keep a record of who owns a particular firearm. One thing to consider is that there are plenty of FFL's who don't know the laws regarding shipping guns. That being the case, I wouldn't bring up who actually owns the gun.
 
This isn't what you asked, but I'd find a range about halfway between where you two live and meet up one Saturday for a fun range day and give it back to him then.
Shipping and paperwork are a hassle.

I'm sure there's a perfectly legal way to do it, but I won't even pretend to know the laws of those states regarding such matters.
 
I would not ship a gun to save a 5 hour drive. FFL's on both ends will charge a fee, plus the time involved in the transactions themselves, getting an NCIS check, etc. A better plan would be to each drive and meet in the middle for lunch.

Edit: I retract this advice due to the legalities involved.
 
Last edited:
This isn't what you asked, but I'd find a range about halfway between where you two live and meet up one Saturday for a fun range day and give it back to him then.
Shipping and paperwork are a hassle.

I'm sure there's a perfectly legal way to do it, but I won't even pretend to know the laws of those states regarding such matters.

The problem is that there really isn't a good way that satisfies federal law -- without going through an FFL.

Leaving your gun with someone in another State is highly problematic under federal law.

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.

Leaving your gun with someone is a transfer. It certainly is under federal law, and would also most likely be also considered a transfer under state laws (and it could also be an illegal transfer under state and/or federal law). That's just what "transfer" means.

  1. In general, any transfer of a firearm from a resident of one State to a resident of another must go through an FFL who will follow all usual formalities (e. g., completion of the 4473). There are a few limited, narrow, specific exceptions: if you have an appropriate federal firearms license; inheritance by will or intestate succession; or a loan (subject to a number of limitations which will be discussed in more detail below).

  2. The applicable federal statutes are: 18 USC 922(a)(3); 18 USC 922(a)(5); and 18 USC 922 (b)(3). The full texts of those statutes may be found here.

  3. The federal laws I've cited are about possession, not necessarily ownership.

    • Possession means:
      1 a : the act of having or taking into control...

    • Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

      Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):


    • Let's look at the statutes:

      • 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...

      • And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
        (a) It shall be unlawful—
        ...

        (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides..;

    • 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:
      ...A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning...

  4. With regard to loans under GCA68, let's look at the applicable statutes again:

    • 18 USC 922(a)(3), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (3) for any person, ... to transport into or receive in the State where he resides ...any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State,...

    • And 18 USC 922(a)(5), which provides in pertinent part (emphasis added) as follows:
      (a) It shall be unlawful—
      ...

      (5) for any person ... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person ...who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to

      (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest ..., and

      (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;​
      ..

    • So under federal law a resident of one State may loan a gun to a resident of another State, but only temporarily and only for a lawful sporting purpose.


    • So a court is likely to look at the "temporary loan for a lawful sporting purpose" exception to the prohibition on interstate transfers to apply when a gun is loaned so that the person it's been loaned to can engage in a specific sporting activity (i. e., a hunt, a competition, etc.) of limited duration. "Temporary" would refer to the duration of that activity. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the common meanings of the words used in the statutes and the underlying purpose (controlling interstate transfers of firearms) of GCA68.

    • So you may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)), a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But since there is no applicable "loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a loan of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence.

  5. Is there no way to store your gun in another State?

    • Leaving a gun with someone in another State clearly raises interstate transfer problems when that person has access to the gun.

    • One possible way to avoid the problem would be to secure the gun or guns in a locked case or similar container to which only you have the key or combination.

    • That might avoid the transfer problem inherent in having someone store your guns, ATF has advised here that one may ship a firearm to himself in care of another person in another State.

      Specifically ATF has said (emphasis added):
      6. May I lawfully ship a firearm to myself in a different State?

      Any person may ship a firearm to himself or herself in the care of another person in the State where he or she intends to hunt or engage in any other lawful activity. The package should be addressed to the owner “in the care of” the out-of-State resident. Upon reaching its destination, persons other than the owner must not open the package or take possession of the firearm.​

  6. Note that violations of federal law regarding interstate transfers are punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine; and since the crime is a felony one will lose his gun rights for the rest of his life.
 
I would not ship a gun to save a 5 hour drive. FFL's on both ends will charge a fee, plus the time involved in the transactions themselves, getting an NCIS check, etc. A better plan would be to each drive and meet in the middle for lunch.

And both the OP and his family member violate federal law, risking up to five years in federal prison and a lifetime loss of gun rights. See post 8.
 
The problem is that there really isn't a good way that satisfies federal law -- without going through an FFL.

Leaving your gun with someone in another State is highly problematic under federal law.

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.

Leaving your gun with someone is a transfer. It certainly is under federal law, and would also most likely be also considered a transfer under state laws (and it could also be an illegal transfer under state and/or federal law). That's just what "transfer" means.

  1. In general, any transfer of a firearm from a resident of one State to a resident of another must go through an FFL who will follow all usual formalities (e. g., completion of the 4473). There are a few limited, narrow, specific exceptions: if you have an appropriate federal firearms license; inheritance by will or intestate succession; or a loan (subject to a number of limitations which will be discussed in more detail below).

  2. The applicable federal statutes are: 18 USC 922(a)(3); 18 USC 922(a)(5); and 18 USC 922 (b)(3). The full texts of those statutes may be found here.

  3. The federal laws I've cited are about possession, not necessarily ownership.
    • Possession means:

    • Transfer is about possession, not ownership.

      Some definitions of "transfer" (emphasis added):

    • 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:

    • 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:

  4. With regard to loans under GCA68, let's look at the applicable statutes again:
    • 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:

    • So under federal law a resident of one State may loan a gun to a resident of another State, but only temporarily and only for a lawful sporting purpose.

    • So a court is likely to look at the "temporary loan for a lawful sporting purpose" exception to the prohibition on interstate transfers to apply when a gun is loaned so that the person it's been loaned to can engage in a specific sporting activity (i. e., a hunt, a competition, etc.) of limited duration. "Temporary" would refer to the duration of that activity. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the common meanings of the words used in the statutes and the underlying purpose (controlling interstate transfers of firearms) of GCA68.

    • So you may go to another State where (under 18 USC 922(a)(5)), a friend may loan you a gun to, for example, go target shooting together, or an outfitter may rent you a gun for a guided hunt. But since there is no applicable "loan" exception in 18 USC 922(a)(3), a loan of a firearm may not cross state lines to the borrower's State of residence.

  5. Is there no way to store your gun in another State?
    • Leaving a gun with someone in another State clearly raises interstate transfer problems when that person has access to the gun.

    • One possible way to avoid the problem would be to secure the gun or guns in a locked case or similar container to which only you have the key or combination.

    • That might avoid the transfer problem inherent in having someone store your guns, ATF has advised here that one may ship a firearm to himself in care of another person in another State.

      Specifically ATF has said (emphasis added):

  6. Note that violations of federal law regarding interstate transfers are punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine; and since the crime is a felony one will lose his gun rights for the rest of his life.
Given all of that, what, in your opinion, should the OP and his family member do?
 
Not sure why you'd say that. On this forum, you and Frank regularly provide legal advice on what people should and should not do and why.

No, we don’t provide legal advice.

What constitutes the practice of law and legal advice is certainly understood by the lawyers here, including Spats, rust collector, and me. And we take care not to practice law or give legal advice.

We’ll leave it at that. A further discussion would be outside the scope of THR.

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.
 
Frank has graciously listed the statutes around possession vs ownership regarding interstate firearm ownership. In a practical sense, the family member did violate federal law by leaving a firearm behind. In essence transferred to you even through neglect. Talk to a few FFLs in your area. One might be willing to ship the firearm back if you explain the story. Or don't and just say it is your firearm, because by federal law it is. I have shipped handguns through FFLs in the past, and none have ever asked to prove ownership (receipts etc) that it is my firearm.
 
Tell your family member to read this thread. He/she needs to know the uncomfortable and illegal position their carelessness has put you in before they ask you to dig the hole any deeper.
 
Another great ill-thought-out "let's-make-felons-out-of-everybody" law.....
 
Last edited:
Frank has graciously listed the statutes around possession vs ownership regarding interstate firearm ownership. In a practical sense, the family member did violate federal law by leaving a firearm behind. In essence transferred to you even through neglect. Talk to a few FFLs in your area. One might be willing to ship the firearm back if you explain the story. Or don't and just say it is your firearm, because by federal law it is. I have shipped handguns through FFLs in the past, and none have ever asked to prove ownership (receipts etc) that it is my firearm.
The OP acquired the weapon illegally. Why would he incriminate himself by telling the story to an FFL?
 
The OP acquired the weapon illegally. Why would he incriminate himself by telling the story to an FFL?
I think a convincing argument could be made that OP was an unwilling participant in the illegal transfer and thus without culpability. It would be much harder to make that argument if OP volunteers to participate in a second transfer.

I wouldn’t touch the gun other than to protect it from access by others. Let the owner come and get it.
 
I think a convincing argument could be made that OP was an unwilling participant in the illegal transfer and thus without culpability. It would be much harder to make that argument if OP volunteers to participate in a second transfer.

I wouldn’t touch the gun other than to protect it from access by others. Let the owner come and get it.
I agree. Purely to play devil's advocate though, I'll point out that the OP is going to participate in a second transfer either way. Isn't this fun? ;)
 
...Let the owner come and get it.

Another bad idea.

  1. The OP has possession of the gun. Whether he acquired possession through a transfer that complied with all relevant laws is a separate question beyond the scope of this discussion.

  2. The OP wants to transfer the gun to his family member who is a resident of a different State.

  3. Since the gun is a handgun, federal law requires that the gun be transferred to the family member through an FFL in the family member's State of residence.

  4. If the family member visits the OP, picks up the gun and takes it home, the family member violates 18 USC 922(a)(3); and the OP violates 18 USC 922(a)(5). The OP could also have criminal liability under 18 USC 2 as an aider and abetter of the family member's violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3).
 
Another bad idea.

  1. The OP has possession of the gun. Whether he acquired possession through a transfer that complied with all relevant laws is a separate question beyond the scope of this discussion.

  2. The OP wants to transfer the gun to his family member who is a resident of a different State.

  3. Since the gun is a handgun, federal law requires that the gun be transferred to the family member through an FFL in the family member's State of residence.

  4. If the family member visits the OP, picks up the gun and takes it home, the family member violates 18 USC 922(a)(3); and the OP violates 18 USC 922(a)(5). The OP could also have criminal liability under 18 USC 2 as an aider and abetter of the family member's violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3).
So there is no way to resolve this situation without putting at least one of the parties in legal jeopardy? Even if OP took the gun to a local LEO and (truthfully) says he found this gun on his property then the owner is in the jackpot unless there’s no record of ownership.
 
So there is no way to resolve this situation without putting at least one of the parties in legal jeopardy? Even if OP took the gun to a local LEO and (truthfully) says he found this gun on his property then the owner is in the jackpot unless there’s no record of ownership.

Now we're getting too far into the practicing law/legal advice territory. For our purposes, probably the best we can do is leave things as I outlined in post 22.
 
I know that if such a thing happened here, and the OP took the gun to local LE and explained the situation, they'd look at him like he had three nostrils and tell him to get his relative's gun back to him in whatever way he felt like and don't bother them about it.
There may be local laws involved, but the laws discussed here are not within the purview of local LE. Different agencies. different courts, different prisons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top