FTF gun sales out of state?

[Renegade]

Loaning guns to out-of-state residents is OK under FedLaw.

Lending is allowed for specific uses, like hunting. IMHO, you're not allowed to give the weapon to someone who then goes out of state with it.

See http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1

- Jim

Check the link on your first post. There are no specific uses.


(B1) 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. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector

Loaning is common in small states where it is normal to cross state lines to hunt, such PA/ NJ/NY etc. professional shooters are loaned guns all the time and then go out-of-state, sometimes out-of-country.

[seamusTX]

Check the link on your first post. There are no specific uses.

It says, "temporary use for lawful sporting purposes." I think that excludes lending a weapon to someone from another state for self-defense, indefinitely.

- Jim

[Renegade]

Check the link on your first post. There are no specific uses.

It says, "temporary use for lawful sporting purposes." I think that excludes lending a weapon to someone from another state for self-defense, indefinitely.

- Jim

I missed the "indefinitely" part in his post. He did put the word 'loan', in quotes, maybe that was some kind of code-word for indefinitely and I didn't get it.

My dad loaned me his shotgun to go hunting when I went to an out-of-state college back in the 70s, I still have it. I guess I was an un-convicted felon during this time. I guess I need to add it to my Atlas Shrugged list.

[DoubleJ]

So I can't buy, as a gift, an M9, and give it to my Paw, whom lives in the Soviet Rupublik of Kalifornia?

and I as well value Jimbo.

[seamusTX]

So I can't buy, as a gift, an M9, and give it to my Paw, whom lives in the Soviet Rupublik of Kalifornia?

In my opinion, you cannot just drive there and give it to him, and he can't come to your house and take it to you.

Again, I am not a lawyer. I'm just going by the ATF FAQ web site and general knowledge.

California is even worse than the original question about Texas and Louisiana, because California has strict firearms registration. If you have a weapon that is not registered, you're in trouble. Also, many types of weapons are banned there.

You should check with http://www.crpa.org/ about state law.

Thanks again.

- Jim

[Renegade]

No gifts to out-of-state residents is the way I read it:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 922. Unlawful acts

(a) It shall be unlawful--

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer,
sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person
(other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed
dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has
reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is
a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of
business 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 of a firearm
to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a
person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the
laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

[seamusTX]

I missed the "indefinitely" part in his post. He did put the word 'loan', in quotes, maybe that was some kind of code-word for indefinitely and I didn't get it.

Let's look at the text of the law, 18 U.S.C. 922(1)(5):

It shall be unlawful ... for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) 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 the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

Now, the U.S. attorney gets to decide what temporary and lawful sporting purpose mean. The original question clearly concerned a firearm for self-defense, not hunting.

IMHO, if you give a weapon to someone who is going to a disaster area with no fixed plan for the return of the weapon, it's not temporary. But we could argue about it all day.

P.S.: I was composing this message while Renegade was composing his, and I had to pause for some more urgent work.

- Jim

[Renegade]

IMHO, if you give a weapon to someone who is going to a disaster area with no fixed plan for the return of the weapon, it's not temporary. But we could argue about it all day

I agree with above, that is not how I read the original question, hence our debate.

[seamusTX]

I agree with above, that is not how I read the original question, hence our debate.

Well, it's good to slice and dice these issues so that someone does not accidentally commit a federal felony, and also so that people are not inhibited from doing something that is perfectly legal.

- Jim

[mr surveyor]

for what it's worth, my experience was a loan, and not a gift. The gun was returned to me several month later. So, I guess the husband of the young lady I loaned the gun to is in as deep as I am!

Oh, and for the sake of clarification, I did, and do admit I gave her the gun for her own protection and NOT a made up story about a sportinig event. The area these folks are in is not located within the Nagan confiscation boundaries.

[HankB]

Person A in State A may be breaking the law if he sold a gun to Person B in State B. (Are long guns and handguns treated differently?)

On the other hand, consider the hypothetical case in which neither State A nor State B have laws requiring all transfers to be through FFLs . . .

Person A may well have sold the gun to Person C, a State A resident, while residing in State A. Legal transfer.

At some later date, Person B may well have obtained the gun from Person D, a State B resident, making the transfer in state B. Again, a legal transfer.

Neither Person A nor Person B would appear to have broken any law.

The path the gun took to go between Person C and Person D in this purely hypothetical instance is irrelevant to persons A & B, neither of whom remember any particulars about either C or D.

Prove otherwise.

[barres]

Person A in State A may be breaking the law if he sold a gun to Person B in State B. (Are long guns and handguns treated differently?)

Long guns may be transferred between adjoining states without an FFl if the states don't regulate otherwise.

On the other hand, consider the hypothetical case in which neither State A nor State B have laws requiring all transfers to be through FFLs . . .

Transfer laws are at the federal level, since we're talking about interstate commerce.

Person A may well have sold the gun to Person C, a State A resident, while residing in State A. Legal transfer.

At some later date, Person B may well have obtained the gun from Person D, a State B resident, making the transfer in state B. Again, a legal transfer.

Neither Person A nor Person B would appear to have broken any law.

The path the gun took to go between Person C and Person D in this purely hypothetical instance is irrelevant to persons A & B, neither of whom remember any particulars about either C or D.

Prove otherwise.

You're absolutely correct in this hypothetical situation, but that is not the situation the OP was talking about.

[KBCraig]

Person A in State A may be breaking the law if he sold a gun to Person B in State B. (Are long guns and handguns treated differently?)

Long guns may be transferred between adjoining states without an FFl if the states don't regulate otherwise.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. All interstate transfers must involve an FFL on the receiving end (except for guns bequeathed in a will).

Perhaps you're thinking of FFLs selling long guns; they may sell long guns to residents of another state, so long as neither state prohibits it, but they can only sell handguns to residents of their own state.

Kevin

[HankB]

Person A in State A may be breaking the law if he sold a gun to Person B in State B. (Are long guns and handguns treated differently?)

Long guns may be transferred between adjoining states without an FFl if the states don't regulate otherwise.

On the other hand, consider the hypothetical case in which neither State A nor State B have laws requiring all transfers to be through FFLs . . .

Transfer laws are at the federal level, since we're talking about interstate commerce. Some states have laws that require all transfers (except, possibly, inheritances) to be through FFLs. This creates a paper trail which would could cause difficulty if it were asserted that the hypothetical A to C to D to B transfer occured.

Person A may well have sold the gun to Person C, a State A resident, while residing in State A. Legal transfer.

At some later date, Person B may well have obtained the gun from Person D, a State B resident, making the transfer in state B. Again, a legal transfer.

Neither Person A nor Person B would appear to have broken any law.

The path the gun took to go between Person C and Person D in this purely hypothetical instance is irrelevant to persons A & B, neither of whom remember any particulars about either C or D.

Prove otherwise.

You're absolutely correct in this hypothetical situation, but that is not the situation the OP was talking about.

[barres]

Person A in State A may be breaking the law if he sold a gun to Person B in State B. (Are long guns and handguns treated differently?)

Long guns may be transferred between adjoining states without an FFl if the states don't regulate otherwise.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. All interstate transfers must involve an FFL on the receiving end (except for guns bequeathed in a will).

Perhaps you're thinking of FFLs selling long guns; they may sell long guns to residents of another state, so long as neither state prohibits it, but they can only sell handguns to residents of their own state.

Kevin

That is absolutely what I was thinking. Sorry.

Transfer laws are at the federal level, since we're talking about interstate commerce. Some states have laws that require all transfers (except, possibly, inheritances) to be through FFLs. This creates a paper trail which would could cause difficulty if it were asserted that the hypothetical A to C to D to B transfer occured.

You're right. But those states call those transfers registering the gun. Texas and Louisiana have no such requirement. But I do concede your point.

Man, I must not have gotten enough sleep the other night. I apologize for my mostly fact-less post.