Holding for friend

[Duskin]

So basically I'll just be storing it for him for a few weeks, and then transferring ownership once he has residency.

If he's flying the guns in with him, he'll need a locking case with a real (non-TSA) lock on it. My suggestion would be for him to just give you the locked case, and once his residency is straightened out and you've handed him money for the guns, he can just give you the key to the container.

I plan on carrying it, so that wouldn't work.

[Diomed]

I plan on carrying it, so that wouldn't work.

Carrying it? Do you mean carrying it before your friend establishes residency?

[Duskin]

I plan on carrying it, so that wouldn't work.

Carrying it? Do you mean carrying it before your friend establishes residency?

Yes that's exactly what I mean.

[Diomed]

Well, you can certainly do what you wish, but generally it's best not to advertise one's felonies on the internet.

[zephyp]

Well, you can certainly do what you wish, but generally it's best not to advertise one's felonies on the internet.

Wait a sec. If they are both residents of the same state and one party lets the other party "hold" the weapon and then that party leaves for another state with the weapon to establish residency there I dont see a problem with that. And if the "holding" party then carries the weapon legally in the new state ownership doesnt matter because the weapons were legally acquired while both parties were residents in the same state...provided state laws were followed.

Now, if the holding party has established residency in the new state while the other party is still a resident in another state and they decide to conduct a transaction where cash is given to the other for the weapon I still dont see how that poses an issue...if the party in the new state already had taken legal possession of the weapons while they were both residents of the same state.

Perhaps the issue here is that the OP does not have possession of the weapons and is already here while his friend is still there and coming with the weapons?

[Yarddawg]

I too fail to see the felony. A transfer of ownership has not occurred. He is merely holding the weapon for his friend, and possibly carrying it from time to time. What am I missing here?

[t33j]

I too fail to see the felony. A transfer of ownership has not occurred. He is merely holding the weapon for his friend, and possibly carrying it from time to time. What am I missing here?

+1

[Diomed]

I was under the impression that the current owner of the pistol is not a resident of the same state as the OP. If that impression is incorrect and both are residents of the same state, then my comment is inaccurate and withdrawn. Otherwise it stands.

A transfer of ownership has not occurred.

Ownership is not the issue here. Convicted felons can own firearms. What matters is possession - and I don't think any court anywhere would call a firearm used for daily carry as not being within the possession of the carrier.

[zephyp]

True, the issue is possession not ownership and it doesnt matter who lives where as long as the possessor is following their state laws. However, I would think that regardless of possession the moment they enter into a contract to sell (whether oral or written) then they need to be residents of the same state or technically the law is violated.

[gunderwood]

True, the issue is possession not ownership and it doesnt matter who lives where as long as the possessor is following their state laws. However, I would think that regardless of possession the moment they enter into a contract to sell (whether oral or written) then they need to be residents of the same state or technically the law is violated.

Yet I can go out of state, find a gun I like from an FFL, pay for it in full, and simply have them transfer it to an in state FFL where I then fill out the 4473 and take possession. Or how about online sales? What about online auctions where I pay for it and then a private seller gets an FFL to transfer it to an FFL in my state?

Granted, those aren't identical, but I wouldn't put it past the ATF to push that as conspiracy to violate whatever given how hard on they have been concerning private sales and guns going across the Mexico boarder...oh wait...

The best thing is to just wait for him to be a VA resident.

[zephyp]

Right but I was assuming there would be no FFL involved...

[Yarddawg]

I still don't see the possible felony.

[Diomed]

I still don't see the possible felony.

Interstate transfer of a firearm between two non-licensees.

[t33j]

I still don't see the possible felony.

Interstate transfer of a firearm between two non-licensees.

Of possession, not ownership.

[Yarddawg]

Ok, so if his buddy traveled here and they went to a shooting range, and his buddy let him try the gun, a felony has been committed?

[zephyp]

Ok, so if his buddy traveled here and they went to a shooting range, and his buddy let him try the gun, a felony has been committed?

I dont think so...that is not an issue...if his buddy comes here and they are legal residents of different states and the possessor gives the guns to the other to have and keep then they have a problem...the focus is when the owner gave the guns to the other guy to posses they were residents of the same state IIRC....that is legal if it was done IAW that state law...

[Diomed]

Ok, so if his buddy traveled here and they went to a shooting range, and his buddy let him try the gun, a felony has been committed?

You can probably find a lawyer to argue that. (There's actually a "sporting purposes" exemption for temporary transfers of possession, which is probably a whole other can of worms.) Look at this way: people rent machineguns all the time. When the authorized possessor of the gun is present for the shooting, no transfer is considered to have occurred. You don't see mass arrests at Knob Creek. As a practical matter, when the rightful owner/possessor is present, no transfer is considered to have occurred.

[t33j]

Ok, so if his buddy traveled here and they went to a shooting range, and his buddy let him try the gun, a felony has been committed?

As a practical matter, when the rightful owner/possessor is present, no transfer is considered to have occurred.

The two are not necessarily the same, nor do they have to be by law. I think this is where you are confused. I don't know if the same applies to NFA items.

[Diomed]

The two are not necessarily the same, nor do they have to be by law. I think this is where you are confused. I don't know if the same applies to NFA items.

I don't think I'm the one who's confused here. I was making an inclusive statement that is ultimately tangential to the matter at hand. Ownership is sometimes relevant, sometimes not. In the case of the point at issue in this thread, it is not.

There appears to be the misapprehension in this thread that possession can change between residents of different states without the involvement of a licensee, this is patently false. 27 CFR 478.30 covers this, federal law overriding state law. Unless you're arguing that either the "transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver" language does not cover handing a dude a gun and saying I'll sell it to you later then walking away, or that concealed carry is a sporting purpose, your position is unsupportable, and if you're arguing either of those, good luck; I hope you'll understand that I'd rather y'all not be on my defense team if I wind up in court.

[Yarddawg]

I don't think I'm the one who's confused here. I was making an inclusive statement that is ultimately tangential to the matter at hand. Ownership is sometimes relevant, sometimes not. In the case of the point at issue in this thread, it is not.

There appears to be the misapprehension in this thread that possession can change between residents of different states without the involvement of a licensee, this is patently false. 27 CFR 478.30 covers this, federal law overriding state law. Unless you're arguing that either the "transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver" language does not cover handing a dude a gun and saying I'll sell it to you later then walking away, or that concealed carry is a sporting purpose, your position is unsupportable, and if you're arguing either of those, good luck; I hope you'll understand that I'd rather y'all not be on my defense team if I wind up in court.

Now it's clear. It would have made things much simpler if you had originally posted a link such as http://law.justia.com/cfr/title27/27-2. ... .1.12.html to this code section. Now that I have read it, I have to agree with your position.

Thanks for the enlightenment!