a quick "is this legal?" question...

[Billmanweh]

If I sell and transfer a handgun to a resident of another state while he is in my state visiting relatives? The handgun is apparently a gift for the relative who is a resident of my state.

 

[Leatherneck]

Nope. The buyer/giver is the purchaser, and unless he has a Class I FFL (dealer), he must receive the handgun in his state of residence. And be careful of the "one pays, another receives" trap--it could be construed as a straw purchase. IANAL.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[gont]

Your interpretation may be flawed. If one arranges a sale for their brother who lives in another state and gives their brother the money to make the purchase for their birthday there is no legal problem. The fact the brother from another state is present to see the joy on their face at the time of purchase is irrelevant. No different than standing next to them at the gunstore.

If the firearm is purchased by the out of state subject without he being a licensed dealer it would in fact be illegal. A "straw" purchase is when someone sends a subject to an FFL to purchase a firearm and the subject turns it over to the person after they take receipt. Homeless subjects are often used to accomplish this.

Hope this may help in the future.

Good luck on your sale. Sorry I was unable to help sell it.

 

[Billmanweh]

This is just beating a dead horse now, but I told you that I could sell the pistol to your brother, not you. I don't think we're disagreeing.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

This whole thingy is so sad. The dead horse is, I am afraid, the constitution.

This is what we have become. A lawful guy owns a pistol. Another lawful guy from another state wants to buy this pistol as a gift for his brother (or whatever). What is wrong with that? It don't matter what state they reside in.

Now we got lots of head scratching and wonderment because back in '68 some dim witted congress dreamed up some dim witted, strained, ridiculously manipulated, morally stretched, legally corrupt, anti-founder, unbelievably contorted, gymnastically impossible law based on the innocent commerce clause with the end result of the potential of one or both of these lawful persons ending up in the slammer.

The most offensive part of this whole scenario is that one of these participants in this totally moral, non-criminal, innocent exchange of personal property could be a govt. agent. Thus the other party to this exchange, being a lawful, productive citizen, could end up in the slammer for no other reason than the other party had to make his quota.

So this is what we have become. Might as well be the Soviet Union.

Have we no sense of decency?

 

[P95Carry]

Did somebody say ''dead horse'' ........





Sorry - more than I could resist!