BATF speaks on loaning, storing and moving firearms

[RX-79G]

The problem is that between your responses and the ATF, no one could possibly tell what they can do with a borrowed gun.

Your notion that the firearms laws are so arcanely complicated that only a tiny number of people could possibly understand and apply their plain language is simply absurd. Not only that, but that people who do work for the agency are inventing their own interpretations, rather than referring the question elsewhere or simply avoiding answering the question.


The ATF, the agency that investigates and enforces Federal firearms laws is the only organization that matters, and if they don't care that 922a3 doesn't have a specific loan provision, then it doesn't matter.


At this point, you are the person arguing that the ATF is in error, so you're the guy who needs to contact the correct legal wizard and disprove the opinion of the Policy Branch. I followed your suggestion to contact the ATF, and that wasn't good enough. Your turn.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....you have excuse after excuse why the ATF Policy Branch can't read, understand and answer a question....

And to be clear, I didn't say that ATF Policy Branch can't read, understand, and answer a question. But as I've described in posts 2 and 3, and in other posts, the ATF answers apparently really aren't what you think they are.

...At this point, you are the person arguing that the ATF is in error,....

Not at all. As I pointed out (in posts 2, 3, 12, as well as in other posts), my analysis is consistent with ATF's, insofar as we are addressing the same issues. I do address some issues which haven't been touched on by ATF, at least explicitly.

The problems are that (1) your questions weren't sufficiently focused to really elicit in depth answers on some points; and (2) you're reading things into the ATF response that aren't there. I've illustrated both problems.

 

[RX-79G]

You don't explain, Frank, you occlude. Please explain this statement:

No one ever said that 18 USC 922(a)(3) prevents travel with a loaned gun. What that statutes prevents is the borrower taking the gun home with him.

What is legal interstate travel with a borrowed gun that precludes going to your home?

Where can you go? Why not your home? Why does that make any sense to you and not sound like circular reasoning?

 

[CapnMac]

I have to applaud this bit of Civil Service prose:

ATF does not regulate nor have jurisdiction

for its elegance and succinct character.

Because, of course Congress make the laws, and defines their scope. Which means BAFTE merely enforces the will as expressed by Congress.

Mind that does sidestep the issue of BATFE being given the latitude to codify regulations so that they can actually define what is enforceable. But, that is a separate argument entirely.

For RX-79G, this scans to me quite obviously as "We cannot give you a definite answer because Congress created the question in 18 USC 922."

It's not a brush off, it's more of "you are worrying too much about the man behind the curtain and not enough about the flying monkeys."

Your cousin Darrel brings his buddy Daryl from out of state, and he gets loaned a firearm, then takes it home with him. The BATFE is not going to spring out of the bushes to haul all of y'all off to durance vile seconds after Daryl plops down in his Laz-y-boy.

Now, Daryl boosts a stop-n-rob with the loaner, the local PD will likely get involved, and somebody will get the BATFE sales records and follow them as far as they can. But they are unlikely to send a raid team, and they basically said so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You don't explain, Frank, you occlude. Please explain this statement:

No one ever said that 18 USC 922(a)(3) prevents travel with a loaned gun. What that statutes prevents is the borrower taking the gun home with him.

What is legal interstate travel with a borrowed gun that precludes going to your home?

Where can you go? Why not your home? Why does that make any sense to you and not sound like circular reasoning?

I did in fact explain. See post 12:

1. ...
   
   
   • ….
     
   • ...
     
     
   • ...
   
   
2. ...
   
   
   • ….
     
     
   • 18 USC 922(a)(3) provides (emphasis added):

     18 U.S.C. 922. Unlawful acts
     
     (a) It shall be unlawful—
     ...
     
     

     (3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph
     
     

     (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State,
     
     (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and
     
     (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;​

     
     
   • The phrase "otherwise obtained" would, in plain English, include borrowed.
     
     
   • Thus a person who borrows from someone (not an FFL) who is a resident of a different State a gun and transports that gun or receives that gun in his State of residence has violated the plain language of 18 USC 922(a)(3). That situation was not specifically addressed by ATF.
   
   
3. ...
   
   
   • ...
     
     
   • ...
     
     
   • ...
     
     
     • ...
       
       
     • ...
       
       
     • ...
       
       
     • ...

 

[Art Eatman]

Sheesh! More than enough information!

Time to check eyelids for leaks at Naps-R-Us.

 

[Frank Ettin]

..."you are worrying too much about the man behind the curtain and not enough about the flying monkeys."...

There's always the question of the likelihood of getting caught, but that's a separate issue. People get caught and prosecuted all sorts of different, and sometimes very unlikely, ways. Bruce Abramski got caught and made straw purchase history only as a result of a fluke. But the consequence of getting caught can be very undesirable, and flukes do happen.

In any case, here we strive to understand what the law is and what it requires without consideration of how bad our luck has to be to get caught. Pretty much everyone now in prison didn't expect to get caught.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Oops.

Sorry, Art.