Handgun transfer-clear as mud

[Tentousa]

Here's my deal: Handguns were gifted in Montana and then transferred to Washington State (driven home to the new owners home State).

The guns were purchased in Montana, and are under the name of the gift giver.

As the handguns are used regularly in Montana on the gift givers ranch for training, they remain in his name.

So, are any laws being broken when the handguns are kept and used in Wa.?

Here are the answers I have found:
Yes. No.

Of course, the less paperwork, the better, but even when asking the DA office, Sheriff's office and ATF, I get sent to the other or no response.

How do they expect a God-fearing, law abiding, US citizen to honor the rules when the rules are garbled? (Rhetorical question. First one is genuine)

WH

 

[CoRoMo]

It's actually very simple. If a resident of one state gives a gun to a resident of another state, an FFL holder (dealer) must do the transfer. The 'FFL transfer' involves filling out the ATF's form 4473 and having a background check done, which is often referred to as a NICS check.

Now, if the gun is a long gun, the FFL transfer can be done in the giver's state. If the gun is a handgun, the FFL transfer must be done in the recipient's state. In either case, the giver must present the gun to the FFL holder, either via shipment or in person.

So, are any laws being broken when the handguns are kept and used in Wa.?

The way you worded your post is confusing, but what I think you are saying is that the guy in Montana gave one or more handguns to one or more residents of Washington state. Someone drove those guns from Montana to Washington and those handguns are now in possession of the new owners, the Washington state residents. If the Washington state residents did not go through the 4473/NICS process (dealer transfer), then yes, laws were broken. At least one, maybe more, federal firearms laws were broken in that event, and probably a number of state firearms laws too.

This type of "crime" takes place every single day, and law enforcement has almost no way of discovering the events.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here's the applicable law. It's pretty simple, really.

18 USC 922 (a)(3):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

§ 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;

So, it sounds to me like the OP is talking about a person, other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector who transported a firearm into their State of residence after they received that firearm from an out of state source. Nobody died so exception (A) does not apply. The firearm was not obtained from an FFL in accordance with 18 USC (b)(3) so exception (B) does not apply. The firearm was not acquired before 1968 so exception (C) does not apply.

Sorry, sounds like 18 USC 922(a)(3), Federal law, was violated.

BTW, The guns are not "in anyone's name" in Montana, because Montana does not have any firearms registration.

 

[HankR]

follow up

In order to give a handgun to a resident of another state, would one be allowed to transport the handgun to the new state in person, then give it over to an FFL for transfer to the new owner? Or is it required that the original owner take it to an FFL in the original state and have it shipped to an FFL in the new state for transfer?


Thanks,

 

[Sam1911]

Here's my deal: Handguns were gifted in Montana and then transferred to Washington State (driven home to the new owners home State).

This line right here is the trouble. It describes the set of federal felonies NavyLCDR is quoting.

The guns were purchased in Montana, and are under the name of the gift giver.

Not really "under his name." He purchased them and filled out the 4473 to have them transferred to his ownership. But they aren't registered to him and he may give or sell them to any non-prohibited resident of his state he pleases.

As the handguns are used regularly in Montana on the gift givers ranch for training, they remain in his name.

They may remain in his possession (or not as the case appears to be), but they are not "in his name."

So, are any laws being broken when the handguns are kept and used in Wa.?

No more laws are being broken. The law has already been broken in the illegal transfer.

Of course, the less paperwork, the better

Actually, in this case you really should have done more paperwork. It would have required that either the giver take the guns to his FFL dealer and have them shipped to your FFL dealer in WA, who would then transfer them to you on a 4473 form -- OR the giftee could bring them himself to your FFL dealer in WA and have them transferred to you on a 4473.

but even when asking the DA office, Sheriff's office and ATF, I get sent to the other or no response.

They're probably being very careful no to hear too much of what you're asking as it appears you're calling them up and admitting to a federal weapons law violation. If they tell you the full truth, they really aught to be arresting you, sorry to say.

How do they expect a God-fearing, law abiding, US citizen to honor the rules when the rules are garbled?

It is one of the odd facts about gun laws in the US. The laws on transfers are NOT garbled. They're generally very simple. But most folks just don't know what they are, and tend to make their sales and gifts FIRST and then worry about whether it was legal AFTER. Then, when they discover that they just violated the law they ask how they were supposed to know?

 

[CoRoMo]

...would one be allowed to transport the handgun to the new state in person, then give it over to an FFL for transfer to the new owner?

The giver can do that, yes. The one receiving the gift, cannot transport it back to their state, even if they intend to deliver it to the FFL holder to be transferred back into their possession.

Or is it required that the original owner take it to an FFL in the original state and have it shipped to an FFL in the new state for transfer?

No, that is not required.

As I posted earlier... the giver must present the gun to the FFL holder, either via shipment or in person.

 

[NavyLCDR]

As I posted earlier... the giver must present the gun to the FFL holder, either via shipment or in person.

While I know what you were saying...it is an OPTION (not a requirement) for the giver to take the gun to a Montana FFL to mail to the WA FFL. That might be cheaper since the FFL can mail the handgun via US Post Office, whereas the private party cannot (illegal), but must use UPS or FEDEX.

 

[bigfatdave]

obviously the OP was a resident of the state the handguns were gifted in at the time of gifting

 

[Sam1911]

obviously the OP was a resident of the state the handguns were gifted in at the time of gifting

How do you get this impression from the OP's statement?

... then transferred to Washington State (driven home to the new owners home State).

Residency requirements are not quite as restrictive as some believe, but they aren't completely open-ended.

From the ATF's FAQ:

Q: What constitutes residency in a State?The State of residence is the State in which an individual is present; the individual also must have an intention of making a home in that State. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located. If a member of the Armed Forces maintains a home in one State and the member’s permanent duty station is in a nearby State to which he or she commutes each day, then the member has two States of residence and may purchase a firearm in either the State where the duty station is located or the State where the home is maintained. An alien who is legally in the United States is considered to be a resident of a State only if the alien is residing in that State and has resided in that State continuously for a period of at least 90 days prior to the date of sale of the firearm. See also Item 5, “Sales to Aliens in the United States,” in the General Information section of this publication.

[18 U.S.C. 921(b), 922(a) (3), and 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.11]

Occasional visits by a resident of WA state to MT to go shooting with a friend do not constitute an intention of making a home in MT.

 

[Bubbles]

Bear in mind that WA state FFL's are required to collect sales tax on firearms that are transferred in, unless there is proof that it was collected in another state. So, hopefully the person who purchased the firearm still has the receipt, as otherwise the FFL is bound by WA law to collect the tax on the gun's value when doing the transfer.

http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationBySubject/TaxTopics/FirearmTransfers.aspx

 

[whalerman]

It amazes me that after reading about the ATF's illegal activities with gunrunning along the Mexican border we have law abiding citizens concerned with the lawful transfer of a single weapon. These are strange times indeed. No wonder we are about to lose everything.

 

[bigfatdave]

It amazes me that after reading about the ATF's illegal activities with gunrunning along the Mexican border we have law abiding citizens concerned with the lawful transfer of a single weapon. These are strange times indeed.

indeed

at least give the citizen the benefit of the doubt ... the paperwork won't make anyone less likely to shoot up a school, stop fetishizing guns, it just gives agencies like the BATFEIEIO and the Brady bunch more credibility if you let the image of guns as "uniquely dangerous" through. For the love of FSM, you trust every idiot to drive within mere inches of you every day, and yet we need big government daddy to tell us when and how we can take a tool across state lines?

Just kill the thread, or give the OP the benefit of the doubt ... anything in between is condoning illegal gun running across interstate lines ... ...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...at least give the citizen the benefit of the doubt ...

[1] It's not a question of giving anyone the benefit of the doubt. The recipient isn't on trial here. We aren't deciding what will happen to him.

But the question is being asked, and presumably someone wants a decent answer about what is, or is not, the legal requirement.

And this does seem to be a clear case of a transfer from a resident of one State to a resident of another. The OP specifically says, "...Handguns were gifted in Montana and then transferred to Washington State (driven home to the new owners home State)." (emphasis added)

[2] We may not think the law makes sense, but glossing over it does no good. If people clearly understand it, it's relatively easy for them to do what they may want and still avoid running afoul of it.

 

[Jim K]

It is not hard to understand if you realize that the purpose of the law is to prevent unrecorded and untraceable transfers across state lines. (It might not work, but that is the idea.)

It is illegal under federal law for a non-licensee who is a resident of one state to transfer a firearm to a non-licensee who is a resident of another state. The firearm has to be in the possession of an FF licensee who will do the actual transfer to the recipient. That is the key; a licensee must be the person to actually hand the firearm to the recipient and record the transfer in his book.

It doesn't matter what the relationship of the parties is, or where the actual transfer takes place, or if the transfer is a sale or a gift. And it doesn't matter whether/if state registration laws are involved; that is a state matter.

If neither of the persons in the situation described by the OP is an FF licensee, one or more firearms were transferred by a non-licensee Montana resident to a non-licensee Washington resident. That appears to me to involve one or more violations of federal law.

Jim

 

[NavyLCDR]

we have law abiding citizens concerned with the lawful transfer of a single weapon.

If the citizen was not concerned with the lawful transfer of a single weapon, then that citizen would no longer be law abiding, would they?

Bear in mind that WA state FFL's are required to collect sales tax on firearms that are transferred in, unless there is proof that it was collected in another state. So, hopefully the person who purchased the firearm still has the receipt, as otherwise the FFL is bound by WA law to collect the tax on the gun's value when doing the transfer.

Actually, any state that has a sales tax also has an equivalent use tax. The use tax is required to be paid by anyone who obtains goods from an out-of-state source for use in their state of residence. WA has chosen to place the burden of collecting and paying the use tax for firearms on FFLs because they figured out that was a major source of collecting use tax that they actually could enforce.

 

[Art Eatman]

Arghhh. Question's been answered. Let's not go wandering off through the cactus, okay?