Legal transfer of a hand gun

[Mousegun]

Something close to this has probably been hashed out a number of times, but I want to be sure about this particular situation.

Father died in Florida, no known will. Son #1 took possession of the guns as well as father's other worldly possessions, in Florida, where he too lived. Son #1 gave a pistol to son #2 who also lived in Florida at the time (I think). Son #2 moved to Tennessee with the gun. Both sons were eligible to own firearms.

1. Did son #1 have the gun legally. Remember, no will?
2. Did son #1 pass the gun to son #2 legally at the time?
3. Does son #2 have to go through an FFL to legally bring it into Tennessee or is the entire situation problematic?

I will do some of my own research on this but would like some of the hives knowledgeable back up.

Thanks

 

[dogtown tom]

Something close to this has probably been hashed out a number of times, but I want to be sure about this particular situation.

Father died in Florida, no known will. Son #1 took possession of the guns as well as father's other worldly possessions, in Florida, where he too lived. Son #1 gave a pistol to son #2 who also lived in Florida at the time (I think). Son #2 moved to Tennessee with the gun. Both sons were eligible to own firearms.

1. Did son #1 have the gun legally. Remember, no will?
2. Did son #1 pass the gun to son #2 legally at the time?
3. Does son #2 have to go through an FFL to legally bring it into Tennessee or is the entire situation problematic?

I will do some of my own research on this but would like some of the hives knowledgeable back up.

Thanks

1. Florida estate law determines whether Son#1 acted lawfully. Only someone versed in FL law could help.
2. If he didn't, every action he took will be a problem.
3. If it was lawful, then there are no issues under Federal law as the transfer occurred between residents of the same state.
4. Moving into a state with a firearm in your possession does not require transfer via an FFL because there is no transfer when you are already in possession.
Some states may require firearm registration which is not the same as the transfer of possession performed by an FFL.

 

[herrwalther]

As long as both sons lived in Florida, no state law was violated. Florida does not have universal background check legislation.

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

In addition, no federal or state laws were violated when son 2 moved to Tennessee, as that state does not have UBC either.

https://www.henlaw.com/news-insights/what-to-do-if-your-deceased-loved-one-owned-firearms/

As far as I can see, no laws were broken since neither state in this situation have universal background check laws.

 

[AlexanderA]

The OP left out a key fact: was there a surviving spouse? If so, and the children are those of the decedent with the surviving spouse, then the spouse gets everything.

 

[bearcreek]

Seems like this is more a question of estate law than firearm law. As long as all the parties involved were/are Florida residents at the time of transfer, the guns can be treated just like any other property.

 

[bearcreek]

The OP left out a key fact: was there a surviving spouse? If so, and the children are those of the decedent with the surviving spouse, then the spouse gets everything.

In that case she, (assuming she was also a FL resident) could simply hand the guns to his sons and they would legally be theirs. Obviously, if they took them without her knowledge, that's an entirely different matter.

 

[CapnMac]

In some states, an estate with a spouse and adult progeny (minor children are a different case), an intestate estate is split, half to the spouse and the remaining half split among the adult progeny equally. There is often a presumption that the parties to the estate will act responsibly.

But, each State handles Probate differently, and thus, such questions must needs be presented to an appropriately qualified attorney.

And not a random batch of goobers on the internet.

 

[herrwalther]

In some states, an estate with a spouse and adult progeny (minor children are a different case), an intestate estate is split, half to the spouse and the remaining half split among the adult progeny equally. There is often a presumption that the parties to the estate will act responsibly.

Based on what I found looking up this instance, Florida is one of those states.
https://smartasset.com/estate-planning/florida-inheritance-laws

Florida will afford all intestate heirs equal share of the estate’s property, a style legally known as “per stirpes.” For example, if your four biological and/or adopted children were deemed the sole legal heirs to your property, each of them would receive 25%.

Although the court ultimately chooses how property is divvied up among a decedent’s relatives, it doesn’t actually disburse the estate. Instead, it will appoint either the surviving spouse, an individual elected by the majority of heirs, the most-closely related/best-qualified heir or anyone deemed capable enough to handle such the job.

But this is getting into the weeds of estate law vs firearm law. As described by the OP, it doesn't sound like any firearm laws were broken. Estate laws are even more convoluted.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yup. In terms of firearm specific laws, everything was legal (assuming neither son is a prohibited person). Estate law is not really on topic for this forum.

 

[HankB]

Assuming the firearms in question are ordinary handguns, the question has been answered. In the unlikely scenario that legally owned NFA items are involved (for example, an integrally suppressed pistol, or if one of the pistols is something like a Mauser 1932 Schnellfeuer) then there are definitely federal and possibly state laws that come into play with regard to ownership and transfer paperwork. I'd venture to guess that this is not an issue here, but there ARE more suppressors and integrally suppressed pistols being sold every year, so it's something to be aware of.