But still... how is a senator any different from me if my father decides to give me a shotgun of his, when we reside in different states?

You "really" can't use that analogy since in "any" state in the union what your saying is perfectly legal! I was living in CA at the time "my" father made me a present of 2 long guns. Upon going to the local gun shop I was told that no paperwork need be done as long as it's father to son. Now on the otherhand pistols are a "different" story.

I hate to break it to you, drmiler, but I wouldn't make a habit of telling people what you wrote here. To my knowledge there is NO father-son exception to the federal interstate transfer rules -- and I'm pretty familiar with federal gun laws. The parent-child issue and gifts generally come up in the context of so-called "straw man" transactions. I can give you the full explanation if you like, but the bottom line is that I can cite you two U.S. Code sections (I did, in fact, in my original post) that say unequivocally that what you're describing is illegal. I can't see a way around that; even ATF regulations can't override acts of Congress.

Just because a guy has an FFL doesn't make him an expert on all federal firearms laws; I've caught dealers in errors before.

-Matt Rustler
http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/

Whoah. Settle down there, both of you. If Matt Rustler can quote USC, I'd have to come down on his side. Drmiler, was your father also a resident of CA? And was the transaction being done in CA?

Because the example I was using was a transaction where the giver was a resident of the state, but the recipient was a transient. Regardless of whether a SPECIFIC cut-out of these laws exists for interfamilial transactions, the general case is still pretty clearly illegal

Reply #5 By: IanTyger - 9/10/2004 9:20:53 PM Whoah. Settle down there, both of you. If Matt Rustler can quote USC, I'd have to come down on his side. Drmiler, was your father also a resident of CA? And was the transaction being done in CA? Because the example I was using was a transaction where the giver was a resident of the state, but the recipient was a transient. Regardless of whether a SPECIFIC cut-out of these laws exists for interfamilial transactions, the general case is still pretty clearly illegal

As a matter of fact no he wasn't a resident of CA, he was a resident of FL. And yes the transaction took place in CA.

drmiler,

You completely misunderstood my post. Go back and reread it. In mentionining "straw purchases" I was pointing out to you a context in which a family relationship DOES MATTER -- or at least can. In the context of interstate transfer of firearms, though, a family relationship between donor and donee (or transferor and transferee, if you prefer) is irrelevant. 18 U.S.C. s 922(a)(3) provides as follows (forgive me if the HTML tags don't work):

"It shall be unlawful . . . 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, ( shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection ((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."

Now, you say your dad made a present to you of the two guns in question. We don't normally talk that way about provisions of wills, and certainly not about inheritance by operation of law in the absence of a will. Therefore, I presume he was alive at the time of the gift. That means that bequest and intestate succession are out. I also presume the transfer in question was sometime in the past fifteen or so years, in which case the effective date of the chapter (Chapter 44 of Title 18, United States Code) isn't relevant to your situation. Finally, I presume your dad isn't a federal firearms licensee; that'd constitute a special circumstance, and your post asserted a very general argument. So we're left with subsection ((3) of section 922 as the only exception that could possibly save the transfer in question. Subsection ((3) permits a licensed dealer to transfer a long gun to a person not a resident of the state in which the dealer's business is located. (The text is available at the link above for (a)(3).) Here it is in relevant part:

"It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver . . . any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and ( shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes."

Once again, though, we've already concluded that your dad isn't a licensee. If that's right, then it isn't possible for you to have obtained the guns you write of from him "in accordance with subsection ((3)" of section 922. Therefore, all the possible exceptions to (a)(3) have been eliminated. Do you see what that means?

It's also unlawful "for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and ( the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes." 18 U.S.C. s 922(a)(5). (You can also find this provision at the link I provided.)

Now, we've already ruled out the possibility of a bequest or intestate succession. And you said your dad made you a "present" of the guns in question. That's what lawyers call an admission, and it rules out the possibility of a loan or rental. So again, unless your dad is a federal firearms licensee, there's no way he could have lawfully "give[n]" the two guns to you, a resident of another state. It would've been unlawful for him to do so.

If I'm wrong, please link to the statute or regulation that proves it.

IanTyger,

I, too, am somewhat skeptical of the constitutionality of this particular law. But that would only make it all the sweeter if Kerry had violated it. A--holes like John Forbes Kerry are responsible for s---ty laws like this one. And I always enjoy it when legislators who write bad laws either (1) discover that they're completely useless (e.g., John McCain and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act), or (2) are bitten in the ass by their own laws. The latter especially appeals to my sense of poetic justice.