Turning Gun Owners Into Felons

SavageOne said:

Yes, a person could gift a firearm to their spouse, they however could not loan(i.e. temporarily transfer) them a firearm for more than seven(7) days and the firearm can not leave their property. This is the point the author was making.




It is also worth noting that at this time, you could not even gift a gun to your wife as your marriage is not recognized by the Federal Government. I don't know the State laws were you live, but here in MO such a gift would be perfectly legal as the law stands now. And so you don't think I made the whole "loan" thing up.

Click to expand...

I'm in Washington, so, our Sodomite marriage is recognized.

The Federal Government recognizes our marriage. We have filed taxes as a married couple, all the years we have been together, and never been denied. For a time, I was the unfortunate receiver of SSDI, and the Federal Government recognized our marriage.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I'm in Washington, so, our Sodomite marriage is recognized.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the laws concerning legal firearm transfers. In MO it would be perfectly legal for you to gift a firearm to anyone, not just immediate family members. I was proud to present a friend's son with his first .22 rifle, under the proposed legislation I would be in violation of the law. I don't know if you or your wife have any nieces or nephews you might wish to someday present with such a gift, but under the proposed legislation that is a joy you would never get to experience.

The Federal Government recognizes our marriage. We have filed taxes as a married couple, all the years we have been together, and never been denied. For a time, I was the unfortunate receiver of SSDI, and the Federal Government recognized our marriage.

Click to expand...

Then I guess there is no reason to get rid of that ridiculous "Defense Of Marriage Act". The truth is, that the Federal Government does not, at this time, recognize the marriage of same sex partners at the Federal level. Your assertion that they do shows the same refusal to recognize the true facts of a situation, as your assertion that the scenarios presented by the author in his article were lies. I will use this knowledge of you to put any future posts by you in perspective, as should all other members.

Under the legislation proposed by Reid, it would be a violation to loan/transfer a firearm to your spouse for a period of more than seven days, since such a loan would not be considered a "bona fide gift".

SavageOne said:

I was referring to the laws concerning legal firearm transfers. In MO it would be perfectly legal for you to gift a firearm to anyone, not just immediate family members. I was proud to present a friend's son with his first .22 rifle, under the proposed legislation I would be in violation of the law. I don't know if you or your wife have any nieces or nephews you might wish to someday present with such a gift, but under the proposed legislation that is a joy you would never get to experience.

Click to expand...

I have an issue, if the bill block you from presenting that gift. But let's stick to the facts of the bill.

Then I guess there is no reason to get rid of that ridiculous "Defense Of Marriage Act". The truth is, that the Federal Government does not, at this time, recognize the marriage of same sex partners at the Federal level. Your assertion that they do shows the same refusal to recognize the true facts of a situation, as your assertion that the scenarios presented by the author in his article were lies. I will use this knowledge of you to put any future posts by you in perspective, as should all other members.

Under the legislation proposed by Reid, it would be a violation to loan/transfer a firearm to your spouse for a period of more than seven days, since such a loan would not be considered a "bona fide gift".

Click to expand...

You can conclude that, but it doesn't survive the smell test. You're assuming what the FED's would consider Bonafide.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I have an issue, if the bill block you from presenting that gift. But let's stick to the facts of the bill.

Click to expand...

That this bill would prevent an aunt or uncle from presenting a firearm as a gift to their niece or nephew is a fact of this bill.

The language in this bill clear defines who can give the gift( spouse to spouse, parent to child, sibling to sibling,and grandparent to grandchild) and who can't. Under this proposed legislation I could not have given my friend's son his gift and you could not give such a gift to a niece or nephew. Period.

You can conclude that, but it doesn't survive the smell test. You're assuming what the FED's would consider Bonafide.

Click to expand...

OK, let's just say, for the sake of discussion, you and your wife both have your own vehicle(bought and registered individually). Your wife's car breaks down and it will take 2 weeks to fix. You give your wife your car to use for those two weeks. Did you gift your wife your car or did you loan your wife your car? Does she re-gift it to you at the end of those two weeks?

This legislation is very clear in it's intent.

SEC. 121. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background
check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.

Click to expand...

Bolded by me to highlight

It is equally clear on what is defined as a transfer.

``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
``(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or
consignment, or other disposition; and
``(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm
for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective
transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

Click to expand...

It also makes it clear that loans, even between spouses, are not exempted, only gifts. Since it states that transfer refers to loan let us look at that third exemption again.

``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
``(C) a temporary loan of possession that occurs
between an unlicensed loanor and an unlicensed loanee,
if--
``(i) the temporary loan of possession occurs
in the home or curtilage of the unlicensed loanor;
``(ii) the firearm is not removed from that home or
curtilage during the temporary loan ; and
``(iii) the loan has a duration of less than 7
days; and

Click to expand...

Does that pass your "smell test"?

SB 649 must go down in flames. There is not one syllable that is worthy of consideration.

Please note the below:

SEC. 123. LOST AND STOLEN REPORTING. (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end-- ``(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm that has been shipped or transported in, or has been possessed in or affecting, interstate or foreign commerce, to fail to report the theft or loss of the firearm, within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''. (b) Penalty.--Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following: ``(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (q), or (aa) of section 922;''.

Click to expand...

Not good.

As I read the bill, with regard to "loans" it exempts temporary loans at your home provided that the gun doesn't leave your home, and at a "bona fide" shooting range.

Most of the time, when I shoot I go out to a friend's property in the county. I never go alone, and most of the time whoever I'm with shoots most of the guns I bring, and I shoot most of the ones they bring.

If I read the bill right, the very situation above-something I do almost every weekend in the summer-would constitute an illegal transfer, and that concerns me.

eye95 said:

I haven't seen the poll question yet, but I'd bet money it looks like this:

Do you agree that firearms should be kept out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill by requiring background checks before all firearm sales?

.

Click to expand...

I disagree ... I need my guns

Not only do you have to notify local authorities if your gun gets stolen, you have to notify the Attorney General. Not a Federal prosecutor in your district, or the ATF/FBI in your district, but the Attorney General. Does the AG's office actually have a means of processing such notices, or are they just going to throw them out? Indeed, do they receive direct reports for any crime right now, or is it currently expected that you make crime reports to ATF/FBI?

randian said:

Not only do you have to notify local authorities if your gun gets stolen, you have to notify the Attorney General. Not a Federal prosecutor in your district, or the ATF/FBI in your district, but the Attorney General. Does the AG's office actually have a means of processing such notices, or are they just going to throw them out? Indeed, do they receive direct reports for any crime right now, or is it currently expected that you make crime reports to ATF/FBI?

Click to expand...

It's a no brainer to notify Authorities that your firearm has been stolen.

``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `transfer'--
``(A) shall include a sale, gift, loan, return from pawn or
consignment, or other disposition; and
``(B) shall not include temporary possession of the firearm
for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective
transferee while in the presence of the prospective transferee.

Click to expand...

I have to say that "other disposition" used above also concerns me. Say I send my firearm to the manufactuer for warranty work? Would they have to do a background check to send it back?

SavageOne said:

I have to say that "other disposition" used above also concerns me. Say I send my firearm to the manufactuer for warranty work? Would they have to do a background check to send it back?

Click to expand...

Currently, FWIU, it depends on what you send them.

It is very possible. I know some people who have experiance with warranty work, I'll ask and see.

Beretta92FSLady said:

It's a no brainer to notify Authorities that your firearm has been stolen.

Click to expand...

For theft I agree, report the theft to your local authorities. For loss, I disagree. Loss does not equal theft.

OC for ME said:

For theft I agree, report the theft to your local authorities. For loss, I disagree. Loss does not equal theft.

Click to expand...

Good grief, any bonehead that loses their firearm....*shakes head* I'm sure there's a few of those types out there


[video=youtube;J6_1Pw1xm9U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_1Pw1xm9U[/video]

OC for ME said:

For theft I agree, report the theft to your local authorities.

Click to expand...

That's because the local authorities already have a process in place to accept and process such reports. Unfortunately, that's not sufficient to avoid being a criminal, because the relevant passage also requires reporting it to the Attorney freaking General, who so far as I know has no process for any individual citizen to report crimes to them. Crime reports normally go to the FBI/ATF/DEA, not the AG, and when somebody in the AG's office gets around to prosecuting you for not reporting it to them, I doubt they'll take "I reported it to the FBI" as an acceptable answer.

Beretta92FSLady said:

I appreciate your acknowledgment that it's a mistake.

Don't try to sugar it up, the author either made a mistake or is a lying sack of sh*t.


My goal is to be inconsistent...i like to keep you guessing

Click to expand...

If you aren't consistent in your views and beliefs, how are your posts relevant?
Stirring the pot just to stir isn't a useful contribution, is it?

-MH

p.s. nice Ad hominem, by the way.