• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Receiving a Handgun as a gift...out of state

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
You put forth a view held by many, but unfortunately it overlooks the role that Congress gets to play in the implementation of these venerable truths, which does carry significant legal weight. The bright spot here is that slowly, over time, the infringements of which you speak are being examined and pared back.

The system being what it is...

I can imagine a situation in which I'm there in court arguing that "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. Yeah, like that's gonna work. Probably generate a case of malpractice against me.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
The "system" does work. Not always to our liking, but it does work. Want to win? Then best one be aware of how the system functions and why + involve someone with an extensive knowledge, backed with extremely good research capacity, of applicable statutes and case law. That means I will not defend myself - that is too much like going naked into the lion's den.

User once said something like, "Innocent clients are the best to ones to have." We should all take heed of all that implies.
 

BillB

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
200
Location
NOVA
Y'all think the same way regarding the federal gun-free school zones act?
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

The right way or the legal way? The two are often not the same. We have made many right actions illegal in this country. It's not right that a person has to pay for a government background check to give their son a firearm....but that is what it takes to be legal in this case.

The voice of a reasonable Man!!! ^^^^^^^


Other than that,,,

The Stupid,,, and the State lovers,,, is strong in this thread!
pass the popcorn...
lets tattle to john
i found your wallet,,, now i own it
lets tell the .gov we are guilty
let all states, and the commonwealths too, embrace Washington States new I-594 law!
my unalienable rights become yours,,, as soon as I walk away, or just forget where I left them.


I seem to have stirred up a poop storm!
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Why wouldn't we? The FGFSZA does nothing but keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns within 1000' of a school (with the exceptions). It's definitely not right, but it is what the law is. Is it right to have to unload your gun and lock it in a case within 1000' of a school just because you don't have a permit issued by the same state the school zone is located in? No, absolutely not. But that is what it takes to be legal.

A little more, that has never been enforced as a primary offense that I know of even though tens of thousands of people do it every day. ..but even so I wouldn't get on the Internet and announce I planned to do it tomorrow.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Really????

A little more, that has never been enforced as a primary offense that I know of even though tens of thousands of people do it every day. ..but even so I wouldn't get on the Internet and announce I planned to do it tomorrow.

You!! of all people,,, Mr. NO P4P...
Why not flout a stupid unconstitutional Non Law??

I have been Legally walking by schools in Washington and Utah for years.

And now Im gonna start doing it in Vermont!
I,,, am now in possession of the first issued, Out of State, Non resident VERMONT concealed carry permit!!!
Sooo now, I can flout the FGFSZA law!!! And I dont care who hears me say that, or sees me do that!!!
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
You!! of all people,,, Mr. NO P4P...
Why not flout a stupid unconstitutional Non Law??

I have been Legally walking by schools in Washington and Utah for years.

And now Im gonna start doing it in Vermont!
I,,, am now in possession of the first issued, Out of State, Non resident VERMONT concealed carry permit!!!
Sooo now, I can flout the FGFSZA law!!! And I dont care who hears me say that, or sees me do that!!!

Uh...mostly because the board rules say not to.
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
You put forth a view held by many, but unfortunately it overlooks the role that Congress gets to play in the implementation of these venerable truths, which does carry significant legal weight. The bright spot here is that slowly, over time, the infringements of which you speak are being examined and pared back.

If you believe that laws created by Congress superseed the supreme law of the land, then yeah, implementation sounds reasonable.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, implementation is infringement.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
If you believe that laws created by Congress superseed the supreme law of the land, then yeah, implementation sounds reasonable.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, implementation is infringement.

We only get to bring $10 in coins for visiting days. Check the inflated) prices in the vending machines and figure out just how far you can stretch those goodies. And remeber that there are going to be guys back on the cellblock who expect you to bring stuff back to them or they will ....

I agree that the infringements are not "proper" but am not willing to be one of a long string of folks who thought they would be test cases only to end up with all-expense-paid vacations - extended vacations.

david mcbeth said this was not his. Perchance it is yours?
keyboardcommandopatch_zps24784a32.jpg

stay safe.
 

ChristCrusader

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2014
Messages
199
Location
Virginia, US
Direct interstate transfers of any firearms between (non FFL) residents of different states is unlawful.

Handguns must go through a FFL in the recipient's state of residence. Long guns can be acquired at an FFL in any state.

See the first three questios in this ATF FAQ:https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-transfer
18 USC 922(a)(5) 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...

of course the rest of 922(a)(5) is (A) & (B):
...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
(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
 
Last edited:

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Why wouldn't we? The FGFSZA does nothing but keep law abiding citizens from carrying guns within 1000' of a school (with the exceptions). It's definitely not right, but it is what the law is. Is it right to have to unload your gun and lock it in a case within 1000' of a school just because you don't have a permit issued by the same state the school zone is located in? No, absolutely not. But that is what it takes to be legal.

Well, to be accurate that's the ATF's interpretation, which they have no legal authority to make, let alone enforce. :cool:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Accessory Before The Fact:

A person who aids, abets, or encourages another to commit a crime but who is not present at the scene. An accessory before the fact, like an accomplice, may be held criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. Many jurisdictions refer to an accessory before the fact as an accomplice.

Illustrative case law

See, e.g. Standefer v. U.S., 447 U.S. 10 (1980).

Accessory
Aiding or contributing in a secondary way or assisting in or contributing to as a subordinate.
In Criminal Law, contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.
One who aids, abets, commands, or counsels another in the commission of a crime.
In common law, an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator.

An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
An accessory before the fact is someone behind the scenes who orders a crime or helps another person commit it. Many jurisdictions now refer to accessories before the fact as parties to the crime or even accomplices. This substitution of terms can be confusing because accessories are fundamentally different from accomplices. Strictly speaking, whereas an Accomplice may be present at the crime scene, an accessory may not. Also, an accomplice generally is considered to be as guilty of the crime as the perpetrator, whereas an accessory has traditionally received a lighter punishment.
An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. Today, this action is often termed obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.
An infamous accessory after the fact was Dr. Samuel A. Mudd, the physician and Confederate sympathizer who set John Wilkes Booth's leg after it was broken when the assassin jumped from President Abraham Lincoln's box at Ford Theater. Despite Mudd's protestation of innocence, he was tried and convicted as an accessory after the fact in Lincoln's murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment at Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas off Key West, Florida. President Andrew Johnson pardoned Mudd in 1869, and the U.S. Congress gave him an official pardon in 1979.
Further readings
Berg, Alan. 1996. "Accessory Liability For Breach of Trust." Modern Law Review 59 (May): 443-453.
Blakey, Robert G., and Kevin P. Roddy. 1996. "Reflections on Reves v. Ernst & Young: Its Meaning and Impact On Substantive, Accessory, Aiding Abetting and Conspiracy Liability Under RICO." American Criminal Law Review 33: 1345-1702.
Huett, Lisa. 2001. "Could You Be an Accessory? Uncertainty and Risk For Lawyers." Law Institute Journal 75 (March).
(emphasis added)

And federal law sees it as

18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals

Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
(emphasis added)

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Yes, but this thread is about a father in PA gifting a handgun to his son in VA. It has nothing to do with KY. or any other intrastate transfer.

To be more precise and pedantic, it's about a father who is a resident of PA transferring a gun to his son who is a resident of Virginia. I don't care how or where you draw the Mason-Dixon line :D, that's an interstate transfer.

stay safe.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Are you saying that you don't know what the Mason-Dixon Line is?

Probably not Scouser! Kaintakee used to be part of Virginia but we gave it away in 1792 because they couldn't find the Mason Dixon line and it was embarrassing....
stirsthepot3.gif
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
We only get to bring $10 in coins for visiting days. Check the inflated) prices in the vending machines and figure out just how far you can stretch those goodies. And remeber that there are going to be guys back on the cellblock who expect you to bring stuff back to them or they will ....

I agree that the infringements are not "proper" but am not willing to be one of a long string of folks who thought they would be test cases only to end up with all-expense-paid vacations - extended vacations.

david mcbeth said this was not his. Perchance it is yours?
View attachment 12303

stay safe.

Oh no, absolutely not. I am saying that I don't know how we got from discussing an interstate transfer between a resident of PA and a resident of VA to talking about intrastate transfers in KY and I have no idea what relevance any of this has to the Mason-Dixon line. I assume some of this was written tongue in cheek, but even humor needs some attachment to the serious part of the conversation. I don't see any connection whatsoever between these two things and the rest if the thread. This thread has seriously deteriorated and continues to slide downhill. I would imagine that the OP, who asked a very simple question, is now hopelessly confused. I know I am.

His questions were answered on page one, reply one.
 

va_tazdad

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
1,162
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Probably not Scouser! Kaintakee used to be part of Virginia but we gave it away in 1792 because they couldn't find the Mason Dixon line and it was embarrassing....
stirsthepot3.gif

If you look at olde maps, almost ALL of America was part of Virginia.

Thankfully, they cut off the deranged part way up north.

;>)
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
If you look at olde maps, almost ALL of America was part of Virginia.

Thankfully, they cut off the deranged part way up north.

;>)

Unfortunately Taz, we are still trying to give that part north of the Ni to Mary Land. :banana:
 
Top