GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Biden Moves To Outlaw Acorns, Limit Squirrel Immigration

Escape Hatch

Autocross Champion
what's pathetic is how much time you spent on that one post that no one is going to take seriously :ROFLMAO:
I read it and he appears to know what he is taking about. I am a bit curious however and believe he is involved with firearms in some fashion; sales, purchases, manufacturing to some extent.
 

Corprin

Autocross Champion
what's pathetic is how much time you spent on that one post that no one is going to take seriously :ROFLMAO:

Again, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion you so eagerly wanted to engage in?

Maybe the post will encourage intelligent people to question what they read on a forum and start reading the laws they comment on.


I take it you have an FFL and if so which class?

Held 01 for 11yrs, stepped down to 03 when we moved to a city that doesn’t allow 01’s in residential areas. I keep the 03 for my collection and the discounts.
 

Escape Hatch

Autocross Champion
Again, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion you so eagerly wanted to engage in?

Maybe the post will encourage intelligent people to question what they read on a forum and start reading the laws they comment on.




Held 01 for 11yrs, stepped down to 03 when we moved to a city that doesn’t allow 01’s in residential areas. I keep the 03 for my collection and the discounts.
Figured as much, explains your requirement for identification and licensure for firearm transfers. Don't want to be in the wrong side of the law with the ATF spot checks.
 

Corprin

Autocross Champion
Figured as much, explains your requirement for identification and licensure for firearm transfers. Don't want to be in the wrong side of the law with the ATF spot checks.

Exactly.
 

anotero

Autocross Champion
You are changing the scenario. You first state that you gave money to your father to purchase the gun for you, then transfer to you, in order to circumvent the CA laws/regulations regarding non-roster handguns. That is what I am responding to.



for the sake of time, I am not considering licensees, rather transferring between unlicensed individuals.

It all comes down to the intent of the original purchase. Intent is the only legal hurdle in the situation. If the firearm was purchased for yourself, say, you bought a shitbird Mosin-Nagant because the internet told you it’s the greatest thing, then quickly realized how they are not, you can sell/gift it to anyone that is legally allowed to obtain it. If that person resides in the same state, then the transfer can occur under the provisions of the applicable state law. If that state law requires a background check and transfer through FFL, then the federal law requires it through proxy.

If the people reside in different states, then the transfer must be conducted by an FFL on a 4473 except in very limited situations.

A face to face transfer becomes illegal to the federal government when the transfer is: not conducted in accordance with the state law; the firearm is transferred to a person known or suspected of being unable to legally obtain said firearm, and/or; the person transferring the firearm knows or a reasonable suspicion that the person receiving the firearm resides in another state.

Personally, I require a valid MN driver’s license and permit to carry or permit to purchase for any face to face transfer. Not required but it’s a way to cover my ass.



He created the scenario to debate beyond the initial Rittenhouse/Black purchase. Both of whom admitted, under oath, the nature of that rifles purchase. Given it as a parallel scenario where the father was given funds to buy the gun then transfer under the familial gifting, the violation of the law is there. I am not speaking to the “what if I didn’t tell them that’s what we did” follow-on comment. Regardless of the reporting and disclosure, the violation exists.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the government in these cases, and that intent is difficult to prove. In the applicable case law the intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and in at lest one case, upheld by SCOTUS.

In the case of Rittenhouse/Black, intent is not hard to prove as there exists an admission of the violation.



Actually I do know how laws work, it’s literally my job, and I’m quite good at it. 🤣

It doesn’t matter how you feel about your buying a handgun through your dad in another state and having said handgun gifted to you. By doing so you have violated federal law and both you and your father are open to criminal charges. This is based on the facts of the scenario, not your nor my feelings about it. This is clearly spelled out in both the USC and CFR.

What firearms you brought with you to CA is governed by CA law. The federal government says you can move your firearms freely about the country as long as you are in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction you are in. CA says you can bring your non-roster handgun into the state, then the federal government is fine with it. If CA said it’s not okay, and you did it anyway, then you are in violation of CA and federal law.

Nope, the scenario is the same as before.

And no, there is no violation in the scenario. Like i said, if intent was everything, manslaughter would not exist as a charge, period.
 

zrickety

The Fixer

anotero

Autocross Champion
The US gov of 2021 should listen to the US gov of 1918. They gave us better guidance 100 years ago.
"Do not get hysterical over the epidemic"
"Lessen the danger to yourself by keeping in good physical condition"
"In the average case, recovery follows in 5-6 days"
"To hasten recovery...there should be plenty of fresh air"

View attachment 232189

Fresh air? Heresy!

I find it hilarious Cali thinks enforcing mask wearing while sharing tight spaces with others for 10 hours is going to save anyone.
 

Corprin

Autocross Champion
Nope, the scenario is the same as before.

And no, there is no violation in the scenario. Like i said, if intent was everything, manslaughter would not exist as a charge, period.

If you come to a stop sign in the middle of the desert, you are the only one there, and you blow through the stop. Did you break the law?
 

npace

Autocross Champion
If you come to a stop sign in the middle of the desert, you are the only one there, and you blow through the stop. Did you break the law?
I might be speaking out of turn here, but I think his point is that he did, regardless of whether he intended to or not. Like if the brakes are out, and he didn't mean to blow through the stop sign but did anyway, he still broke the law by going through the stop sign.
 

riceburner

Autocross Champion

Corprin

Autocross Champion
I might be speaking out of turn here, but I think his point is that he did, regardless of whether he intended to or not. Like if the brakes are out, and he didn't mean to blow through the stop sign but did anyway, he still broke the law by going through the stop sign.

And that is the point I am attempting to make. The scenario stated he gave his father money to buy him a non-roster hand gun, then gift it to him through a familial transfer into CA as a means to circumvent the CA law saying he can’t buy that handgun in CA directly.

The fact that he can legally own the handgun, even a non-roster handgun through the gifting, is absolutely immaterial in the violation of federal law. I think this is the confusing part.

It’s a common misconception that a straw purchase only exists if the firearm is sold to a person that can’t legally own it/one. The courts have upheld illegal “straw purchase” convictions, that is the straw purchase is illegal not the conviction, even when both parties are legally allowed to own said firearm. The violation stems from the intent of the purchase/transfer to obtain the firearm for someone else.

Even if you don’t tell anyone about it, the violation still exists because the original purchase/transfer from the FFL to the father was not legal since the father was not the buyer as stated on the 4473.

This is where the bone fide gift comes into play. Has the father used his funds to buy the handgun, with intent to gift the gun to his son, aka an actual gift. No laws are violated.

It was the part of the scenario “I give my dad money to buy me the handgun and gift it to me” that constitutes the illegal act.

In the case of Rittenhouse/Black, they testified that Black bought the rifle for Rittenhouse, with Rittenhouse’s money because the latter was under-age, with intent on giving Rittenhouse the rifle when he came of age. This is an admission of the violation, the “gifting money” then “gifting rifle” is a meager attempt to pull a “ha gotcha!” on the feds. This doesn’t really matter since Rittenhouse bought the rifle through another person, and that person stated in the 4473 that they were the buyer.

This subject is covered by both sides of the gun debate, even the NRA ILA says “watch yourself in this arena, it could be considered a straw purchase.”

if @anotero wants to play with fire for a silly handgun, that’s on him, but the act of buying a gun through another person is illegal.
 
Top