Trading for guns from someone out of state

[Bosshoss]

I have a deal going on a guy that is out of state (Arkansas)wants to trade a rifle and handgun for a boat I have for sale. If he comes to Indiana to look at and pickup boat, would the legal way be to bring the guns and go to a FFL and he turns them over to the FFL and then I do a 4473 to take them from there? Can the FFL take a gun from a private party FTF that is out of state?
Anyway to meet him halfway and me bring guns back to a FFL and make a transfer? Trying to keep from shipping the guns so both of us have a chance to inspect the goods.
Thanks

 

[sloughfoot]

The legal eagles on this forum are going to tell you what YOU must legally do to legally take possession of firearms from out of state. They have no option but to tell you the legalities of the question.

My answer is from me and me only. If you, yourself, know that you are legal to own a firearm, why do you need to run the transaction through a FFL to verify through the NICS what you already know. That you are legal to own a firearm.

However, on a FTF transaction, you have no obligation to verify the state of residency of the person who wants to trade the firearms to you. He has an interest in knowing that you are a resident of the state that you are in where the transaction takes place. But you, as the recipient of the firearms, could not care less about the home state of the trader person.

This is totally my opinion and not the opinion of those who run this forum.

 

[melensdad]

...would the legal way be to bring the guns and go to a FFL and he turns them over to the FFL and then I do a 4473 to take them from there?

Yes

Can the FFL take a gun from a private party FTF that is out of state?

Yes

Anyway to meet him halfway and me bring guns back to a FFL and make a transfer?

Not legally.

 

[JettaKnight]

My answer is from me and me only. If you, yourself, know that you are legal to own a firearm, why do you need to run the transaction through a FFL to verify through the NICS what you already know. That you are legal to own a firearm.

Am I reading this right? Are you advising someone on an open forum to conduct an illegal firearm transfer? You can preface this with all the warnings about personal opinion you want, but telling someone to become a gunrunner (according to the BATFE) is simply reckless. Especially to someone you don't know personally and in on open forum and given the number of rumors of BATFE sting operations (whether true or not).

The correct, legal and proper way is to have a dealer in INDIANA transfer the firearm over to you. You may not take possession of the firearm in any other manner. Either do the transfer in person here in Indiana or have the firearm shipped to your dealer. I'm not a legal eagle, but I do know what is illegal.

 

[Tamara]

I have a deal going on a guy that is out of state (Arkansas)wants to trade a rifle and handgun for a boat I have for sale. If he comes to Indiana to look at and pickup boat, would the legal way be to bring the guns and go to a FFL and he turns them over to the FFL and then I do a 4473 to take them from there? Can the FFL take a gun from a private party FTF that is out of state?
Anyway to meet him halfway and me bring guns back to a FFL and make a transfer?

Yes, yes, and no.

 

[Tamara]

My answer is from me and me only. If you, yourself, know that you are legal to own a firearm, why do you need to run the transaction through a FFL to verify through the NICS what you already know.

Given all the attention paid to "gun-running" by the media right now, it'd sure suck to find out that the ad in Craigslist came from a BATFEIEIO agent, an NYPD investigator running another Bloomberg sting, or an investigative reporter, all because someone wanted to save the $25 transfer fee.

 

[sloughfoot]

This is what is happening... Guy has a boat for sale. Somebody else pulls into the driveway and says "I'll trade you this handgun and this rifle for your boat". Guy with boat says OK. They trade property and the person drives away with the boat.

What law did the guy with a boat for sale violate when he took the handgun and rifle? I would like to see the wording of that insane law. Thank you.

 

[JettaKnight]

This is what is happening... Guy has a boat for sale. Somebody else pulls into the driveway and says "I'll trade you this handgun and this rifle for your boat". Guy with boat says OK. They trade property and the person drives away with the boat.

What law did the guy with a boat for sale violate when he took the handgun and rifle? I would like to see the wording of that insane law. Thank you.

Read the post again. The seller, from AK, is coming to Indiana to buy a boat from a third party - the boat is immaterial to the discussion.

What's really happening is the OP is buying a firearm from someone he KNOWS is not a resident of Indiana - that's illegal to do FTF. And furthermore, ignorance is never an excuse. Simply sticking your head in the sand and hiding from the facts is not going to help you when you sit across the table from a federal prosecutor.

 

[Glock19]

Wow I finally get to use this smiley...this is good! How in the world can you have over 3300 posts in this forum and NOT realize your advising someone to do something illegal!?!?!?!

 

[Faine]

alteration

I would not risk it myself but being on topic I have a slightly altered version of this.

What if a man were to die leaving his guns to his kid who is an indiana resident. Registration never occured for the son only inheritance, is he ok to bring them to his home in indiana and sell them?

 

[Bosshoss]

Thanks for replies. Just for the record I'm NOT going to do ANYTHING ILLEGAL and risk a felony arrest and losing my right to own a gun.
I also don't have any issues with paying transfer fees.
Long distance purchases are difficult when driving long distances and buying or trading for stuff you have never seen. I have seen pictures of the guns and I'm not to worried about them but he has more at risk buying the boat from afar. IMHO.
I have been 100% honest with him. If something is wrong with a boat it would cost alot more to fix than anything with these guns.
He will have to come up when he can and it might be a time that FFL's might not be available(Sunday or late in the evening).
I was just trying to figure out the way to make this transaction easiest for both of us. (If it goes through)

 

[Tamara]

What if a man were to die leaving his guns to his kid who is an indiana resident. Registration never occured for the son only inheritance, is he ok to bring them to his home in indiana and sell them?

There is an exemption to the Federal requirement that all interstate transfers pass through a licensee in regards to bequests.

The Calguns Foundation has a good breakdown page on 18 USC 922(a).

 

[ATM]

This is what is happening... Guy has a boat for sale. Somebody else pulls into the driveway and says "I'll trade you this handgun and this rifle for your boat". Guy with boat says OK. They trade property and the person drives away with the boat.

What law did the guy with a boat for sale violate when he took the handgun and rifle? I would like to see the wording of that insane law. Thank you.

Here's the charges that would need a defense: (a)(3) for the receiver of the guns and (a)(5) for the transferor of the guns.

18 U.S.C. § 922 (a) It shall be unlawful -
...

(3) 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...
...

(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...

 

[sloughfoot]

I will ask again, (thank you ATM), what law the transferee of the firearms violated by accepting the firearms on his property in his home state. He is not purchasing or obtaining said firearms from outside the State.

There is no legal obligation for this private individual (transferee) to verify where the transferor is from.

With this specific example the transferor is in violation but not the transferee.

All of our responses have been to the transferee, not the transferor. We have no way to properly advise the transferor.

If you can find a law that prohibits a person from accepting firearms from anybody in their home or property, I eagerly await this information.

If our guy hauls the boat to Arkansas and does the trade there, everything changes. But on his property, in Indiana, I can't see how he is in legal peril in any way.

 

[bubba16430]

Read the post again. The seller, from AK, is coming to Indiana to buy a boat from a third party -

No AK (Alaska) He is comeing from ARK (Arkansas). Curious to know from where abouts, lol he could be family.

 

[sloughfoot]

Aside from the legal questions. Lets say the guns for boat trade happens at 2PM on a Sunday afternoon on the property of the Indiana resident. The guy drives away with the boat and the new owner of the guns admires and handles and maybe even shoots his new guns.

Does it really make sense to you that the new owner of the guns report to an FFL Monday morning at 8AM to determine that he is legally able to possess these guns? Or maybe he should say to the person that is trying to trade him the guns, No, I can't possess these guns until the federal government advises that I am legal to own these guns.

The 4473 does not transfer an individual firearm from one owner to another. It merely verifies that the new owner of a firearm is not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

I choose to not lick anybody's boots.....But I still don't think the transferee has to jump through these hoops....

 

[throttletony]

Thanks for starting this thread... very interesting points.
I hate how the government wants to be involved in so many ways, however, if that involvement could hinder someone from shooting up a school, I don't mind it much. The obvious downside is that uncle Sam is not fool proof in approving firearms sales (perhaps foolish though), and it ends up being a hassle for all of us that actually obey the laws.
With that said, I LOVE Indiana's gun laws compared to most of our neighboring states!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Aside from the legal questions. Lets say the guns for boat trade happens at 2PM on a Sunday afternoon on the property of the Indiana resident. The guy drives away with the boat and the new owner of the guns admires and handles and maybe even shoots his new guns.

Does it really make sense to you that the new owner of the guns report to an FFL Monday morning at 8AM to determine that he is legally able to possess these guns? Or maybe he should say to the person that is trying to trade him the guns, No, I can't possess these guns until the federal government advises that I am legal to own these guns.

The 4473 does not transfer an individual firearm from one owner to another. It merely verifies that the new owner of a firearm is not prohibited from possessing a firearm.

I choose to not lick anybody's boots.....But I still don't think the transferee has to jump through these hoops....

It's not about licking boots, unless by having a LTCH, you consider yourself a bootlicker. The fact is, as everyone has told you, transferring guns across state lines is unlawful. You don't agree with that law. Fact is, neither do I; I believe it to be unConstitutional. However, whether I like the law or not, I cannot, as a responsible gun owner, violate or advocate violating the law, and until those nine folks in black robes in DC come to their senses and recognize the Constitution's words as meaning what they say, that law IS valid and will be treated as such.

Consequently, I will say this: if you choose to knowingly violate the law, that's your choice and your right to do so. Do not use this forum to advocate others doing so or to lead someone who may come along and know no better to do so.

The fallacy in your scenario of Sunday afternoon is that the person trading boat for guns has accepted the guns here; he has bought them with a boat. Legally, he cannot do that. Call it bootlicking if you want, but it's easier to change laws while working from within them, and given that (false) choice, licking boots is better than what you'd have to lick in federal PMITA prison.

and
In response to a suggestion of illegal activity, this is your in-thread warning. Let's not have any more of that, shall we? Thanks.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[Tamara]

Or maybe he should say to the person that is trying to trade him the guns, No, I can't possess these guns until the federal government advises that I am legal to own these guns.

At this point, the question is not whether he is "legal to own these guns", it's whether he is licensed by the federal government to engage in interstate commerce in firearms. The "legal to own" part comes when he goes to the person who is licensed to engage in interstate commerce regarding firearms and wishes to receive them from him.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

But I still don't think the transferee has to jump through these hoops....

What you think and what I think does not matter. Apparently the law thinks differently, since there are people currently serving time for violating 922(a) in just this fashion.

If that's a risk you feel like taking, be my guest, but it's bad form to be playing internet lawyer and telling other people that they don't face any legal risk by taking this action, especially if you use something approaching proper grammar and punctuation and don't quote Braveheart or Firefly two or three times in your post.

People might think that because you type so pretty that you're a real lawyer, take your advice, get locked up, and I'll bet you wouldn't even bake 'em a cake with a file in it when it happens.

 

[JettaKnight]

No AK (Alaska) He is comeing from ARK (Arkansas). Curious to know from where abouts, lol he could be family.

DOH! I knew that looked wrong.