Loaning firearms as an interstate transfer

[tadawson]

There's no legal concept of loaning, with the exception of "lawful sporting purposes" like going on a hunt in a different state. Otherwise, it's either in your possession or it's not. When people say "I loaned him a gun", they're talking about transferring possession for a temporary period of time.

Whether you intend on giving the weapon back after a period of time vs keeping it permanently is irrelevant to the law as it's still a transfer of possession unless you're physically present with the gun; the most common example being two people going to a shooting range together and shooting each other's guns.

In this case, he's in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5). It's not a matter of the laws of any "dingbat state", it's a federal law that applies to the entire USA.

Please reconcile this with a private sale where ownership clearly changes, but no FFL or transfer is required.

At least here in TX, I can sell or gift with zero paperwork and still be fullh legal. The only issue I see here is that age to possess and age to purchase may not be the same . . . and, by your statement, every kid that ever got a .22 for christmas would be a criminal . . .

A bit of research telle me that to buy a handgun, min age is 21 from and FFL, but only 18 for a private sale. For long guns min age to purchase from and FFL is 18, and no minimum for a private sale. I also see that Fed law prohibits handgun ownership under 18, but sets no minimum for long guns . . .. So, based on Fed law alone, if he bought the rifle privately in IL, he was legal for both purchase and possession, and there would be zero requirement for an FFL in that process.

What I *don't* know is how much more restrictive Wisconsin may be . . .

Your cite may apply, but it cannot be certain, since so much is unknown about what happenrd on which side of the border. (and some might consider orc hunting a "lawful sporting purpose" (and frankly, I am amazed that 'sporting' is stated, and not just 'lawful purpose' . . ))

We also don't know if, in the case he was not the owner, if the owner was also present . . l just hope this kid doesn't get boned on a technical detail, while overall doing the right thing. The good news is that iny Fed charge is out of the hands of the bought snd paid for local dimmie prosecutor, and could conceivably be considered for a Fed pardon, depending on the finsl details.

[TGS]

Please reconcile this with a private sale where ownership clearly changes, but no FFL or transfer is required.

There's no reconciling needed on my end; to be direct and concise, you don't understand the words you're using.

That's a transfer. A private one, but still a transfer of possession.

If I were to visit you in Texas to go to a riot, and you "loaned" me a gun to do so, that would be an illegal transfer regardless of any verbal agreement that I'd have it back by midnight before I turn into a pumpkin.

A bit of research telle me that to buy a handgun, min age is 21 from and FFL, but only 18 for a private sale. For long guns min age to purchase from and FFL is 18, and no minimum for a private sale. I also see that Fed law prohibits handgun ownership under 18, but sets no minimum for long guns . . .. So, based on Fed law alone, if he bought the rifle privately in IL, he was legal for both purchase and possession, and there would be zero requirement for an FFL in that process.

An FFL is always required for an interstate transfer. Federal law allows you to buy a long gun from an FFL in another state, but you must do so from an FFL and not a private individual.

[tadawson]

There's no reconciling needed on my end; to be direct and concise, you don't understand the words you're using.

That's a transfer. A private one, but still a transfer of possession.

If I were to visit you in Texas to go to a riot, and you "loaned" me a gun to do so, that would be an illegal transfer regardless of any verbal agreement that I'd have it back by midnight before I turn into a pumpkin.



An FFL is always required for an interstate transfer. Federal law allows you to buy a long gun from an FFL in another state, but you must do so from an FFL and not a private individual.

My main point is that I don't think that an interstate transfer is a proven. And, perhaps I am off in my terms, but in my terminology, a transfer involves a 4473 - otherwise, it's just an undocumented sale. (But then again, I am not a lawyer . . . )

[TGS]

My main point is that I don't think that an interstate transfer is a proven. And, perhaps I am off in my terms, but in my terminology, a transfer involves a 4473 - otherwise, it's just an undocumented sale. (But then again, I am not a lawyer . . . )

This really isn't that hard to understand. An FFL is not needed for the action of you transferring possession of a firearm to another person to be considered a transfer.

Guy who owned gun lived in a state. Guy who received gun from other guy lived in another state. That's an interstate transfer. This is super simple.

It shall be 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 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 (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

This is incredibly clear and not confusing whatsoever. You don't need to be a lawyer.

[olstyn]

This is incredibly clear and not confusing whatsoever. You don't need to be a lawyer.

Well, there's one piece of it that's confusing - the motivation behind the law. What's so special about "interstate commerce" that makes a transaction which would be perfectly legal if engaged in by two people from the same state illegal if they're not from the same state? Note that I'm not advocating for mail-order guns sans FFL or anything like that, but I don't really see what the federal government's interest in making face to face private party sales between two people who live five miles apart but happen to be on the "wrong" side of an arbitrary line on a map from each other illegal, presuming of course that nobody involved is a prohibited person and that the firearm in question is legal to own in both states. I understand that it's the law, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. What harm is being prevented?

[HCM]

Well, there's one piece of it that's confusing - the motivation behind the law. What's so special about "interstate commerce" that makes a transaction which would be perfectly legal if engaged in by two people from the same state illegal if they're not from the same state? Note that I'm not advocating for mail-order guns sans FFL or anything like that, but I don't really see what the federal government's interest in making face to face private party sales between two people who live five miles apart but happen to be on the "wrong" side of an arbitrary line on a map from each other illegal, presuming of course that nobody involved is a prohibited person and that the firearm in question is legal to own in both states. I understand that it's the law, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. What harm is being prevented?

It has nothing to do with anything you posted. It has to do with the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the constitution:

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Article I establishes the form of Congress and it’s operations and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states. Section 8 contains 18 specific powers of Congress one of which is the commerce clauses, the third of which gives Congress the specific authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Thus the regulation of interstate commerce is one of the powers delegated to the federal government via the constitution.

This is why most federal gun laws are either based on authority to tax (NFA) or the authority to regulate thing / acts which involve or effect interstate commerce. Establishing an “interstate nexus” is one of the requirements for prosecuting federal gun crimes.

Recall also that the interstate violent crime sprees of the depression were the genesis for federal gun control legislation.

Transaction between residents of different states with different state regulation of things like firearms, liquor etc can be reasonably inferred to relate to or effect interstate commerce.

[olstyn]

It has nothing to do with anything you posted. It has to do with the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the constitution:

I understand that the authority to do it comes from the commerce clause, hence my reference to "interstate commerce." What I was questioning was the motivation - I still don't see what the federal government's interest in it is in the context of a private party transfer, other than to generally be a pain in the ass.

[HCM]

I understand that the authority to do it comes from the commerce clause, hence my reference to "interstate commerce." What I was questioning was the motivation - I still don't see what the federal government's interest in it is in the context of a private party transfer, other than to generally be a pain in the ass.

Transaction between residents of different states are the definition of interstate commerce.

I think you are having the same issue some others have reading statutes - “commerce” does not necessarily mean what ever your preconceived, common use notion of commerce is.

Commerce might be limited to the trade, exchange or transportation of people and things, which would exclude, for example, agriculture, manufacturing, and other methods of production; or it might expansively be interpreted to refer to any gainful activity or even to all social interaction.

[olstyn]

Transaction between residents of different states are the definition of interstate commerce.

At no point did I suggest otherwise. My question the whole time has been about the motivation for the law, not the authority to enact it. Again I ask: what does the federal government get out of telling person A who lives five miles north of the border between FL and GA that if s/he sells a firearm to person B who lives five miles south of that border without going through an FFL in FL that they're now both felons? What possible purpose does that serve?

[Joe S]

At no point did I suggest otherwise. My question the whole time has been about the motivation for the law, not the authority to enact it. Again I ask: what does the federal government get out of telling person A who lives five miles north of the border between FL and GA that if s/he sells a firearm to person B who lives five miles south of that border without going through an FFL in FL that they're now both felons? What possible purpose does that serve?

Government gonna government.