Familial transfer question

[Constitutional Armory]

Purchasing as in filling out all the paperwork, not just paying.

Paying is the whole thing as when the person buys it they take ownership so as there taking ownership. Title. Then they are in a transfer state which you said needs to be a transfer when it gets sent to ca FFL

 

[treelogger]

I guess one could argue a Schrödinger's cat paradox. Paying for a firearm makes it both yours and yet not yours until you take legal possession of it..... Some dealers may see it as a legitimate gift and some will not.

What does "yours" even mean? Do you mean ownership? Ownership is a VERY complicated concept. My favorite explanation comes from our old real estate lawyer: Ownership is a bundle of rights. They typically transfer at different times, and due to different causes. Some of these come from black-letter law (today mostly the UCC, as adopted by pretty much all states in the US). Others come from common law (British tradition). Some come from precedent cases. Simply saying "yours" or "not yours" is a dangerous oversimplification.

IANAL, to I won't give the long lecture here about what really happens. And if you asked a lawyer, they would probably refuse to do so, until and unless (a) you pay them a few thousand $, and (b) they are in an attorney-client relationship with you. Or you could read any of the standard civil law textbooks, which have several chapters on that topic alone.

Paying doesn't make it yours, especially not when there are transfer requirements.

And that makes the concept of "ownership" even more complicated for things that need to be titled or registered, such as real estate, air planes, vehicles, and yes also guns. If you give someone $$$ for a gun, and take possession of it, and the check clears, and you put it in your safe and shoot it on the range, but you never do the required paperwork (some combination of 4473, DROS, PPT, OpLaw, ...), is it really yours? No, it is not completely yours. Unwinding this partial transaction is not easy, and we get back to the advice of hiring a lawyer in a situation where this causes conflict.

The law explicitly says that whoever is purchasing is taking title ownership am I getting something wrong?

If it is that easy as "explicitly says", please quote the statute. I dare you ...

EDITed to add: While I was typing it, Constitutional Armory doubled down on his allegation, still without any supporting evidence. My dare stands.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

What does "yours" even mean? Do you mean ownership? Ownership is a VERY complicated concept. My favorite explanation comes from our old real estate lawyer: Ownership is a bundle of rights. They typically transfer at different times, and due to different causes. Some of these come from black-letter law (today mostly the UCC, as adopted by pretty much all states in the US). Others come from common law (British tradition). Some come from precedent cases. Simply saying "yours" or "not yours" is a dangerous oversimplification.

IANAL, to I won't give the long lecture here about what really happens. And if you asked a lawyer, they would probably refuse to do so, until and unless (a) you pay them a few thousand $, and (b) they are in an attorney-client relationship with you. Or you could read any of the standard civil law textbooks, which have several chapters on that topic alone.


And that makes the concept of "ownership" even more complicated for things that need to be titled or registered, such as real estate, air planes, vehicles, and yes also guns. If you give someone $$$ for a gun, and take possession of it, and the check clears, and you put it in your safe and shoot it on the range, but you never do the required paperwork (some combination of 4473, DROS, PPT, OpLaw, ...), is it really yours? No, it is not completely yours. Unwinding this partial transaction is not easy, and we get back to the advice of hiring a lawyer in a situation where this causes conflict.


If it is that easy as "explicitly says", please quote the statute. I dare you ...

EDITed to add: While I was typing it, Constitutional Armory doubled down on his allegation, still without any supporting evidence. My dare stands.

This is under UCC

The Online Contract: When your out-of-state parent enters their credit card information and clicks "Submit Order" on an online retail site, they enter into a legally binding contract. Because their capital pays for the item, the online vendor issues the digital receipt and bill of sale directly to them. Under commercial law, this transaction legally vests the property title to the parent, even while the item is physically in transit.

The Parent's Capital creates the online transaction.

The Online Vendor issues a bill of sale transferring Title to the parent under UCC rules.

The California FFL receives the physical gun, but holds it under the parent's title until the child executes the DROS to take physical Possession.

 

[mountain_yokai]

Just to clarify my end of this, I wasn't simply asking him to buy then transfer immediately...I was going to have him take possession/ownership for a while before attempting this familial transfer...I don't know how much of a difference this all makes or if it's just a moot point.

 

[WojtekWeaponry]

Really? It can be shown that the firearm never belonged to the family member, which means that the intrafamilial exemption doesn't apply. There is paperwork in regards to firearms which can prove a lot.

Ok then.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

Just to clarify my end of this, I wasn't simply asking him to buy then transfer immediately...I was going to have him take possession/ownership for a while before attempting this familial transfer...I don't know how much of a difference this all makes or if it's just a moot point.

So theres no law on how long the sender needs to have possession on it some people wait some people transfer it and ship it out same day.

 

[kemasa]

This is under UCC

The Online Contract: When your out-of-state parent enters their credit card information and clicks "Submit Order" on an online retail site, they enter into a legally binding contract. Because their capital pays for the item, the online vendor issues the digital receipt and bill of sale directly to them. Under commercial law, this transaction legally vests the property title to the parent, even while the item is physically in transit.

The Parent's Capital creates the online transaction.

The Online Vendor issues a bill of sale transferring Title to the parent under UCC rules.

The California FFL receives the physical gun, but holds it under the parent's title until the child executes the DROS to take physical Possession.

No, just no. Under your claim they would be illegally purchasing a firearm since they have taken ownership without submitting the proper paperwork, such as the 4473 and other paperwork. The title to a firearm doesn't just magically transfer, unlike other items which doesn't have the same restrictions.

You should talk to the BATF as they view the FFL owning the firearm when it is in their inventory. In addition, there isn't anything documented in the FFL's records as to who paid for it.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

No, just no. Under your claim they would be illegally purchasing a firearm since they have taken ownership without submitting the proper paperwork, such as the 4473 and other paperwork. The title to a firearm doesn't just magically transfer, unlike other items which doesn't have the same restrictions.

You should talk to the BATF as they view the FFL owning the firearm when it is in their inventory. In addition, there isn't anything documented in the FFL's records as to who paid for it.

Well I would think that's where the paper trail comes into play on an audit. Receipt invoice showing the parents billing address and payment method with there cc everything is leading back to parent for the purchase no money exchanged at all ever

 

[kemasa]

Well I would think that's where the paper trail comes into play on an audit. Receipt invoice showing the parents billing address and payment method with there cc everything is leading back to parent for the purchase no money exchanged at all ever

But the law is in regards to the TRANSFER of a firearm FROM a family member TO another family member. If the child/parent/grandparent never had possession of the firearm then it is NOT a transfer from them, is it? There isn't a gift exemption.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

But the law is in regards to the TRANSFER of a firearm FROM a family member TO another family member. If the child/parent/grandparent never had possession of the firearm then it is NOT a transfer from them, is it? There isn't a gift exemption.

Well that's when I think the law comes in as this being a constructive possession it's same thing as possession in turn as the law and codes I pointed out as being a transfer from one to another to me I think it's a good standing ground or a good defense but that's just me.

 

[kemasa]

Well that's when I think the law comes in as this being a constructive possession it's same thing as possession in turn as the law and codes I pointed out as being a transfer from one to another to me I think it's a good standing ground or a good defense but that's just me.

So you think that someone paying is enough to qualify as an intrafamilial transfer? Really? You think that would fly with the CA DOJ? That is quite the risk for little reward.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

So you think that someone paying is enough to qualify as an intrafamilial transfer? Really? You think that would fly with the CA DOJ? That is quite the risk for little reward.

When there is paperwork receipts to back it up you making it sound like it's just buying it and hope there is paperwork. There is constructive possession here. Along with receipts invoices name cc info of sender everything with intent showing who bought it all paperwork

 

[Kinged2026]

Difficult to see how an attorney could avoid 1968 Gun Control act requirements for use of an FFL when transferring firearms between persons who are residents of different states. "Gifts" are included in the prohibited list. Actual Law

(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; 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;

I'm confused, you included the link, but your excerpt doesn't match the text in the link. The text in the link clearly states "or in the course of such business". This section is in reference to someone doing this as a business.

 

[Kinged2026]

I'm confused, you included the link, but your excerpt doesn't match the text in the link. The text in the link clearly states "or in the course of such business". This section is in reference to someone doing this as a business.

Sorry didn't scan down to section 5. I will research the attorney's view on that portion.

 

[kemasa]

When there is paperwork receipts to back it up you making it sound like it's just buying it and hope there is paperwork. There is constructive possession here. Along with receipts invoices name cc info of sender everything with intent showing who bought it all paperwork

Sorry, you don't understand. Just paying does make it possible to have a transfer from that person.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

Sorry, you don't understand. Just paying does make it possible to have a transfer from that person.

So accord to you which part is not satisfied the federal or the state part?

 

[Constitutional Armory]

Remember the statute that says transfer of ownership. That's the key word says ownership doesn't say physically in possession to transfer

The law treats a firearm exactly like a car, a house, or a share of stock: ownership is a legal status (title), while possession is a physical act (custody). You can acquire legal title to something the instant you pay for it, long before it ever touches your hands.When a parent purchases a handgun online using their own money, the online invoice serves as the receipt of sale. Under standard contract and property law, that receipt establishes that legal title has transferred from the vendor to the parent. The parent owns it immediately, even though the vendor is shipping it directly to a California FFL.

California Statutory Definitions (Civil Code § 654 & § 679)
California’s own legal definition of "ownership" explicitly states that you do not need to physically hold something to own it.

This is all California laws on possession and ownership

 

[treelogger]

This is all California laws on possession and ownership

Where did you get your law degree? What's your BAR number?

Serious, the stuff you're writing is so over-simplified that it is mostly wrong. Ownership is much more complex than what you keep repeating: "acquire legal title to something the instant you pay for it". In particular for goods that need to be registered and recorded.

 

[kemasa]

So accord to you which part is not satisfied the federal or the state part?

It is a state law, so guess which you think would apply? But also the feds don't consider you owning it just by paying for it, but that isn't really relevant in this case.

But wait, there's more, go look at LEOs who have been charged with crimes due to doing CA PPT transfers for non-roster firearms which was never actually been transferred into their name, as well dealers have been charged, which makes it clear that paying for it isn't actually enough.

Quite clearly your view isn't going to change, so you do you and take the risk and if you get caught, you will pay the penalty. As the saying going, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, but the horse can be drowned if it doesn't.

 

[Constitutional Armory]

It is a state law, so guess which you think would apply? But also the feds don't consider you owning it just by paying for it, but that isn't really relevant in this case.

But wait, there's more, go look at LEOs who have been charged with crimes due to doing CA PPT transfers for non-roster firearms which was never actually been transferred into their name, as well dealers have been charged, which makes it clear that paying for it isn't actually enough.

Quite clearly your view isn't going to change, so you do you and take the risk and if you get caught, you will pay the penalty. As the saying going, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, but the horse can be drowned if it doesn't.

I'm not saying I'm right but I'm just trying to interpret what the law says but if it doesn't say that then it's what it is