PDA

View Full Version : Review requested - undocumented firearms


anony mouse
02-20-2009, 4:51 AM
I want someone, anyone, to find holes in this logic. I am specifically seeking what statutes would make this illegal. I am not looking for a way to bypass the laws, but since there are so many I may have missed some, and am hoping that if I did someone would post which ones I missed which would make this illegal, specifically to avoid violating any existing laws.

So please, find a problem with this logic, any problem, anything that would make this illegal. I am not looking to do anything that is illegal, and the more eyes that look at this the more chances that someone somewhere will discover something illegal and thus invalidate this method. I am not talking about ammunition, so I will not cover those laws, but basically they are highly similar.

This potentially could be used by people in other states, and NV is not the only potential state to purchase from, basically the states that Brady classifies as a "gun show loophole" state may be suitable for this general method. It is also a potential way to own and be able to use a weapon that is banned where you reside (for example CA bans a HK Mark 23 handgun as an assault weapon). Granted it has to be kept in NV and shoot it at a range there, and all of that, but if you are close enough to the border, and there is a secure storage facility near the border this may not be as big of a problem for some as it would be for others.

ASSUMPTIONS
You are not a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(d) and (g) (same list, 'd' applies to the seller, 'g' to the buyer), you are of age and are not buying destructive devices, silencers, machine guns, or anything similar that would require additional taxes, permits and other paperwork.

You are not buying a rifle or shotgun (thanks Trickster for pointing out the NV law that makes this illegal for CA residents)

You buy only from a private seller in Nevada and not a FFL.

You are not a Nevada resident (for this example I am using California residents as the base, but in theory it should work for any other state). Nevada residents do not need to do this, so it would be moot for them.

You never present a drivers license or state ID card, but instead a passport if requested by the seller to show identity for their records (many ask now to mitigate legal issues if the firearm is later used in a crime)

The purchase will be made in person, "cash and carry".

The seller does not do the (currently) optional background check.

The seller does not ask you which state you are a resident of, and you do not make any comments that indicate what state you are a resident of.

The firearm is not stolen, has serial numbers in tact, general stuff - above board legal transactions in every other way. The weapon otherwise complies with 18 USC 922(p) ("airport screener detection" section) and all that. Not talking about exotics.

METHOD
Go to a Nevada gun show (or other place) and purchase firearms. After purchase you store the gun in Nevada at one of the "gun locker" companies that are set up specifically to store firearms in a secure facility. One example would be Impact Indoor in Sparks Nevada (just outside Reno). In this way the firearm never leaves the state of Nevada.


LAWS
I used http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html as reference, I am not going into detail in Nevada state law, which is fairly simple on its own right.

Nevada state law allows for private party transfers to occur with optional background checks performed. If they opt for the check, they must wait for the response, pay for the check, and abide by the results. If they opt not to the law protects them when selling the weapon.

As pointed out by Trickster, NV state law requires that you comply with CA state law on the transfer of shotguns and rifles:
NRS 597.910 Sales of rifles and shotguns to residents of Nevada and contiguous states in accordance with federal law..
2. Residents of a state contiguous to the State of Nevada may purchase rifles and shotguns in Nevada if:
(a) Such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal firearms control law (18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq.) and any regulation promulgated thereunder.
(b) Such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in Nevada and in the state where such persons reside.

18 USC 922(a)(2) defines interstate and foreign commerce for the firearms statutes:
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

Under 18 USC 922 the following appears to apply to this situation:
(a)(1)(A) does not apply as the weapon is not being "shipped, transported or received" in interstate or foreign commerce

(a)(3) does not apply as the weapon is not "transported or received" in the State where you reside

(a)(5) would apply only if the private seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe you do not reside in Nevada, basically it sets up a "dont ask dont tell"
policy on private party transfers.

(a)(6) means that if they do ask you cant lie, you must reveal upon being asked where your residency is, further enforcing the "dont ask dont tell" policy for the private party transfers.

(a)(9) requires that if you are not a resident of "any State" you use the firearm only for "lawful sporting purposes" ie target/hunting applications and not for general carry, home defense, or militia activities. By securing it in a locked storage locker it would be difficult to use it for anything else (Impact Indoor also is a range, so if you dont remove it from the building then the argument would be hard to say that it was for anything else).


Can anyone find anything that would make this type of transaction illegal? Anything, even if you arent sure please post with those questions so they can be investigated.

TRICKSTER
02-20-2009, 5:19 AM
New member and first post is asking for advise on how to bypass current laws.
Anyone else see a red flag or should I start wearing a foil hat?

theshoer
02-20-2009, 5:33 AM
LEO Pehaps?

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 5:40 AM
LEO Pehaps?

No, just someone who has talked to a friend that recommended this site for such commentary. Originally I was going to have him post it, but he didnt want to, so I went ahead and did it because I would like for someone, anyone to find a problem with it. I cant find a law that makes that illegal, and I dont want to do anything that is illegal. I thought this would be a good way to get more eyes on it since there are so many laws that can go into this, and if it exists find the ones that would indicate this is not a legal thing to do.

I also dont know why a LEO would ask for people to find a law that would make this type of thing illegal, if anything they would not want it talked about just in case it is legal based on the majority of police departments (there are some in some more rural counties that do not have that sentiment, but most of the population does not live there by definition).

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 5:42 AM
New member and first post is asking for advise on how to bypass current laws.
Anyone else see a red flag or should I start wearing a foil hat?

I am not asking on how to bypass the laws, I am asking for people to show me a law that would make this illegal, kinda the opposite of what you said. I cant find it, but not wanting to do something illegal, I thought I would ask others to help me find one that makes this illegal, if one cant be found then it would appear to be legal. If that is the case I already found the way to work within the existing laws (not bypass them) and outlined it fairly well I think.

Librarian
02-20-2009, 6:11 AM
You buy only from a private seller in Nevada and not a FFL.

...

The seller does not ask you which state you are a resident of, and you do not make any comments that indicate what state you are a resident of.

A private seller would be an idiot not to demand identification establishing the state of residence of the buyer, since via 18 USC 922 (a)(5) it is illegal for a private individual to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed individual who does not live in the same state as the seller.

5 years in the Federal penitentiary and/or $10,000 fine.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate

JDoe
02-20-2009, 6:19 AM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce)

When examining whether some activity was considered "Commerce" under the Constitution, the Court would aggregate the total effect the activity would have on actual economic commerce. Intrastate activities could fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if those activities would have any rational effect on Interstate Commerce.

So, no it doesn't sound feasible or legal at all.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 6:32 AM
A private seller would be an idiot not to demand identification establishing the state of residence of the buyer, since via 18 USC 922 (a)(5) it is illegal for a private individual to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed individual who does not live in the same state as the seller.

5 years in the Federal penitentiary and/or $10,000 fine.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate

Ahh I thought I referenced that. The law states that its only illegal if the seller knows or probably knows that the buyer is not a resident. They are not required to ask, verify or anything else. I referenced those as the "dont ask dont tell" policy, however if they do ask, its illegal to lie to them or present any documentation that misrepresents any facts relating to the transaction.

The exact wording of 18 USC 922(a)(5) is
(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

emphasis mine.

Max-the-Silent
02-20-2009, 6:32 AM
California state law requires that any firearm transfer (other than interfamilial) be done through an FFL.

Case closed.

Under fed. law, a state resident is required to abide by the laws of their state of residence wrt firearms laws.

No cash and carry for you.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 6:38 AM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce)



So, no it doesn't sound feasible or legal at all.

Well according to the law then it would be illegal to buy a used gun in any way that crossed state lines, so it couldnt affect interstate and foreign commerce. Also I believe that guns are *somewhat* exempt from that interpretation given that there is what the media/brady people call "the gun show loophole" where background checks and other things do not apply to private party transfers.

Yes I know about the farmer who used some of his corn to make ethanol and it was deemed that it was interstate commerce because if he didnt he would have sold it, or bought corn on the market, or whatever which would have changed interstate or foreign commerce of corn. I know about the drug statutes that say because congress cant tell which are and which arent interstate/foreign they all are. I know that even the federal firearm laws state that guns are federal because steel goes from PA to CT (senate reports drafting the law, and a related bit in 922 itself), however I am unsure if this actually applies to private party transactions since much of the laws regarding background checks and other things do not apply even before parts of the brady bill were found unconstitutional.

If you have a case cite that says different I would love to hear about it. I also agree it does not sound legal, but I am unsure if it is or not, why I am asking for statutes and cites and all that would confirm it is illegal.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 6:41 AM
California state law requires that any firearm transfer (other than interfamilial) be done through an FFL.

Case closed.

Under fed. law, a state resident is required to abide by the laws of their state of residence wrt firearms laws.

No cash and carry for you.

As for the federal part, can you provide a cite to that statute? The only ones that I saw related to transporting the weapon across state lines, which isnt happening in this particular situation (stored in the gun locker in NV), or whatever.

I searched 18 USC 922 for "resid" as the lowest common denominator for residence, resides, etc and the closest I found was:
(a)(9) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, who does not reside in any State to receive any firearms unless such receipt is for lawful sporting purposes.

As stated initially, stored at a place like Impact, its an indoor range and secure gun storage facility. Target shooting is ruled federally as a "lawful sporting purpose" (either ruled or an executive order, I know that this was covered when Bush told the DOJ not to prosecute felons in possession if that possession was for a "lawful sporting purpose" - the courts are currently split on the issue with some saying target shooting is not a sport, others citing the olympics as proof that it is). The reason for keeping it there was to ensure that it was for a "lawful sporting purpose".

JDoe
02-20-2009, 6:50 AM
Well according to the law then it would be illegal to buy a used gun in any way that crossed state lines, so it couldnt affect interstate and foreign commerce.

Except there are provisions for transfers involving licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 7:18 AM
Except there are provisions for transfers involving licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors.

18 USC 921 (definitions)
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

I do not think that it would qualify given that its specifically defined for the firearm statutes.

JDoe
02-20-2009, 7:19 AM
What Librarian said regarding

18 USC 922 (a)(5)

(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

Plus

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 2

§ 2. Principals

(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.

So it looks like you would be punishable as a principal because you procured or willfully caused the commission of that crime described by 18 USC 922 (a)(5).

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 7:37 AM
What Librarian said regarding

So it looks like you would be punishable as a principal because you procured or willfully caused the commission of that crime described by 18 USC 922 (a)(5).

I addressed a5 in the original and in a followup. They have to know or have reasonable cause to know that you were not a resident. "dont ask dont tell" would cover that. If you show a passport instead of a state issued ID/license there is no information conveyed about the state of residence. Why I specifically said to use a passport in the assumptions section of the original post (if they ask, they arent legally required to even ask for ID but many do just in case someone knocks at their door asking about the firearm).

So if they dont ask, and you do not tell them, then they didnt know or have a reasonable cause to know that you were not a resident. You cant lie though, if they do ask you must be honest (a6 I think covers truth in information regarding the transaction).

(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

Decoligny
02-20-2009, 7:49 AM
Ahh I thought I referenced that. The law states that its only illegal if the seller knows or probably knows that the buyer is not a resident. They are not required to ask, verify or anything else. I referenced those as the "dont ask dont tell" policy, however if they do ask, its illegal to lie to them or present any documentation that misrepresents any facts relating to the transaction.

The exact wording of 18 USC 922(a)(5) is: (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


emphasis mine.

Providing an ID that is not a State Issued ID showing that the person is a resident of the same state could very likely be viewed by the courts as meeting the "or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in" portion of the law.

ilbob
02-20-2009, 7:52 AM
It appears to be a loophole, if you will.

My guess is that if you actually carried through with it in the way described you would get away with it. Its not as if this kind of thing has not happened many, many times before, completely innocently. Many people just do not know that it is illegal to sell a firearm privately to someone who is not a resident of their state.

My guess is also that if caught, you might eventually get off, but only after an unpleasant and expensive exposure to the legal system.

M. D. Van Norman
02-20-2009, 7:56 AM
It would be far easier and perfectly legal to get an FFL-03, buy a C&R handgun from a private party out of state, and keep it out of state.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 8:01 AM
Providing an ID that is not a State Issued ID showing that the person is a resident of the same state could very likely be viewed by the courts as meeting the "or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in" portion of the law.

Unless your drivers license is suspended so you cant have one, and not everyone has a state issued ID card. I for example do not have one because I recently got back from living overseas for the last 2.5 years. I do have a passport however as that was a travel requirement.

There is no law that requires you to have an ID card (despite the best attempts at a national ID card a few years ago, something about the constitution), and a passport proves citizenship, something a state ID card would not.

So I can see reasonable arguments against that, but again they are not even required to ask for ID by law, and odds are there is someone somewhere that doesnt, but I imagine most will want some form of ID just in case someone knocks at the door asking about that gun.

Further if they have a reasonable cause to know that you are not a resident, they wont (shouldnt) sell the firearm, so its a moot point in my opinion.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 8:05 AM
It appears to be a loophole, if you will.

My guess is that if you actually carried through with it in the way described you would get away with it. Its not as if this kind of thing has not happened many, many times before, completely innocently. Many people just do not know that it is illegal to sell a firearm privately to someone who is not a resident of their state.

My guess is also that if caught, you might eventually get off, but only after an unpleasant and expensive exposure to the legal system.

I agree, it happpens a lot according to the CA state atty general, where people goto nevada to get used firearms, bring them into CA usually for criminal purposes. My intent was to keep it in NV and never bring it into CA, but still be a resident of CA.

I also dont like the term loophole, technically driving the speed limit is a loophole in the speeding laws. Following the law should not be considered a loophole, its a perspective thing, its like when people say on TV news that someone was a "bad guy" because they had guns and such, possessing a gun should not make you a bad guy, doing bad things should make you a bad guy, and using the term loophole to mean "following the law" seems improper to me, and creates the wrong impression in others who may be less informed in the issues. One of my many many pet peeves. :)

Librarian
02-20-2009, 8:19 AM
Providing an ID that is not a State Issued ID showing that the person is a resident of the same state could very likely be viewed by the courts as meeting the "or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in" portion of the law.

I strongly agree with this.

"Don't ask, don't tell" seems to me to be highly unlikely from a generally law-abiding seller. What possible encouragement could a buyer offer to a seller that compensates for a risk of a 5-year jail sentence?

Anony, you didn't address (a)(5), you tried to hand-wave it away.

I'll grant it's going to be possible to find some poor uninformed seller who'll do a transaction like this. That doesn't mean you have found a way to buy out of state and not violate Federal law.

But feel free to take it to an actual lawyer, pay for an opinion, and report what your attorney says. Advice here is worth exactly what you pay for it.

TRICKSTER
02-20-2009, 8:40 AM
You stated that you weren't going into mNevada law because it's quite simple.
You are right, it is quite simple.

NRS 597.910 Sales of rifles and shotguns to residents of Nevada and contiguous states in accordance with federal law..
2. Residents of a state contiguous to the State of Nevada may purchase rifles and shotguns in Nevada if:
(a) Such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal firearms control law (18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq.) and any regulation promulgated thereunder.
(b) Such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in Nevada and in the state where such persons reside.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 8:43 AM
You stated that you weren't going into mNevada law because it's quite simple.
You are right, it is quite simple.

NRS 597.910 Sales of rifles and shotguns to residents of Nevada and contiguous states in accordance with federal law..
2. Residents of a state contiguous to the State of Nevada may purchase rifles and shotguns in Nevada if:
(a) Such residents conform to the applicable provisions of the federal firearms control law (18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq.) and any regulation promulgated thereunder.
(b) Such residents conform to the provisions of law applicable to such purchase in Nevada and in the state where such persons reside.

I do not see anything on pistols, only rifles and shotguns. So that seems to limit it to pistols only. I looked for nearby statutes as well and didnt see any regarding pistols. It also is a state limit on states that border, so basically its an "anti-california" law it seems :/

So long barrels are out, what about handguns? Can anyone find a law similar to this that bars handgun sales in the way described?

dilligaffrn
02-20-2009, 8:45 AM
Why not just do cash and carry on a C&R long gun in CA, and stay legal?

Russian SKS, 03 Springfield, WWII M1 carbine etc...

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 9:00 AM
Why not just do cash and carry on a C&R long gun in CA, and stay legal?

Russian SKS, 03 Springfield, WWII M1 carbine etc...

The intent is to do this legally, why I am asking specifically for anyone to find something that says its not legal. And as for doing it in CA the preamble for this was to avoid paperwork hassles for personal reasons.

Librarian
02-20-2009, 9:02 AM
I do not see anything on pistols, only rifles and shotguns. So that seems to limit it to pistols only. I looked for nearby statutes as well and didnt see any regarding pistols. It also is a state limit on states that border, so basically its an "anti-california" law it seems :/

So long barrels are out, what about handguns? Can anyone find a law similar to this that bars handgun sales in the way described?

Actually long guns are in, except for CA. The Nevada law quoted appears to be NV's implementation of 922 (b)(3), which allows long gun sales by FFLs if the sale meets the requirements of both the state of the sale and the state of residence of the buyer. Handguns are excluded (though there is a bill introduced in the current Congress to change that to 'firearms', thus including handguns; fat chance :( ).

It's not Nevada or even the Feds that are 'anti-California', it's CA that requires sales to go through CA-licensed FFLs.

But dilligaffrn is right; CA does not require long guns 50+ years old to go through the CA FFL - PC 12078(t)(2).

TRICKSTER
02-20-2009, 9:17 AM
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(9) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, who does not reside in any State to receive any firearms unless such receipt is for lawful sporting purposes.

Sort of limits your choices of firearms/handguns.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 9:32 AM
Actually long guns are in, except for CA. The Nevada law quoted appears to be NV's implementation of 922 (b)(3), which allows long gun sales by FFLs if the sale meets the requirements of both the state of the sale and the state of residence of the buyer. Handguns are excluded (though there is a bill introduced in the current Congress to change that to 'firearms', thus including handguns; fat chance :( ).

It's not Nevada or even the Feds that are 'anti-California', it's CA that requires sales to go through CA-licensed FFLs.

But dilligaffrn is right; CA does not require long guns 50+ years old to go through the CA FFL - PC 12078(t)(2).

What I meant was that this law essentially prohibits the sale of long guns in NV to CA residents, since you cant comply with the transaction, aside from the 50+ year old stuff. Remember this was over a private party transaction, where a CA resident would go to NV to purchase, and keep the weapon there.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 9:35 AM
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922

(a) It shall be unlawful—

(9) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, who does not reside in any State to receive any firearms unless such receipt is for lawful sporting purposes.

Sort of limits your choices of firearms/handguns.

This was covered above, but lets do it again to be sure. Lawful sporting purpose - as in a shooting range (courts are divided and afaik no scotus case has been heard, but in the 9th shooting ranges are "lawful sporting purposes"). My initial post and the followup that covered this issue when it was raised by someone in this thread indicated that it would be stored at a place like Impact, which is a range and a secure gun storage facility. As such it would be done for lawful sporting purposes.

Further that applies to people who does not reside in any State if you reside in California you reside in a state, and that wouldnt apply anyway.

deleted by PC police
02-20-2009, 9:40 AM
A private seller would be an idiot not to demand identification establishing the state of residence of the buyer, since via 18 USC 922 (a)(5) it is illegal for a private individual to transfer a firearm to an unlicensed individual who does not live in the same state as the seller.

5 years in the Federal penitentiary and/or $10,000 fine.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Transferring_firearms_Interstate

I'm here to say that law is almost 100% ignored here in utah for private transactions.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 9:44 AM
I'm here to say that law is almost 100% ignored here in utah for private transactions.

I cant say that its ignored because the law is optional. You are not required to ask for ID, and to a point its reasonable to assume that someone is a resident where you are, at least me personally I dont assume most people are not residents when I walk down the street. But that is just me. Only FFLs are required to get ID and all that under federal law. State law may or may not require it, CA requires the use of a FFL so it does, but private party transactions in several states do not.

If you ask, you must follow the law, and its illegal to present fake documents (or real ones that indicate something false, such as an out of date or misleading ID indicating that you are a resident), but there is no legal requirement to ask on the federal level unless you are an FFL.

TRICKSTER
02-20-2009, 9:49 AM
Further that applies to people who does not reside in any State if you reside in California you reside in a state, and that wouldnt apply anyway.

Try that one on a judge. If you already think you know the answers, then why are you even bothering asking. If you are trying to purchase firearms without any records being kept, there are ways of doing it without breaking the law. If your concern is having a firearm after the government bans them, then storing it at a firearms storage facility is just placing it where it will be easy to find. At this point, purpose of this entire thread is suspect, unless your purpose is to argue.

Librarian
02-20-2009, 10:05 AM
What I meant was that this law essentially prohibits the sale of long guns in NV to CA residents, since you cant comply with the transaction, aside from the 50+ year old stuff. Remember this was over a private party transaction, where a CA resident would go to NV to purchase, and keep the weapon there.

If it's OK with Nevada for an individual to sell to an out of state person (and NRS 597.910 seems to say that it is), then it's OK - and paperless - with California, if the weapon is a 50+ year old long gun. And you could keep it wherever it pleased you.

Outside of that, it looks to me like getting residence in a different state (dual CA-whatever is certainly possible) is a better idea than the process in the original post.

I'd strongly advise against walking on the edge here. You might be right; I think it would be quite expensive to prove, if such a transaction came to the attention of LE.

It's useful to tear these things down to tiny cases, but in my opinion, following through on this one is far greater risk than possible reward.

You may feel differently. Good luck.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 10:29 AM
Try that one on a judge. If you already think you know the answers, then why are you even bothering asking.

I am asking a different question, you supplied that to say that it applies, and I do not see the wording apply. There are SCOTUS cases on how to interpret cases, and using them as a guide my interpretation would apply that "resides in any state" means that you must reside in at least 1 state and not 0 (such as me for the next little bit since I have not resided in any US state or territory for the last 2.5 years).

TheBundo
02-20-2009, 10:30 AM
Black powder guns too. Revolver kits

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 10:33 AM
If it's OK with Nevada for an individual to sell to an out of state person (and NRS 597.910 seems to say that it is), then it's OK - and paperless - with California, if the weapon is a 50+ year old long gun. And you could keep it wherever it pleased you.

Outside of that, it looks to me like getting residence in a different state (dual CA-whatever is certainly possible) is a better idea than the process in the original post.

I'd strongly advise against walking on the edge here. You might be right; I think it would be quite expensive to prove, if such a transaction came to the attention of LE.

It's useful to tear these things down to tiny cases, but in my opinion, following through on this one is far greater risk than possible reward.

You may feel differently. Good luck.

well for me personally I am the odd one here, I am technically a resident of a foreign country, but a US citizen. I have yet to be here long enough to meet the residency requirements to be a resident of any state (yet). I know people who are CA residents, and I am currently in CA so I framed it that way, so the NV law on selling where the state of residency matters does not apply since I am not a resident of a border state. I could become a NV resident quickly and easily enough, but that wouldnt make asking this question nearly as much fun :)

DDT
02-20-2009, 12:01 PM
It would be a lot easier to analyze your argument if you didn't keep moving hte goal posts.


I think that it works to be a method to obtain guns as a California resident without all the paperwork hassles.


well for me personally I am the odd one here, I am technically a resident of a foreign country, but a US citizen.

Shotgun Man
02-20-2009, 12:09 PM
To the OP, it is a good post. I love posts that seek to legally exploit existing laws. That's pretty much they way you have to roll in Kali, if you want OLLs, etc.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 12:30 PM
It would be a lot easier to analyze your argument if you didn't keep moving hte goal posts.

I didnt, I asked a question and have not changed the question asked. The fact that there was additional information to the question itself does not change or negate the question asked.

DDT
02-20-2009, 1:25 PM
I didnt, I asked a question and have not changed the question asked. The fact that there was additional information to the question itself does not change or negate the question asked.

Ok. If you aren't looking for an answer to the U.S. citizen who is not a resident of any state question I can probably help you out.


922(a)(3) [It shall be unlawful— ] 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 any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except...

Note this is a limitation on the purchaser not the seller so any "don't ask, don't tell" opportunity left is not available to the buyer, it only indemnifies the seller against liability.

Here are the 3 exceptions to this rule:
(A)Bequest or operation of law (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/oplaw.pdf)
(B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and
(C) grandfather clause

Now, this leaves open 922(b)(3) so let's look at that.
922(b)(3): [It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver— ] any firearm to any person who the licensee 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 licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph

This is the general prohibition just like above and there are 2 exceptions:
(Please note that (a)(3) are prohibitions on buyers so that even if the seller isn't breaking the law the purchaser is if he has knowledge of his status because he wouldn't be tried under this section.

(A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States...

(B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

So that leaves open the possibility that you can acquire a "rifle or shotgun" in person in NV as a CA resident legally if you meet the conditions of 922(b)(3)(A). One of these conditions is to comply with the legal conditions of sale in both states.

California law requires that any transfer that is not between parent-child-grandparent or by other operation of law (see link above) must go through a California FFL.

CPC 12070. (a) No person shall sell, lease, or transfer firearms unless he or she has been issued a license pursuant to Section 12071. Any person violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Note that there is no exception for licensees out of state it is very specific that they must have a license issued pursuant to California law.

Now, there are a ton of exceptions to this law, if you want to hash any of them out I'm sure we can do that. The most obvious would be:
CPC 12070(a)(4) The infrequent sale, lease, or transfer of firearms.

But any such sales must be done as a "Private Party Transfer" and as such has to be cleared through a California licensed FFL.

12082. (a) A person shall complete any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm through a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071 in accordance with this section

Santa Cruz Armory
02-20-2009, 1:45 PM
anony mouse, I like your way of thinking... This is why we now have OLLs, MMGs, Prince 50s, Bullet buttons, SRBs, U-15 stocks, etc.

Following the letter of the law is how to do it, but interpretation of the law is still an issue we all have to consider.

Thanks for your research.

dilligaffrn
02-20-2009, 1:56 PM
The intent is to do this legally, why I am asking specifically for anyone to find something that says its not legal. And as for doing it in CA the preamble for this was to avoid paperwork hassles for personal reasons.

Nothing I suggested was illegal or required paperwork (C&R long gun PPT are cash and carry).

DDT
02-20-2009, 2:21 PM
Nothing I suggested was illegal or required paperwork (C&R long gun PPT are cash and carry).

He wasn't arguing the legality of C&R long guns.

He was referring to this part of your statement "...and stay legal?" Which clearly implies that what he intended to do was NOT legal.

He merely pointed out that he wanted to find a way to LEGALLY transfer a firearm, in person, in NV as a CA resident.

Of course, he can't. But he wanted to go through the exercise just to see if there was a legal way to do so that was not anticipated by (or couldn't be legally stopped by) the CA legislature.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 4:54 PM
Note this is a limitation on the purchaser not the seller so any "don't ask, don't tell" opportunity left is not available to the buyer, it only indemnifies the seller against liability.





a3 only applies if you do not follow the "method" as defined in the original post. There was a requirement that you do not take it out of NV, but instead store it at a secure gun storage facility, and it was specifically addressed in the original post that this does not apply for that reason. Do you have some new reason that it would apply?

The rest of what you typed appeared to all be based on removing it from NV to CA, which since that was never part of it per the original email and a couple of follow up emails I am not sure that it would be relevant to the question being asked.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 4:56 PM
Of course, he can't. But he wanted to go through the exercise just to see if there was a legal way to do so that was not anticipated by (or couldn't be legally stopped by) the CA legislature.

So far not one person has been able to post anything other than a NV statute that says its illegal to transfer rifles/shotguns. For handguns it would be legal it seems. So I question your "he cant" comment, do you have any cites to support that?

Librarian
02-20-2009, 6:37 PM
So far not one person has been able to post anything other than a NV statute that says its illegal to transfer rifles/shotguns. For handguns it would be legal it seems. So I question your "he cant" comment, do you have any cites to support that?

You have that reversed - long guns are OK via (b)(3) (if they're ok in buyer's state of residence), handguns are not.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 7:09 PM
You have that reversed - long guns are OK via (b)(3) (if they're ok in buyer's state of residence), handguns are not.

NV state law as posted in this thread said that for long guns it had to be in compliance with NV and state of residence, if its newer than 50 years then a FFL is required so it would not be ok.

Can you provide something that says its not ok for handguns? all of (b) is for FFLs which were specifically said to not be used in the assumptions section of the original post so I fail to understand how that applies at all.

Librarian
02-20-2009, 7:33 PM
NV state law as posted in this thread said that for long guns it had to be in compliance with NV and state of residence, if its newer than 50 years then a FFL is required so it would not be ok.

Can you provide something that says its not ok for handguns? all of (b) is for FFLs which were specifically said to not be used in the assumptions section of the original post so I fail to understand how that applies at all.

Sorry, at this point you need to show it IS ok for handguns.

(a)(3) and (a)(5) apply to all firearms. (b)(3) applies only to long guns. CA says can't use (b)(3) except for 50+ long guns.

If HR 1074 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1074:) should pass, (b)(3) would include handguns, but almost certainly still not apply to CA.

LECTRIKHED
02-20-2009, 8:05 PM
Maybe you could just ask a police officer to arrest you. It would save a lot of time and hassle.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 8:08 PM
Sorry, at this point you need to show it IS ok for handguns.

ok, there is no law that has been shown, and the way that laws work generally is that they list what you cant do, not what you can unless its an exception to something you cant.


(a)(3) and (a)(5) apply to all firearms. (b)(3) applies only to long guns. CA says can't use (b)(3) except for 50+ long guns.

Not quite. Lets quote some statutes here so that we can all see that it does not say what you are claiming.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee 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 licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;


all of (b) as I said, contrary to what you keep insisting, is for FFLs, further it does not say anything about short/long guns. It says "any firearms". So really I hope we can move past this and you wont continue to insist that you are right when the quoted statute agrees with my assertions and totally disagrees with yours. This is not productive to the conversation in any way to continue to rehash this time and time again, I have explained it to you, I have previously commented on it, I have provided urls so you can verify this yourself, I am now quoting it, and I think that should end the discussion of (b)(3).

(a)(3) does not apply in this situation, and its one that I thought I originally commented on in the original post. Specifically it states:
(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

The scenario given is that you are a CA resident and making a purchase from a private party in NV and leaving the firearm in NV. It does not apply to this situation since it requires you to "transport into or receive in the State where he resides", something that would certainly not be the case here.

(a)(5) covers the seller not the buyer. Further as I have stated multiple times in this thread it requires "who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in ... the State in which the transferor resides". That is why there is the "dont ask dont tell" policy, ultimately that is a jury decision should it come to that, its not up to a court to decide that fact, the most they could decide is whether or not a jury would be presented with it. ID is not required to be presented, its optional under the federal and NV laws, and should it be requested the original post stated that a passport would be used instead of a state issued ID/license.
(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

Now, hopefully we can move past these issues that have previously been addressed. I am going to just ignore any more comments from you on these issues since this is at least the 2nd but I think the 3rd time I had to quote this stuff to you yet you keep bringing it up and its distracting, and really serves no useful purpose other than to try to start a flame war.

Please stop trolling this thread with this stuff in future posts, seriously.

Yankee Clipper
02-20-2009, 9:03 PM
ok, there is no law that has been shown, and the way that laws work generally is that they list what you cant do, not what you can unless its an exception to something you cant.
Now, hopefully we can move past these issues that have previously been addressed. I am going to just ignore any more comments from you on these issues since this is at least the 2nd but I think the 3rd time I had to quote this stuff to you yet you keep bringing it up and its distracting, and really serves no useful purpose other than to try to start a flame war.
Please stop trolling this thread with this stuff in future posts, seriously.

O.K. OP don’t shoot down the Librarian if you want cooperation in this forum: he/she has never flamed anyone (even though many deserved it) to my knowledge.
MY take on your question is: what ever you do in Nevada, re firearms, must conform to Nevada and Federal laws. Only if you bring the firearm into California (or caused to be imported, etc.) do California laws apply. No one here will suggest you try to expand-the-envelope as far as Nevada residency requirements are concerned. And in your scenario the risk would not be worth it.
Now that your home, take up residency in a free state: firearm restrictions are the least of your problems here.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-20-2009, 9:05 PM
Some of you guys are forgetting that California law does not come into play in this scenario at all.

The transaction is happening in Nevada. Californian's do not have to follow California law while visiting Nevada unless they are compelled to by Federal law.

Federal law only compels Californians to follow California law while in Nevada if they are acquiring firearms from a Federal Firearms Licensee. The OP's plan does not involve acquiring firearms from an FFL or bringing firearms into California, so California laws do not apply.

So forget about the whole 50+ year old long gun thing. That's a California thing. And the OP has already admitted that Nevada law forbids the sale of long guns under his plan.

The only thing left to find is if Nevada has any prohibitions on selling handguns to out of state residents. There may not be any Nevada law prohibiting this because it was assumed that Federal law already prohibited such transactions.

anony mouse
02-20-2009, 9:36 PM
Some of you guys are forgetting that California law does not come into play in this scenario at all.

The transaction is happening in Nevada. Californian's do not have to follow California law while visiting Nevada unless they are compelled to by Federal law.

Federal law only compels Californians to follow California law while in Nevada if they are acquiring firearms from a Federal Firearms Licensee. The OP's plan does not involve acquiring firearms from an FFL or bringing firearms into California, so California laws do not apply.

So forget about the whole 50+ year old long gun thing. That's a California thing. And the OP has already admitted that Nevada law forbids the sale of long guns under his plan.

The only thing left to find is if Nevada has any prohibitions on selling handguns to out of state residents. There may not be any Nevada law prohibiting this because it was assumed that Federal law already prohibited such transactions.

Well yes and no. CA law does apply, per what was posted by someone about post 8 or so (I forget and do not have this in a separate tab) with respect to "rifles and shotguns". It has to comply with CA and NV law (technically any state that borders NV if that state is your state of residence). It is this provision that forbids the sale of newer long guns in NV, because you have to go through a FFL, and under the proposed plan a private party transfer would be required.

In that section of NV law, as listed on that webpage that was provided there was no mention of pistols, handguns, or anything else to indicate they were in any way restricted at all, probably as you said under the assumption that federal law covered it - which generally it would if you take the firearm home with you (which 99% of the buyers probably do).

So its starting to look like you can go get a HK Mark 23 handgun in NV from a private party, with the conditions outlined in the original post, and leave it in NV in some type of secure storage, even though in CA that weapon is considered an AW (threaded barrel). I should also add that this methodology probably applies to other states, I just used NV as an example because Reno is only a couple hours away. Someone mentioned Utah doesnt do much by way of asking for ID on private party transfers, Texas afaik does not either, there are a handful of states that probably dont, often listed as "gun show loophole" states by Brady and others.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-20-2009, 9:53 PM
Well yes and no. CA law does apply, per what was posted by someone about post 8 or so (I forget and do not have this in a separate tab) with respect to "rifles and shotguns". It has to comply with CA and NV law (technically any state that borders NV if that state is your state of residence). It is this provision that forbids the sale of newer long guns in NV, because you have to go through a FFL, and under the proposed plan a private party transfer would be required.

Yeah, I actually realized my mistake there while I was in the shower. Came back to edit it but you'd already quoted me. :p In that particular statute, Nevada law compels us to follow California law. But since we have moved on to just handguns, it no longer applies to your scenario.

Librarian
02-20-2009, 11:04 PM
Please stop trolling this thread with this stuff in future posts, seriously.

It would be helpful if you would read ALL of (b)(3). As you quote b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee 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 licensee’s place of business is located,

except

that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun

to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

There is an exception for long guns for FFL sellers/transferors transfers occurring using an ffl (transferor may be FFL or not). There is no exception for handguns. Firearms other than long guns cannot be sold by FFLs to unlicensed residents of a different state from the FFL's business.

You want to rely on an out of state person violating (a)(5) - which covers all firearms.

Which of us is contemplating encouraging a Federal felony?

Mssr. Eleganté
02-21-2009, 1:59 AM
You want to rely on an out of state person violating (a)(5) - which covers all firearms.

Which of us is contemplating encouraging a Federal felony?

I'm pretty sure he has said over and over again that he doesn't want the out of state person to violate 922(a)(5). His whole theory is based on the fact that the out of state seller would have to "know or have reasonable cause to believe the buyer does not reside in the State in which the transferor resides." If you don't mention it to seller that you are from out of state, how would the seller "know or have reasonable cause to believe" that you are from out of state? That's the whole "don't ask, don't tell" part of this theory.

We all talk up the 50 year old C&R long gun exemption here in California. But we are still bound by California law to not sell to people we have cause to believe are prohibited...

12072. (a)(2) No person, corporation, or dealer shall sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a firearm to any person whom he or she has cause to believe to be within any of the classes prohibited by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code

Are you saying that it is illegal to sell a 50 year old C&R long gun to somebody in California unless you are positive that they are not prohibited?

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 2:07 AM
It would be helpful if you would read ALL of (b)(3). As you quote

There is an exception for long guns for FFL sellers/transferors transfers occurring using an ffl (transferor may be FFL or not). There is no exception for handguns. Firearms other than long guns cannot be sold by FFLs to unlicensed residents of a different state from the FFL's business.

You want to rely on an out of state person violating (a)(5) - which covers all firearms.

Which of us is contemplating encouraging a Federal felony?

neither, because as stated in the original post, as stated numerous times despite your best trolling efforts proven yet again that you are a troll, no one. Doing a private party transfer does not mean that a felony is being committed, it also means that no FFL is being committed, so saying that I should quote the entire thing and implying that I am encouraging a felony by not using a FFL when the law does not require one is plain and simple trolling.

So really please leave this thread you are doing nothing constructive only destructive. All you are doing is trying to start a fight and really that is not mature or helpful to anyone here.

wildhawker
02-21-2009, 2:45 AM
neither, because as stated in the original post, as stated numerous times despite your best trolling efforts proven yet again that you are a troll, no one. Doing a private party transfer does not mean that a felony is being committed, it also means that no FFL is being committed, so saying that I should quote the entire thing and implying that I am encouraging a felony by not using a FFL when the law does not require one is plain and simple trolling.

So really please leave this thread you are doing nothing constructive only destructive. All you are doing is trying to start a fight and really that is not mature or helpful to anyone here.

Whoa.

I really think you would be wise to re-read your posts and tone down the accusatory and directed remarks. No one here, excepting you, has been the least bit rude or personally negative. To call someone offering an opposing viewpoint/interpretation a troll and immature is not conducive to furtherance of your proffered arguments and is completely unwarranted.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 2:54 AM
Whoa.

I really think you would be wise to re-read your posts and tone down the accusatory and directed remarks. No one here, excepting you, has been the least bit rude or personally negative. To call someone offering an opposing viewpoint/interpretation a troll and immature is not conducive to furtherance of your proffered arguments and is completely unwarranted.

Well you can defend his actions if you want but repeatedly trying to provoke a fight is considered trolling by many. He continues to say things that are explained, he then ignores it, cites bogus invalid statutes that have no bearing on anything relevant as proof that somehow he is right, and all that just to provoke a fight then insinuates that I am encouraging a felony action, which I was not.

I think suggesting that someone is advocating felonies when they are not be committed is rude and personally negative, but you can disagree with that. I think constantly trying to provoke arguments and ruin a thread with tangents that are not relevant and requiring multiple explanations over and over again over the exact same material to try to provoke a fight is rude, again you are free to disagree with that but honestly its not conducive to communication.

In essence you are defending a troll, and its not because he was disagreeing its because of the facts that I have pointed out in this and the prior posts. In this instance pointing out trolling as trolling is conductive to furthering the conversation on topic and with relevant and factual information is a good thing since it prevents people from getting distracted, well except for some it would seem who want to defend the trolling actions of others.

Again you are free to disagree, that will not however change the facts that have been presented here.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 3:15 AM
I would like to point out a side effect of this thread that may be less obvious, just to make it more obvious. In Lopez the Gun Free School Zone provisions in 18 USC 922 were ruled unconstitutional. Basically the same wording with the addition of an interstate and foreign commerce provision was added to make the new GFSZ law, which is still in effect. This law is bad because home schooled students create, by definition of statute, the home a school, and thus the GFSZ applies to that home, and for anyone that "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that they are within 1000 feet of that home school a ban (with some exceptions) on possession of firearms. It has other problems as well, not the least of which is the Heller ignored phrase of the 2A "shall not be infringed", and the fact that people who live near a school can be curtailed in their rights.

One thing revealed during the discussion is that the 18 USC 10 definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" does not apply to firearm statutes, instead the 18 USC 921(a)(2) definition applies. 18 USC 10 is more general and does not specifically exclude some of the "weird interpretations" of affecting interstate and foreign commerce. 18 USC 921(a)(2) states:
The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

This means, to a point, that there is a limited hook on which to fight the GFSZ under the original Lopez ruling. Granted its a weak hook to fight on, and the way the courts are with a complete disregard for the 10th amendment (and others) it would be a harder fight than Lopez originally had, it is still a possible argument. There are potentially other things that could use this phrase to argue that certain applications of the federal firearm laws do not apply, despite the argument that "once federal always federal" which is often used in firearm statutes to nationalize the gun laws.

wildhawker
02-21-2009, 3:19 AM
It appears to me that what you were hoping for from this "review" was an affirmation of your interpretation of the law.

I disagree that provoking a fight was Librarian's goal in posting here; more likely he was trying to offer excerpts of statutes as evidence of potential risks of the actions you described in your original and subsequent posts. It's understandable that you are frustrated by what may be repeated quotation of law; however, "things that are explained" are not necessarily things that are "proven" or "tested". As such, I repeat that it would be wise to tone it down some; as they say, you can be right all day long and still be wrong at the end of the day.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 3:44 AM
It appears to me that what you were hoping for from this "review" was an affirmation of your interpretation of the law.

I disagree that provoking a fight was Librarian's goal in posting here; more likely he was trying to offer excerpts of statutes as evidence of potential risks of the actions you described in your original and subsequent posts. It's understandable that you are frustrated by what may be repeated quotation of law; however, "things that are explained" are not necessarily things that are "proven" or "tested". As such, I repeat that it would be wise to tone it down some; as they say, you can be right all day long and still be wrong at the end of the day.

Well I reviewed the thread, and from his first post through to the last as of this one, he has only misquoted statutes, cited statutes that clearly and obviously do not apply, and then tried to argue his point over and over again. He then stated publicly on the forum an insinuation that I am encouraging others to commit a felony, when I have encouraged no one to do anything but find laws that would make this illegal. I do not see a need for me to tone down anything, if you dont like this thread, do not read it, its really quite simple, but please do not hijack the thread in an attempt to derail the conversation off topic which you are now doing on a repeated basis. You may like him, you may be friends, I really dont care, defending an obvious troll and hijacking threads to point the finger at someone else is hardly productive to anything.

What is somewhat amusing is that before his first post a friend who is a long time reader of the forums had said that he would be a good person to quote statutes and such as he is usually reliable in doing so, my experience with this however is completely the opposite. The only good thing that came out of this is that I found proof that his interpretation of "interstate and foreign commerce" was flawed (per the statute itself), and that is a much more clear issue now. The time wasted on the thread hijacking, trolling and the personal attack that he has done however diminishes that contribution in my mind.

So can we now please return to the original topic at hand?

btw: Trickster I added your cite to NV statutes that puts limits on this for CA residents and gave you some mentions in the original post in an edit just a couple minutes ago, thank you for providing that information. That actually showed that in some circumstances this could be an illegal thing to do which would have been bad had it not been noticed.

tankerman
02-21-2009, 5:20 AM
Can't we ban Wikipedia as a source?
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_commerce)
So, no it doesn't sound feasible or legal at all.

DDT
02-21-2009, 7:51 AM
he would be a good person to quote statutes and such as he is usually reliable in doing so, my experience with this however is completely the opposite.

Your experience is wholly a construct of your approach and refusal to acknowledge reality.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 12:42 PM
Your experience is wholly a construct of your approach and refusal to acknowledge reality.

Please stay on topic. Trying to hijack the thread to make attacks like this is just not that productive to anything. I understand that people are friends with him and they want to protect him, but honestly, your post does nothing productive except to say that he is incapable of defending himself and requires your help. The reality is that he was wrong in every post in this thread and he was trolling, and now his friends are coming in to troll as well just to distract people away from the core question.

Fortunately his errors were corrected, so people do not commit felonies following his advice, however well intentioned it was, it was inaccurate and contrary to law, as evidenced by the actual statutes posted.

Given that its almost looking like there will be nothing but troll supporters coming in to try to start a fight and ensure that nothing productive comes out of this thread, I am willing to give up - at least it was demonstrated that its highly likely with the restrictions that got added it appears that its legal to do this.

Librarian
02-21-2009, 1:29 PM
Given that its almost looking like there will be nothing but troll supporters coming in to try to start a fight and ensure that nothing productive comes out of this thread, I am willing to give up - at least it was demonstrated that its highly likely with the restrictions that got added it appears that its legal to do this.

Well, good.

I'm certainly glad you are satisfied. Everyone should research and come to his own conclusions, and decide what is risky and what not, and how much risk is personally acceptable,

I am, of course, merely a troll, unable to comprehend laws and subtleties, and unappreciative of original, out of the box analyses.

And I honestly hope you have good luck in your efforts here.

But, on the off chance that perhaps a minor misunderstanding has occurred, perhaps these links will be helpful:

Securing a Favorable Federal Prison for Your Client (http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/1997/spring-bos/ellis.html)

Federal Prison Camps - INFORMATION (http://www.federalprisoncamps.com/information_)

FEDERAL PRISON CAMP TOUR.com (http://www.federalprisoncamptour.com/about.html)

BOP: Maps of Facilities (http://bop.gov/locations/locationmap.jsp#)

What are minimum security camps or prisons like? - MonkeySee (http://www.monkeysee.com/play/5738-what-are-minimum-security-camps-or-prisons-like)

blackbox
02-21-2009, 1:32 PM
Anony Mouse, if you dislike his points or the way he is saying them, just ignore them. You are the one engaging in personal attacks and derailing your own thread into immaturity. I'd recommend you just delete your posts to this thread that attack the other member, and keep it all on topic + professional.

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation, and think you may have discovered an interesting legal avenue. I enjoy posts that explore the limits of the law, and this sort of thinking is how we have OLLs and soon NERFs.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 2:00 PM
Anony Mouse, if you dislike his points or the way he is saying them, just ignore them. You are the one engaging in personal attacks and derailing your own thread into immaturity. I'd recommend you just delete your posts to this thread that attack the other member, and keep it all on topic + professional.

FWIW, I agree with your interpretation, and think you may have discovered an interesting legal avenue. I enjoy posts that explore the limits of the law, and this sort of thinking is how we have OLLs and soon NERFs.

yeah yeah whatever. My requests to keep it on topic went unnoticed by you it seems, and I am only stating facts such as the fact that librarian encouraged people to commit a felony by saying that rifles and shotguns were legal this way despite the law being stated that clearly indicates they are not and his desire to misquote laws to make it seem like it was legal. It isnt, and correcting this point made things worse, especially when people come out to defend someone who was just trolling and trying to do things. look at his last post which is pure troll.

So yeah I should have ignored him, but I feel that to some point I had to correct him when he tried to justify illegal actions with deception to make them appear legal. People may read what he said and think that it would be ok to transfer a rifle or shotgun in this way and it most certainly would not in most circumstances, and while they may not have been noticed for a long time, that does not mean that they would escape unscathed from his advice.

DDT
02-21-2009, 2:05 PM
This is why we have a kids' table at Thanksgiving.

yeah yeah whatever. My requests to keep it on topic went unnoticed by you it seems, and I am only stating facts such as the fact that librarian encouraged people to commit a felony by saying that rifles and shotguns were legal this way despite the law being stated that clearly indicates they are not and his desire to misquote laws to make it seem like it was legal. It isnt, and correcting this point made things worse, especially when people come out to defend someone who was just trolling and trying to do things. look at his last post which is pure troll.

So yeah I should have ignored him, but I feel that to some point I had to correct him when he tried to justify illegal actions with deception to make them appear legal. People may read what he said and think that it would be ok to transfer a rifle or shotgun in this way and it most certainly would not in most circumstances, and while they may not have been noticed for a long time, that does not mean that they would escape unscathed from his advice.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-21-2009, 2:07 PM
Well, good.

I'm certainly glad you are satisfied. Everyone should research and come to his own conclusions, and decide what is risky and what not, and how much risk is personally acceptable,

I am, of course, merely a troll, unable to comprehend laws and subtleties, and unappreciative of original, out of the box analyses.

And I honestly hope you have good luck in your efforts here.

But, on the off chance that perhaps a minor misunderstanding has occurred, perhaps these links will be helpful:

Securing a Favorable Federal Prison for Your Client (http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/1997/spring-bos/ellis.html)

Federal Prison Camps - INFORMATION (http://www.federalprisoncamps.com/information_)

FEDERAL PRISON CAMP TOUR.com (http://www.federalprisoncamptour.com/about.html)

BOP: Maps of Facilities (http://bop.gov/locations/locationmap.jsp#)

What are minimum security camps or prisons like? - MonkeySee (http://www.monkeysee.com/play/5738-what-are-minimum-security-camps-or-prisons-like)

Librarian,

What charges could the Feds bring in a case like this? The buyer hasn't broken any Federal laws if he leaves the gun in Nevada. The seller has only broken Federal law if he "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that the buyer is from out of state.

Librarian
02-21-2009, 2:43 PM
So yeah I should have ignored him, but I feel that to some point I had to correct him when he tried to justify illegal actions with deception to make them appear legal. People may read what he said and think that it would be ok to transfer a rifle or shotgun in this way and it most certainly would not in most circumstances, and while they may not have been noticed for a long time, that does not mean that they would escape unscathed from his advice.

Excuse me?

Exactly where did I suggest an illegal act?

Librarian
02-21-2009, 2:49 PM
Librarian,

What charges could the Feds bring in a case like this? The buyer hasn't broken any Federal laws if he leaves the gun in Nevada. The seller has only broken Federal law if he "knows or has reasonable cause to believe" that the buyer is from out of state.

Correct on all counts.

Now, if you were approached by someone unknown to you, and that someone asked you to sell him a gun, would you ask?

If you were the buyer in that situation, would you be surprised if the seller did not ask?

Mssr. Eleganté
02-21-2009, 3:11 PM
Correct on all counts.

Now, if you were approached by someone unknown to you, and that someone asked you to sell him a gun, would you ask?

If you were the buyer in that situation, would you be surprised if the seller did not ask?

I would ask, certainly. But many of the private sellers at Reno gun shows don't ask. And I imagine that somebody deeper in Nevada selling from the local Pennysaver or classifieds would be even less likely to ask.

What's with all your talk of Federal prison? The OP has come up with a pretty interesting idea. We still might find it to be illegal based on some other laws we haven't found yet. But why keep pretending the idea has already been shot down? That's no way to explore the possibilities left to us in the law.

Librarian
02-21-2009, 3:47 PM
I would ask, certainly. But many of the private sellers at Reno gun shows don't ask. And I imagine that somebody deeper in Nevada selling from the local Pennysaver or classifieds would be even less likely to ask.

What's with all your talk of Federal prison? The OP has come up with a pretty interesting idea. We still might find it to be illegal based on some other laws we haven't found yet. But why keep pretending the idea has already been shot down? That's no way to explore the possibilities left to us in the law.

Because I don't think it's neighborly to expose some innocent to prosecution. The whole process relies on the potential seller failing to ask and being able to plausibly deny that he had any reason to know the buyer would be from out of state.

One can't do a 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' transaction - one might then suspect knowledge.

If the seller really does not know, then the buyer almost certainly will avoid prosecution for conspiracy or for suborning a felony.

But it's like cheating at cards when playing a little kid for money. It's real risk for the unknowing. It's only right to game the rules when everybody involved knows the rules.

Whether one is likely to be detected and apprehended is entirely a different discussion; I don't actually believe the likelihood of that is particularly high.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-21-2009, 4:05 PM
So you admit that his plan is 100% legal?

Your comments about him going to Federal prison are based on what then? It seems you are now saying he might face Federal prison for being "unneighborly".

And hey, looky here at what the OP wrote in the very first post...

(a)(5) would apply only if the private seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe you do not reside in Nevada, basically it sets up a "dont ask dont tell" policy on private party transfers.

(a)(6) means that if they do ask you cant lie, you must reveal upon being asked where your residency is, further enforcing the "dont ask dont tell" policy for the private party transfers.

Right there in the first post he says that the deal is off if the seller questions your residency. No mention of "nudge nudge", "wink wink" or "say no more."

Maybe you are used to California, but in other States people just aren't as likely to ask where a buyer is from. If the OP showed up for the purchase in a rented car with Nevada plates and wearing an Elko County Volunteer Fire Department sweatshirt I don't think many private Nevada sellers would know or have reason to believe he was from another State. Also, many folks don't even know that selling to somebody from out of state is illegal. So they have no reason to ask or check ID.


I can see why the OP got so frustrated with the replies in this thread. His very first post explained the theory in a very detailed manner. But people keep bringing up stuff that he has already covered as if they found a flaw in his plan that he'd overlooked.

Librarian
02-21-2009, 4:30 PM
So you admit that his plan is 100% legal? Already said that in #72, above

our comments about him going to Federal prison are based on what then? It seems you are now saying he might face Federal prison for being "unneighborly".Not the buyer, if he were to be careful. The seller.

And hey, looky here at what the OP wrote in the very first post...



Right there in the first post he says that the deal is off if the seller questions your residency. No mention of "nudge nudge", "wink wink" or "say no more."

Maybe you are used to California, but in other States people just aren't as likely to ask where a buyer is from. If the OP showed up for the purchase in a rented car with Nevada plates and wearing an Elko County Volunteer Fire Department sweatshirt I don't think many private Nevada sellers would know or have reason to believe he was from another State. Also, many folks don't even know that selling to somebody from out of state is illegal. So they have no reason to ask or check ID.

I can see why the OP got so frustrated with the replies in this thread. His very first post explained the theory in a very detailed manner. But people keep bringing up stuff that he has already covered as if they found a flaw in his plan that he'd overlooked.
A lot of times we hear 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. The wording of the law here actually has somewhat of an out.

I don't think tossing a seller onto the tender mercies of a bored AUSA to prove he didn't know anything about the laws or the buyer's state of residence is a good idea.

And since there are other ways of getting unpapered weapons that don't involve that issue, I think this idea is reprehensible.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 6:08 PM
Because I don't think it's neighborly to expose some innocent to prosecution. The whole process relies on the potential seller failing to ask and being able to plausibly deny that he had any reason to know the buyer would be from out of state.


then why did you insist multiple times that rifles and shotguns were ok (they are not per statute) yet handguns are not ok (there is no statute that is relevant that covers them)?

By stating implicitly that something known to be illegal is "ok" you are doing exactly that.


Further the law does not require that anyone ask about residency or even for ID of any type, and the entire point of this thread was to try to find laws that would make this illegal, nowhere was it suggested that anyone try it, and I think its implicit to some degree that asking for people to find laws that would invalidate this that there is a tacit suggestion of not trying it.

anony mouse
02-21-2009, 6:15 PM
And since there are other ways of getting unpapered weapons that don't involve that issue, I think this idea is reprehensible.

I think you are also missing a point about how this can be used, which I clarified in an edit to the original post. The HK Mark 23 handgun is banned in California as an assault weapon. Using this you can, as a California resident obtain that weapon and use it at a range while in Nevada (or elsewhere presumably since NV isnt the only place that this could work in, its just the closest place to California that its likely to work). That is just one example.

So its more than just getting undocumented firearms. I do not think it reprehensible to want to see what is legal to do.

Librarian
02-21-2009, 9:12 PM
then why did you insist multiple times that rifles and shotguns were ok (they are not per statute) yet handguns are not ok (there is no statute that is relevant that covers them)?

By stating implicitly that something known to be illegal is "ok" you are doing exactly that.



I don't think I did that.

Would you please quote my post where you question what I wrote?

Librarian
02-21-2009, 9:21 PM
I think you are also missing a point about how this can be used, which I clarified in an edit to the original post. The HK Mark 23 handgun is banned in California as an assault weapon. Using this you can, as a California resident obtain that weapon and use it at a range while in Nevada (or elsewhere presumably since NV isnt the only place that this could work in, its just the closest place to California that its likely to work). That is just one example.

So its more than just getting undocumented firearms. I do not think it reprehensible to want to see what is legal to do.Oh, I don't think so either.

I object to relying on the seller being exposed to prosecution because s/he does not know the risk in the transaction, and for the described transaction to work you CAN'T tell him. It is hardly relevant that such an innocent or underinformed or incurious seller might beat the rap. The prosecution would be expensive and disruptive to his entire life.

I think it perfectly appropriate for people to take any risk they think they understand and agree to assume. This program keeps them in the dark; they cannot make an informed choice.

anony mouse
02-22-2009, 6:30 AM
Oh, I don't think so either.

I object to relying on the seller being exposed to prosecution because s/he does not know the risk in the transaction, and for the described transaction to work you CAN'T tell him. It is hardly relevant that such an innocent or underinformed or incurious seller might beat the rap. The prosecution would be expensive and disruptive to his entire life.


There is no requirement for them to ask, so the question is whether or not the government would prosecute someone for not asking, and thus not knowing the residency status. I do not think that the government would, especially in light of the fact that the government wouldnt even be aware of the transaction unless the buyer did something stupid (and probably illegal) later on, and even then its questionable.

If the government was prosecuting people for selling without asking then you wouldnt have comments like this one:
Some of the private party sales Wintemute saw appeared to involve firearms likely to end up in criminal hands. At a gun show in Phoenix in September 2005, for example, he witnessed four young men buying eight handguns over the course of a day - including two Glock pistols from an unlicensed vendor who did not request any identification or verify in-state residence status. As the young men left the show, Wintemute overheard a gang unit officer from the Phoenix police department who was present at the gun show comment: "They'll just take 'em out on the street and sell 'em."
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9296 (tripe article I just wanted the LEO comments from it)

If the police witness the transaction without any questions being asked and do nothing, yet they suspect that the guns are going to be used for criminal purposes, it kinda makes me think they know they cant do anything because no laws were actually broken, only the mistaken perception that you appear to be propagating that if you dont validate you are liable when the law says something specifically to the contrary.

There is a similar style quote from the California Attorney General (when the quote was taken, I dont recall that or who it was, but it was the last couple years) where he guessed that a lot of the illegal street guns were purchased out of state on a "dont ask dont tell" policy and then sold on the street. So if the government is aware that people are buying to later use the guns in a crime and they still dont do anything, you kinda have to wonder if maybe you are just making a fuss over nothing.

The fact is that its not illegal, and that is why the police are not investigating or arresting the seller. Why in Phoenix there were mexican police officers who drove up in a mexico licensed marked police car, bought some guns, "dont ask dont tell", and ammo, loaded it into the car at which point the police arrested the mexican police officers for violating the law (prohibited persons per 18 USC 922(g)) but did nothing to any of the sellers even though they witnessed the transactions. https://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261493

So um yeah, the facts seem to weigh in that the seller wont be in any trouble for following the law, despite your claims that its some imminent danger that they will be arrested for complying with the law.

Librarian
02-22-2009, 9:00 AM
So um yeah, the facts seem to weigh in that the seller wont be in any trouble for following the law, despite your claims that its some imminent danger that they will be arrested for complying with the law.

I still don't care for the idea that the buyer is shifting a risk onto the seller, however small the buyer measures the probability, without the seller being able to evaluate it.

When one buys, say, a car, the seller can market it 'as is', and the buyer can decide whether that's acceptable.

A buyer can specialize in knowing about antiques or rarities, and offer a low-ball price to someone with less knowledge; the seller can choose to accept or reject the price.

But this is a meta-risk, distinct from getting a good or bad deal, imposed externally and impossible to 'reason to', since it's not reasonable.

I am quite firmly on the side of informed consent; the procedure you suggest doesn't allow for it.

Allow me to digress once (more?); I would surely prefer that GCA-68 didn't exist and that California had differently-able legislators. I have no problem with the stated goal of this exercise.

Cali-V
02-22-2009, 1:34 PM
Isn't there an exception for NV based business'

anony mouse
02-22-2009, 3:10 PM
Isn't there an exception for NV based business'

18 usc 922 (federal) treats businesses the same as individuals (technically its in the definitions in 921). But all the references I recall at this point in time are FFL based rules dealing with it, for the most part the federal law does not deal much with the private party transactions (there are a couple but the bulk is for FFLs).

Now CA has exceptions for movie studios when the weapon is to be used as a prop, and I couldnt find a definition of what a studio is, so it *could* be that you can get the waiver if you are a webcam based studio doing youtube movies, I really dont know and never really looked into it, but the last thing CA wants to do is force the movie studios into a different state, they get WAY too much revenue off the taxation of the studios. So CA treats some businesses different, but afaik NV does not.

Cali-V
02-22-2009, 3:57 PM
18 USC 922 (a)(5)

Quote:
(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

anony mouse
02-22-2009, 8:32 PM
18 USC 922 (a)(5)

Quote:
(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

And to go along with that, 18 USC 921(a)(1)
(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

dilligaffrn
02-23-2009, 1:24 PM
Well, good.

I'm certainly glad you are satisfied. Everyone should research and come to his own conclusions, and decide what is risky and what not, and how much risk is personally acceptable,

I am, of course, merely a troll, unable to comprehend laws and subtleties, and unappreciative of original, out of the box analyses.

And I honestly hope you have good luck in your efforts here.

But, on the off chance that perhaps a minor misunderstanding has occurred, perhaps these links will be helpful:

Securing a Favorable Federal Prison for Your Client (http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/1997/spring-bos/ellis.html)

Federal Prison Camps - INFORMATION (http://www.federalprisoncamps.com/information_)

FEDERAL PRISON CAMP TOUR.com (http://www.federalprisoncamptour.com/about.html)

BOP: Maps of Facilities (http://bop.gov/locations/locationmap.jsp#)

What are minimum security camps or prisons like? - MonkeySee (http://www.monkeysee.com/play/5738-what-are-minimum-security-camps-or-prisons-like)

LOL

Librarian
02-23-2009, 1:42 PM
LOL

Don't pick scabs, bro. We're Working On Our Relationship. :)

GenLee
02-23-2009, 3:24 PM
:gene: