View Full Version : Possession Versus Ownership
12-20-2010, 9:55 AM
Possession Versus Ownership.........
( assuming both parties can own firearms)
1). A person knows that His brother in law likes to shoot .22 target rifles.
Gives Him one and says," You can take it to the range when You want to and enjoy it, but don't change anything on it , it is still my gun."
2). A friend moves to Europe for 2 years and leaves His fireamrs with You to store and enjoy while He is gone. With an understanding that they are still HIS.
Is there ANYTHING wrong with this picture?
12-20-2010, 10:06 AM
yes, you never trust your inlaws with guns! jk ;)
I would think as long as there were no guns specifically registered to you (or real owner) it would be fine. IE it might be illegal to do that with handguns or any other gun that a person specifically has to register as theirs
a long gun? as long as both parties can legally own guns, and the gun itself is not Assault material (a husband could legally buy a shotgun for his wife and give it to her)
that is just how I see it though, I could be wrong
Wrong answer, there are laws about the lending and transfer of firearms.
Lending is allowed but in CA and possibly other parts of the country, lending for more than 30 days is prohibited, you have to transfer after that unless the lender and borrower can legally do a paperless transfer, like a father-son situation.
For hand guns, the borrower must have an HSC to borrow.
The legal way to leave firearms with a friend for long periods of time is to rent storage space with a lease agreement and have them locked in a container that the friend does not have the combination to.
On the other hand, there is the matter of what you do and what the police can prove...
Don't lend a gun to anyone who you think might get in trouble with it.
If you lend and it gets confiscated from the borrower, you might have a hard time getting it back in any case.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.