PDA

View Full Version : Prohibited Person With Firearms in Hock?


Dutch3
02-06-2011, 5:59 PM
Another thread about the disposal of a prohibited person's firearms got me thinking about this.

Suppose somebody has some firearms hocked at a pawn shop. He can never seem to get up the cash to retrieve them, but goes in every 90 days (or whatever the contract states), pays the interest and extends the loan.

After doing this for some time, he has a momentary lapse of reason (or onset of stupidity) and earns himself a lifetime "prohibited person" status.

If he can't afford to retrieve the firearms and properly transfer them, what happens to the firearms? I can't see the pawnbroker turning them over to LE without compensation, and if the interest is paid under a valid loan contract, the pawnbroker doesn't "own" them at that point anyway.

Would LE seize the weapons, requiring the pawnbroker to sue the gun owner for compensation?

jtmkinsd
02-06-2011, 6:05 PM
Once he lets a pawn expire, the property goes to the pawnbroker. I'm sure the pawnbroker wouldn't mind him continually paying the interest for a long period of time, but to what end? Why not pay the pawn off, and work a consignment deal with the pawnbroker?

Dutch3
02-06-2011, 6:27 PM
Once he lets a pawn expire, the property goes to the pawnbroker. I'm sure the pawnbroker wouldn't mind him continually paying the interest for a long period of time, but to what end? Why not pay the pawn off, and work a consignment deal with the pawnbroker?

Because he can't afford to pay the loan off. Works in construction, poor economy, etc.

I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to default on the loan, and the pawnbroker would then dispose of the guns.

Being that he was required to immediately transfer/dispose of the firearms upon his conviction, but unable to regain possession to do so, I am just curious as to how the situation would be viewed from legal standpoint.

jtmkinsd
02-06-2011, 6:37 PM
Because he can't afford to pay the loan off. Works in construction, poor economy, etc.

I suppose the easiest thing to do would be to default on the loan, and the pawnbroker would then dispose of the guns.

Being that he was required to immediately transfer/dispose of the firearms upon his conviction, but unable to regain possession to do so, I am just curious as to how the situation would be viewed from legal standpoint.

Well, he's SOL if he can't come up with the money...If he has a good relationship with the pawnbroker he should inform the guy what's going on and see if he can work a deal. Wouldn't hurt to ask.

Dutch3
02-06-2011, 7:01 PM
Well, he's SOL if he can't come up with the money...If he has a good relationship with the pawnbroker he should inform the guy what's going on and see if he can work a deal. Wouldn't hurt to ask.

That is a possibility. He may have already worked something out (he hasn't offered any info and I haven't asked). I have known him for about 40 years. He was convicted about a year ago.

I am just hoping that the situation as it was did not expose him to an additional charge of "felon in possession", even though he was unable to do anything about it and the firearms haven't been in his physical possession for years.

BigDogatPlay
02-06-2011, 7:15 PM
If the pawnbroker took a firearm in, then they would have to have an FFL, so far as I know. Those guns would become inventory once the loan defaults, just like any other gun an FFL holding pawnbroker loans money on.

My non-lawyerly opinion is that so long as the guns stay in the hands of the pawnbroker as collateral against a loan, then there is no potential of a felon in possession. Unless of course that person is going in and fondling his collateral when he pays on the interest to keep the loan alive.