PDA

View Full Version : gift rifles/longarms to children before 2014?


swift
02-04-2012, 7:16 PM
Currently a son or daughter can be gifted a long arm without the need to register it to him or her, but, if I understand it correctly, after 2013, the gift/transfer would require registration.

I'm considering giving of my children one or more rifles/lower receivers before 2014. What do you think? Would you do it?

Shoobee
02-04-2012, 7:22 PM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

Adeodatus
02-04-2012, 7:32 PM
Do what you want. You are a free man aren't you?

j-q2zHIovOE

glockwise2000
02-04-2012, 7:54 PM
Just don't do the voluntary registration and pass it to them whenever as long as your kids are born pre-01/01/2014. How would they know if you gifted your kids pre or post-deadline.

As I believe there is no age requirement to gift a long gun to your kids.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

swift
02-04-2012, 8:04 PM
Just don't do the voluntary registration and pass it to them whenever as long as your kids are born pre-01/01/2014. How would they know if you gifted your kids pre or post-deadline.

As I believe there is no age requirement to gift a long gun to your kids.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

Sure, I could do that, but, unless the law changed, it wouldn't be legal.
I am thinking about how to legally do this, such as gift them the longarms prior to 2014 but not allow them to take possession until 18.

surplus-addict
02-04-2012, 8:24 PM
As I believe there is no age requirement to gift a long gun to your kids.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
You are correct.
Minors can posses long guns. I'm 15 and legally posses an AK-74 (properly configured, mind you) as I built it off of flat, so I manufactured it. A minor can't BUY a long gun or ammo for it until they are 18. That doesn't mean they can't be gifted a long gun or make it themselves. Why NOT give one to your kids, or let them make an 80%? Nothing to lose in my opinion.

CSACANNONEER
02-04-2012, 8:51 PM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

WTF are you talking about? Many of us owned firearms before we were 18. That doesn't mean we walked around with the mall the time or even that we could access them without adult supervision. But the fact is that we owned them. There is NOTHING wrong with giving a firearm to a son or daughter who is still a minor. In fact, I'm willing to bet that statistics could prove that those who owned firearms before they turned 18 are less likely to end up in prision for any reason. Firearms ownership helps teach responsibility. The younger one starts learning how to be responsible, the more likely they will be responsible and contributing members of society instead of misfits on the dole. BTW, many here did have access to their personally owned firearms at a young age. Many here even took their guns to school on a regular basis. Yet, they were responsible about it and never had a problem stacking their guns in the corner of the classroom and waiting until it was time to go home to touch them again.

You are correct.
Minors can posses long guns. I'm 15 and legally posses an AK-74 (properly configured, mind you) as I built it off of flat, so I manufactured it. A minor can't BUY a long gun or ammo for it until they are 18. That doesn't mean they can't be gifted a long gun or make it themselves. Why NOT give one to your kids, or let them make an 80%? Nothing to lose in my opinion.

Great post. I love it when a young but mature person ends up playing by the rules and ending up owning a nice legal firearm without any paper trail or identifying marking. The system is so flawed that it would rather have a 15 year old owning an AK74 without a serial number than allowing the same 15 year old to buy a Daisy Red Ryder. Go figure? BTW, I've helped a few minors legally manufacture their own AKs and it's a great feeling for all involved. Now that you've built an AK, are you ready to try to reweld a milled AK receiver? Or maybe you should build a 1919 next. An 80% AR isn't hard either. By the time you're 18, you could have a nicer collection than many adults here.

surplus-addict
02-04-2012, 9:19 PM
Now that you've built an AK, are you ready to try to reweld a milled AK receiver? Or maybe you should build a 1919 next. An 80% AR isn't hard either. By the time you're 18, you could have a nicer collection than many adults here.
I'd love too, but I'm investing in reloading equipment :D No money can be an annoying thing :(

Fern
02-04-2012, 9:24 PM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

He wasn't asking your opinion. He was asking about the legalities of the transfer. He is the father, and has the right to do as he deems fit.

Uxi
02-04-2012, 10:36 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124237

I'm thinking of buying my 2 yo son a rifle in the next year and I'll gift it to him. I won't let him actually use it until he's much older, but yeah.

diggersdarling
02-04-2012, 10:40 PM
glockwise2000 has it right.

Dead*Reckoned
02-04-2012, 11:05 PM
WTF are you talking about? Many of us owned firearms before we were 18. That doesn't mean we walked around with the mall the time or even that we could access them without adult supervision. But the fact is that we owned them. There is NOTHING wrong with giving a firearm to a son or daughter who is still a minor. In fact, I'm willing to bet that statistics could prove that those who owned firearms before they turned 18 are less likely to end up in prision for any reason. Firearms ownership helps teach responsibility. The younger one starts learning how to be responsible, the more likely they will be responsible and contributing members of society instead of misfits on the dole. BTW, many here did have access to their personally owned firearms at a young age. Many here even took their guns to school on a regular basis. Yet, they were responsible about it and never had a problem stacking their guns in the corner of the classroom and waiting until it was time to go home to touch them again.



a Big +1 to this. OP, If i was in your son or daughters situation, I would love to have a rifle or shotgun that is unregistered and stayed that way in the future. I wish my father had gotten me some >10 rd magazines back before 2000, and before I even knew i was interested in firearms.

NorCalDustin
02-04-2012, 11:21 PM
Just don't do the voluntary registration and pass it to them whenever as long as your kids are born pre-01/01/2014. How would they know if you gifted your kids pre or post-deadline.
That would be illegal unless you "gave" it to them before the dead line. However, there is nothing that says you cannot store the firearm for them after you gift it to them.

The order/dates of things DO matter.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124237

I'm thinking of buying my 2 yo son a rifle in the next year and I'll gift it to him. I won't let him actually use it until he's much older, but yeah.
Yup...

NokSuCow
02-05-2012, 1:28 AM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

Wow dude...who the F do you think you are? Please do us all a favor and spare us your rhetoric. He asked a legal question not to talk to a self appointed parenting expert (among many other things). How old are you? You show up in every thread with all sorts/ of "knowledge" and things to say , but I have the feeling you have zero life experience to back it up. Fyi I'm 27 and I know I don't know Jack **** compared to the older guys. Instead of giving advice for **** you have no background or experience in try keeping your mouth shut and listening to what people with actual experience have to say.

freonr22
02-05-2012, 1:38 AM
Wow dude...who the F do you think you are? Please do us all a favor and spare us your rhetoric. He asked a legal question not to talk to a self appointed parenting expert (among many other things). How old are you? You show up in every thread with all sorts/ of "knowledge" and things to say , but I have the feeling you have zero life experience to back it up. Fyi I'm 27 and I know I don't know Jack **** compared to the older guys. Instead of giving advice for **** you have no background or experience in try keeping your mouth shut and listening to what people with actual experience have to say.

Dude! Wtf! Don't you know he has 55 posts a day? That is more posts you have had in all your time here. Show some respect!

freonr22
02-05-2012, 1:54 AM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

My two under 6 little girls have 4 rifles each. Responsible practices will make them better adults. Better than to have them never own an arm, then at 26 some jack wad shows them unsafe practices. Or better (worse) they don't have the wherewithal and have bad things happen before eighteen, because they are kids..

Sleighter
02-05-2012, 3:33 AM
Wow dude...who the F do you think you are? Please do us all a favor and spare us your rhetoric. He asked a legal question not to talk to a self appointed parenting expert (among many other things). How old are you? You show up in every thread with all sorts/ of "knowledge" and things to say , but I have the feeling you have zero life experience to back it up. Fyi I'm 27 and I know I don't know Jack **** compared to the older guys. Instead of giving advice for **** you have no background or experience in try keeping your mouth shut and listening to what people with actual experience have to say.

How dare you bring that level of common sense and wisdom to a post by Shoobee. You should know that he doesnt answer questions directed at him, only every other question that comes up on this forum...

5thgen4runner
02-05-2012, 7:25 AM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

WTF :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

bluenoise
02-05-2012, 7:43 AM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

I know several moms and sisters that could probably do a much better job of defending their families than their men could do.

I'm glad to see this thread. I will have to look into doing this for my kids in the next couple years, too.

taperxz
02-05-2012, 7:54 AM
I have lots of firearms in my safe that belong to my daughters (son has his own safe now) They don't always know what rifles/shotguns i have given them but i can tell you this, its all on paper in my safe. If something happens to me, I would hope that they or my grandchildren will respect and enjoy them without the gov getting in the way of WHAT BELONGS IN MY FAMILY!

ja308
02-05-2012, 8:08 AM
I think it's a good idea to give young folks their own firearms .

We all had 22s ,which we used for shooting rats at a local dump.

Regarding the requirement for registration , the democratic legislature will make the law retroactive within 2 years of 2014.
Take it to the bank!

taperxz
02-05-2012, 8:54 AM
I think it's a good idea to give young folks their own firearms .

We all had 22s ,which we used for shooting rats at a local dump.

Regarding the requirement for registration , the democratic legislature will make the law retroactive within 2 years of 2014.
Take it to the bank!

Really? Volunteer reg eh? I don't think so...

CSACANNONEER
02-05-2012, 9:07 AM
I think it's a good idea to give young folks their own firearms .

We all had 22s ,which we used for shooting rats at a local dump.

Regarding the requirement for registration , the democratic legislature will make the law retroactive within 2 years of 2014.
Take it to the bank!

Well, we all know how screwed up our bqanking system is right now. But, regardless of that, I'll bet you a $1000 that this doesn't happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Before you answer, you might want to ask yourself why "they" haven't already done this with handguns which have been required to be "registered at the time of transfer" since 1991. That's +21 years without any retroactive laws even being proposed. So, about that bet, the offer is good and being made very publically for a reason. Do you care to stand behind your statement or are you just blowing smoke????

Sleighter
02-05-2012, 9:14 AM
I think it's a good idea to give young folks their own firearms .

We all had 22s ,which we used for shooting rats at a local dump.

Regarding the requirement for registration , the democratic legislature will make the law retroactive within 2 years of 2014.
Take it to the bank!

Google "ex post facto" laws. Article 1 of the constitution protects us from laws with retroactive effects like what you described.

freonr22
02-05-2012, 9:39 AM
Google "ex post facto" laws. Article 1 of the constitution protects us from laws with retroactive effects like what you described.
I was young at the time, but didn't something happen with the awb and sks' with detachable mags? It was many years ago fed level.. Also something about DUI and 7 years to 10 years on your record on state level? Or did they do it a certain way. I very well could be wrong. That's just the impression I had.

ke6guj
02-05-2012, 9:55 AM
Google "ex post facto" laws. Article 1 of the constitution protects us from laws with retroactive effects like what you described.

well, they did get away with it when the AW and .50BMG rifle bans went into effedt.

YOu could have legally given your minor child an off-list AR-15 in 1998 before they were banned in 2000. At that point, the minor child would need to register the AW in order to be able to legally keep it. However, the AW registration laws required you to be 18 in order to be able to register it.

Shellshocker66
02-05-2012, 1:12 PM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

There is a whole lot of fail in this post!

You are assuming that everyone has a father, that police always show up in 5 minutes, and then just maybe the mother won't be able to do the protecting and it needs to go to the teenage son in line?

You need to get out more!

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've waited 30 plus minutes in a urban area for the Sheriffs to show up and clear a call that came in as a "shots fired" Ya that 5 minutes is not really realistic..

Next I'm female and I was gifted my own rifle at age 12 by my brother! This rifle was not in some safe waiting for me to get an adult to use it. It was in my bedroom and in my own safe which only I had the combo to. Guess I was raised different but I knew more about gun safety by 5 then most adults learn in their lifetime.

Did I need to be armed? That wasn't even a question, it was a lifestyle. My family hunted and had firearms. Plain and simple ownership of a firearm was just something that happened when it was decided you were old enough to own one.

While you're on your banned detention why don't you read some archives and learn a thing or two here instead of just spewing something.

I feel that any parent who wants to buy their kids guns that they are being wonderful parents. In my life I've seen the value of guns go up to the point they are more productive then savings accounts or other saving systems!

ja308
02-05-2012, 2:17 PM
[QUOTE=CSACANNONEER;7979689]Well, we all know how screwed up our bqanking system is right now. But, regardless of that, I'll bet you a $1000 that this doesn't happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Before you answer, you might want to ask yourself why "they" haven't already done this with handguns which have been required to be "registered at the time of transfer" since 1991. That's +21 years without any retroactive laws even being proposed. So, about that bet, the offer is good and being made very publically for a reason. Do you care to stand behind your statement or are you just blowing smoke????[/QUOTE

I based my statement on the fact ,that a person moving into Cali,has 60 days to register the handguns they own. Is that correct? If so a pattern of registration has developed . Will the law require LG/SG registration when someone moves here?

I hope I am mistaken about his law. However the democratic legislature has shown a clear pattern when it comes to registration .

CSACANNONEER
02-05-2012, 3:15 PM
Well, we all know how screwed up our bqanking system is right now. But, regardless of that, I'll bet you a $1000 that this doesn't happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Before you answer, you might want to ask yourself why "they" haven't already done this with handguns which have been required to be "registered at the time of transfer" since 1991. That's +21 years without any retroactive laws even being proposed. So, about that bet, the offer is good and being made very publically for a reason. Do you care to stand behind your statement or are you just blowing smoke????

I based my statement on the fact ,that a person moving into Cali,has 60 days to register the handguns they own. Is that correct? If so a pattern of registration has developed . Will the law require LG/SG registration when someone moves here?

I hope I am mistaken about his law. However the democratic legislature has shown a clear pattern when it comes to registration .

Even if a new law is passed requiring mandatory registration of long guns when they are imported into CA, I don't see how that would equate to retroactive registration? So, are we on for $1000 bet or not?

Lone_Gunman
02-05-2012, 3:38 PM
What is the law on gifting an "other" weapon to a minor? I would like to give both my son and daughter a stripped lower if that's legal. If not I guess I'll just have to build up some complete ARs. :D

ja308
02-05-2012, 4:23 PM
You are probably right -the democratic legislature may not require registration of all lg/sg within the time frame i cited . So I will not bet .

Perhaps you can answer the question ,which I have struggled with .
Why did the democratic assembly/senate/governor pass and sign into law the 2014 registration law?
All studys have shown registration to be USELESS to prevent or solve crimes.

Lone_Gunman
02-05-2012, 4:25 PM
Because they're not anti-crime, they're anti-gun.

Thelaststand
02-05-2012, 5:48 PM
No. I would not. Kids are kids until they turn 18.

Why do they need to be armed? The answer is that they do not.

Dad needs to be armed because he is charged with protecting his family during those 5 minutes that it takes the LEOs to arrive.

If dad is gone a lot, then it makes sense for mom to be armed. If mom can't do it, then an older teenaged son can maybe do the job if need be. But you will have hell to pay if junior makes a big mistake. And the Calif law as currently written will hold you responsible. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

You mean 20 minutes until LEOs arrive and then when they do they will take another 10 minutes to prepare while outside.

Mssr. Eleganté
02-05-2012, 6:06 PM
What is the law on gifting an "other" weapon to a minor? I would like to give both my son and daughter a stripped lower if that's legal. If not I guess I'll just have to build up some complete ARs. :D

It's currently perfectly legal to gift stripped lowers to your minor child or to your minor grandchild with their parent's permission. For handguns they need to be at least 18 years of age. For firearms other than handguns there is no age restriction right now.

mag360
02-05-2012, 6:18 PM
There is a whole lot of fail in this post!

You are assuming that everyone has a father, that police always show up in 5 minutes, and then just maybe the mother won't be able to do the protecting and it needs to go to the teenage son in line?

You need to get out more!

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've waited 30 plus minutes in a urban area for the Sheriffs to show up and clear a call that came in as a "shots fired" Ya that 5 minutes is not really realistic..

Next I'm female and I was gifted my own rifle at age 12 by my brother! This rifle was not in some safe waiting for me to get an adult to use it. It was in my bedroom and in my own safe which only I had the combo to. Guess I was raised different but I knew more about gun safety by 5 then most adults learn in their lifetime.

Did I need to be armed? That wasn't even a question, it was a lifestyle. My family hunted and had firearms. Plain and simple ownership of a firearm was just something that happened when it was decided you were old enough to own one.

While you're on your banned detention why don't you read some archives and learn a thing or two here instead of just spewing something.

I feel that any parent who wants to buy their kids guns that they are being wonderful parents. In my life I've seen the value of guns go up to the point they are more productive then savings accounts or other saving systems!

you can't give a gun from sibling to sibling, it is up or down the family tree, not across. grand father-father-son, daughter-father-grandfather. not brother to sister.

see the wiki. you should change your story.

bluenoise
02-05-2012, 6:27 PM
you can't give a gun from sibling to sibling, it is up or down the family tree, not across. grand father-father-son, daughter-father-grandfather. not brother to sister.

see the wiki. you should change your story.

I don't know how long it's been that way, but I suspect that transfer happened quite some time ago or, perhaps, back in the USA.

glockwise2000
02-05-2012, 6:34 PM
Perhaps you can answer the question ,which I have struggled with .
Why did the democratic assembly/senate/governor pass and sign into law the 2014 registration law?
All studys have shown registration to be USELESS to prevent or solve crimes.

Because majority of the legislation in Kali are anti-gun and pro-crime.

sharxbyte
02-05-2012, 6:46 PM
Just don't do the voluntary registration and pass it to them whenever as long as your kids are born pre-01/01/2014. How would they know if you gifted your kids pre or post-deadline.

As I believe there is no age requirement to gift a long gun to your kids.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

:eek: You mean I have to get someone pregnant so I can have kids to give guns BEFORE 2014? >.<


There is a whole lot of fail in this post!

You are assuming that everyone has a father, that police always show up in 5 minutes, and then just maybe the mother won't be able to do the protecting and it needs to go to the teenage son in line?

You need to get out more!

I can't even begin to tell you how many times I've waited 30 plus minutes in a urban area for the Sheriffs to show up and clear a call that came in as a "shots fired" Ya that 5 minutes is not really realistic..

Next I'm female and I was gifted my own rifle at age 12 by my brother! This rifle was not in some safe waiting for me to get an adult to use it. It was in my bedroom and in my own safe which only I had the combo to. Guess I was raised different but I knew more about gun safety by 5 then most adults learn in their lifetime.

Did I need to be armed? That wasn't even a question, it was a lifestyle. My family hunted and had firearms. Plain and simple ownership of a firearm was just something that happened when it was decided you were old enough to own one.

While you're on your banned detention why don't you read some archives and learn a thing or two here instead of just spewing something.

I feel that any parent who wants to buy their kids guns that they are being wonderful parents. In my life I've seen the value of guns go up to the point they are more productive then savings accounts or other saving systems!

Nether of my parents are eligible to own firearms; The cops took more than 40 minutes to go 3 miles to my house when I had a home invasion threat. I had a .22 pellet rifle, and that was IT. Even though everything ended up working out alright, I would have been much better off with a suitable weapon. Kids with parents capable of giving them firearms, (and of course, teaching them proper safety) are fortunate. Parents, take advantage of this while you can.

CSACANNONEER
02-05-2012, 7:27 PM
You are probably right -the democratic legislature may not require registration of all lg/sg within the time frame i cited . So I will not bet .

Perhaps you can answer the question ,which I have struggled with .
Why did the democratic assembly/senate/governor pass and sign into law the 2014 registration law?
All studys have shown registration to be USELESS to prevent or solve crimes.

So they can tell their sheeple that they are doing something good for them. Those who want to believe their lies do so.

wikioutdoor
02-06-2012, 6:13 AM
Because majority of the legislation in Kali are anti-gun and pro-crime.

no

The majority of the legislation is simply receptive to the people who yell the loudest. If gun enthusiasts were willing to march in the streets things would be much different.

taperxz
02-06-2012, 6:19 AM
no

The majority of the legislation is simply receptive to the people who yell the loudest. If gun enthusiasts were willing to march in the streets things would be much different.


^^^:facepalm: soooo much fail!

DTOM CA!
02-06-2012, 3:17 PM
I think it would help to write up a simple document with the gun desc., serial number and type stating on this day the Father gifts gun A,B and C to my Son Jr. and will stay in Fathers possession until Jr. is ready to take custody and or Father passes on. I have 2 Sons and I would rather pick out who gets what now and have something in writing if "The Man" has any questions.

Shellshocker66
02-07-2012, 7:11 AM
you can't give a gun from sibling to sibling, it is up or down the family tree, not across. grand father-father-son, daughter-father-grandfather. not brother to sister.

see the wiki. you should change your story.

Maybe you shouldn't assume this was a time period where these stupid laws existed? I can tell you it was way before the inter-family reporting form was even a thought in the minds of the CA lawmakers!

McCrown
02-07-2012, 10:59 AM
So how does this apply to guns that are shared within the family? My FIL had bought guns for his children too learn on and all shared (same with the magazines).

I have a shotgun and rifle at my parents house that isn't as much mine as it is anyone in my family who wants to use use it for hunting or target practice or whatever. Kind of like being married, I may have been the one who bought the gun w/ my name on the paperwork, but my wife also owns it as well. So how do these "community" guns work under this new law?

Sleighter
02-07-2012, 11:16 AM
So how does this apply to guns that are shared within the family? My FIL had bought guns for his children too learn on and all shared (same with the magazines).

I have a shotgun and rifle at my parents house that isn't as much mine as it is anyone in my family who wants to use use it for hunting or target practice or whatever. Kind of like being married, I may have been the one who bought the gun w/ my name on the paperwork, but my wife also owns it as well. So how do these "community" guns work under this new law?

Ownership is person-specific, just like a vehicle. Even though a family may have 1 vehicle that everyone has access to and may frequently drive at will, the vehicle is still legally owned by a single individual (exemption being a co-owner on the loan) who holds the paper and the responsibility for it. IANAL but my understanding is that firearms operate the same way legally. Single ownership, regardless of availability to others.

Sleighter
02-07-2012, 11:27 AM
I was young at the time, but didn't something happen with the awb and sks' with detachable mags? It was many years ago fed level.. Also something about DUI and 7 years to 10 years on your record on state level? Or did they do it a certain way. I very well could be wrong. That's just the impression I had.

In 2003 Smith v Doe the SCOTUS ruled that laws that are merely regulatory and not punitive are not protected under the ex post facto doctrine. That is the primary loophole that must be established to make a law with retroactive effects constitutional. So if retroactive registration could be shown to be punitive (I.e. in this case causes a person to forfit their property it should be protected against.) Keep in mind that the federal AWB was pre-Heller and McDonald, so that may change things.

Ex post facto laws are generally well protected against and interestingly, it was one of the few parts of the constitution that before the 14 amendment applied to both federal and state governments specifically.

Fate
02-07-2012, 3:46 PM
Ownership is person-specific, just like a vehicle. Even though a family may have 1 vehicle that everyone has access to and may frequently drive at will, the vehicle is still legally owned by a single individual (exemption being a co-owner on the loan) who holds the paper and the responsibility for it. IANAL but my understanding is that firearms operate the same way legally. Single ownership, regardless of availability to others.

CA community property laws covering married couples throw a monkey wrench into your position ;)

12voltguy
02-07-2012, 5:32 PM
Shoobee:facepalm:

GettoPhilosopher
02-07-2012, 6:20 PM
I'm thinking of gifting my soon-to-be-born daughter some lowers before the registration period hits. *shrugs*