Death in my friend's family

[cdnpuck]

SO my friend's aunt died a few days ago, and she was cleaning the house out and found a couple of handguns. If she has power of attorney can she sell/transfer the guns to me through an FFL? Is there a way to look up if the guns are legally registered to her Aunt? (She didn't even know she owned any guns)

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

SO my friend's aunt died a few days ago, and she was cleaning the house out and found a couple of handguns. If she has power of attorney can she sell/transfer the guns to me through an FFL? Is there a way to look up if the guns are legally registered to her Aunt? (She didn't even know she owned any guns)

This or a very similar question was recently asked. Try searching for that thread. As in that thread, you have not provided sufficient information to get a definitive answer. Did Aunt have a will? Are there there other possible heirs? Did Aunt have an estate that needs to be probated?

[cdnpuck]

Thanks I did try searching and only found threads about in-family transfers. Is it in this forum or another category? Also could not find a thread about looking up if guns are registered. As far as the other questions, as far as I am aware, everything was left to her and she has power of attorney over all her aunt's affairs.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

SO my friend's aunt died a few days ago, and she was cleaning the house out and found a couple of handguns. If she
has power of attorney can she sell/transfer the guns to me through an FFL?
Is there a way to look up if the guns are legally registered to her Aunt?
(She didn't even know she owned any guns)

More info needed.

1. Was there a will by your aunt?

2. Was your friend named executor or 'personal representative'?

3. Are there competing family members in case of no will? CA laws of 'intestate succession' deal with
family members this way. See:

https://www.stonesalluslaw.com/intes...od%20relative.

In some cases, when there is no successor/no executor, estate 'reverts' to the state (CA).

4. The executor may require cooperation from inheritor(s) to get value in exchange for the gun - even
if they do not want the gun itself. In that case the executor would sell it for fair value, and you would
just try to be first in line. The executor does not have to take super great pains to get maximal value,
just attempting to get reasonable value in limited time (esp if time is pressing to close estate).

5. The gun may very well not be 'papered', esp if the aunt moved into CA before 1 Jan 1998 or the gun
was acquired in CA paper-free before 1 Jan 1991.

Since this is an estate/operation of law transfer, I believe it would be Roster-exempt for handguns.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

Thanks I did try searching and only found threads about in-family transfers. Is it in this forum or another category? Also could not find a thread about looking up if guns are registered. As far as the other questions, as far as I am aware, everything was left to her and she has power of attorney over all her aunt's affairs.

You're right, aunt to niece is not in CA's ridiculously narrow 'immediate family'.

If niece is indeed executor, yes, she may PPT to you any CA-legal gun while acting in that role. She need not take personal possession before doing that, and in fact to take personal possession, she would need to PPT the guns as executor to herself!

Prior registration is irrelevant. There is no publicly-accessible way to do that (it's limited to LE with a Reason) and it's not a requirement that a gun be 'registered'.

[cdnpuck]

This is very helpful. To answer some questions.
Yes, there was a will and everything was left to her. No their are no other heirs. Yes she is executor.

If niece is indeed executor, yes, she may PPT to you any CA-legal gun while acting in that role. She need not take personal possession before doing that, and in fact to take personal possession, she would need to PPT the guns as executor to herself!

Prior registration is irrelevant. There is no publicly-accessible way to do that (it's limited to LE with a Reason) and it's not a requirement that a gun be 'registered'.

-so basically I can meet her at an FFL, and she just needs to bring the guns and her paperwork that shows that she is the executor of her aunt's possessions and we can do the PPT?

[cdnpuck]

This is very helpful. To answer some questions.
Yes, there was a will and everything was left to her. No their are no other heirs. Yes she is executor.

If niece is indeed executor, yes, she may PPT to you any CA-legal gun while acting in that role. She need not take personal possession before doing that, and in fact to take personal possession, she would need to PPT the guns as executor to herself!

Prior registration is irrelevant. There is no publicly-accessible way to do that (it's limited to LE with a Reason) and it's not a requirement that a gun be 'registered'.

-so basically I can meet her at an FFL, and she just needs to bring the guns and her paperwork that shows that she is the executor of her aunt's possessions and we can do the PPT?

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

Thanks I did try searching and only found threads about in-family transfers. Is it in this forum or another category? Also could not find a thread about looking up if guns are registered.

As far as the other questions, as far as I am aware, everything was left to her and she has power of attorney over all her aunt's affairs.

This is a rarer situation which is why you don't see many posts on it.


1. Power of Attorney ("POA") only exists during when the individual is
alive, and is no longer applicable at death. After that, an Executor (a.k.a.
"Personal Representative" status) needs to be Probate Court approved,
(unless perhaps somehow all assets were in a Trust.) This is why it's
preferable for POA party to put - before death - certain bills for insurance, property upkeep, water/electricity/security for house, etc. on autopay
esp when death reasonably anticipated.

It's common misunderstanding for POA status to be accidently misused
after death and conflated with Executor status. This can lead to issues, unless of course the use actually were in consonance with the Will and/or laws of intestate succession and the Probate Court would just approve. In other instances, this can cause huge issues in complex wills with conflicts. It's also quite common and illegal for families to run thru the decedent's house and grab stuff for themselves - esp if of significant value. It's one
thing to want Aunt Minnie's Tupperware set - much different for Uncle Bob's
Rolex collection.

Existence of prior POA status with appropriate conduct may be reflective of favorable relationship w/decedent and aid in becoming Personal Representative if there are challenges by other parties.

FYI, California also has a 'small estate disposal' law that lets small estates
with asset values under a small amount (i.e, person died without house,
had an old car, some crap furniture etc.). I forget what the limit is.

Note also that "Named Beneficiaries" of accounts (bank, insurance, 401k,
etc.) override all Wills and 'fall out' from them. If the will says Chuck gets the checking account, but the Named Beneficiary is Nancy, then Nancy will
be the beneficiary and override the Will. The Willed Estate does _NOT_
include value of named beneficiary accounts - these typically are "POD":
Payable on Death.


2. Again, as I posted above, this falls into estate/operation of law transfer
so it would be Roster-exempt for handguns. (AWs are not exempt and
special processes required for RAWs. Unreg'd raws best off surrendered
as they are contraband.)

3. Registration status irrelevant. You do not have to have it looked up.

The Executor would just take the relevant gun(s) - locked case/unloaded -
to the FFL for a transfer. [I am unclear if this would be a fee-restricted PPT or not.] If there is some issue with the gun (say, stolen) it would be caught in this process, otherwise the gun which may have no paperwork to it will
be reg'd to you and you pick it up in 10 days.

Remember there is no general requirement for guns to be registered in
CA; there are only specific gating times after which acquisitions need to
be FFL-xferred or papered to acquire. So, again, if your aunt moved to
CA before 1 Jan 1998 with a handgun, or moved to CA before 1 Jan 2014
with a long gun, or acquired guns legally paper-free in CA before 1 Jan 1991, there was no legal paper status requirement. Even without valid papering history, the executor's xfer to you should go thru unless stolen or unless
you have some issue.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

This is very helpful. To answer some questions.
Yes, there was a will and everything was left to her. No their are no other heirs. Yes she is executor.

If niece is indeed executor, yes, she may PPT to you any CA-legal gun while acting in that role. She need not take personal possession before doing that, and in fact to take personal possession, she would need to PPT the guns as executor to herself!

Prior registration is irrelevant. There is no publicly-accessible way to do that (it's limited to LE with a Reason) and it's not a requirement that a gun be 'registered'.

-so basically I can meet her at an FFL, and she just needs to bring the guns and her paperwork that shows that she is the executor of her aunt's possessions and we can do the PPT?

Yup.

[cdnpuck]

Thank you all for your help. It looks like this should be able to go through smoothly

[1911-CV]

Originally Posted by cdnpuck

Thank you all for your help. It looks like this should be able to go through smoothly

While this should all go smoothly, check with the intended FFL before heading out. While not legally required, some FFL's have their own rules that require specific identification and/or an FSC card from the seller. Some FFL's also tack on their own fees for providing the PPT.

You do not need to go into all the details with the FFL's you call. Just ask if they have any specific requirements for the seller in a PPT and what they charge.

[Chewy65]

This article seems to be accurate, but I only glanced at it and even then I am not qualified in probate law. https://www.sweeneyprobatelaw.com/ar...ate-procedure/

While an FFL might accept a copy of a will naming the transferor as the executor and sole heir, your friend is not the executor until she is appointed such by the court. The court will usually appoint the person named as executor and sole beneficiary.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

This article seems to be accurate, but I only glanced at it and even then I am not qualified in probate law. https://www.sweeneyprobatelaw.com/ar...ate-procedure/

While an FFL might accept a copy of a will naming the transferor as the executor and sole heir, your friend is not the executor until she is appointed such by the court. The court will usually appoint the person named as executor and sole beneficiary.

California has a 'small estate' procedure for estates under $180K esp w
those dying intestate with limited probatable assets (i.e, accounts with
Pay on Death 'named beneficiaries'.)

Worst case the executrix/inheritor has to transfer it to herself first, then
PPTs it.

https://www.clearestate.com/en-us/bl...ate-california

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...%201%2C%202022).


[Also, DMV is extremely expedient esp with old cars. Late mom's 2007
Honda Fit (12k miles with a ton of dents) was easy to transfer car
registration to me - just went to DMV ofc with Will, ID, registration,
death certificate and was out in 20 minutes. The particular DMV staffer
was a car dude and very familiar with this kinda situation. They really
don't care about mileage on cars over 10yrs old, which was good given
there was an odometer issue (my mom read the decimal point wrong
and filed reg in 2014 w 58000 miles instead of 5800).]

[pacrat]

Chewy said;

While an FFL might accept a copy of a will naming the transferor as the executor and sole heir

It is none of the FFL's business how the seller came into possession of the firearm for sale.

As previously advised. SAY NOTHING to the FFL that may unleash the latent COUNTER MONKEY.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Chewy said;
It is none of the FFL's business how the seller came into possession of the firearm for sale.

As previously advised. SAY NOTHING to the FFL that may unleash the latent COUNTER MONKEY.

Um, here we go - that can be a recipe for trouble.

The person doing the transfer has to ACCURATELY report the status on
form(s). An executor filing as if it's his/her own gun being transferred,
or vice versa, is gonna be legally problematic [i.e, perjury/fraud]]

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Um, here we go - that can be a recipe for trouble.

The person doing the transfer has to ACCURATELY report the status on
form(s). An executor filing as if it's his/her own gun being transferred,
or vice versa, is gonna be legally problematic [i.e, perjury/fraud]]

Before moving to Idaho I sold many firearms by PPT. IIRC, the FFL only ask for my DL so they could enter my name into their bound book. No one ask where I got the guns. I recently sold an on roster pistol to a CA resident. Again, my local (Idaho) FFL merely ask for my DL and if the pistol was on the CA roster? So how is not saying anything to the FFL on how the seller gained possession a recipe for trouble? Or am I misreading your post?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Um, here we go - that can be a recipe for trouble.

The person doing the transfer has to ACCURATELY report the status on
form(s). An executor filing as if it's his/her own gun being transferred,
or vice versa, is gonna be legally problematic [i.e, perjury/fraud]]

There is no statute, either Fed or state, that requires the seller to declare in any way, how they came into possession of the firearm they are selling. If you refer to Ca BOF form 929, and Fed ATF 4473, will you NOT find anyplace that such questions are asked of the seller.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by pacrat

There is no statute, either Fed or state, that requires the seller to declare in any way, how they came into possession of the firearm they are selling. If you refer to Ca BOF form 929, and Fed ATF 4473, will you NOT find anyplace that such questions are asked of the seller.

What if they are not the legal true possessor and are just executor/representative?

That actually is Aunt Sally's gun. Even dead, Aunt Sally's estate is selling it.
The executor signs all forms for

This is not about 'how' but 'who' should be signing. If it's not my gun and is the gun of the estate/dead party I legally represent, I would sign the form
"Aunt Sally (deceased, Joe Smith personal representative)" to accurately reflect the status. Joe Smith is not selling the gun; Aunt Sally's (estate) is and Joe is just the mechanism.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by bwiese

What if they are not the legal true possessor and are just executor/representative?

That actually is Aunt Sally's gun. Even dead, Aunt Sally's estate is selling it.
The executor signs all forms for

This is not about 'how' but 'who' should be signing. If it's not my gun and is the gun of the estate/dead party I legally represent, I would sign the form
"Aunt Sally (deceased, Joe Smith personal representative)" to accurately reflect the status. Joe Smith is not selling the gun; Aunt Sally's (estate) is and Joe is just the mechanism.

Not disputing that in a technical sense it would be the estate that is selling the firearm. But that does not answer our question of what you think needs to be signed. In other words, sign what? The seller only signs the 4473 form if the seller is, in fact, the FFL.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Not disputing that in a technical sense it would be the estate that is selling the firearm. But that does not answer our question of what you think needs to be signed. In other words, sign what? The seller only signs the 4473 form if the seller is, in fact, the FFL.

It's been so long since I've sold a gun PPT I've lost track of paperflow.

But in a PPT, isn't the gun still the seller's and the FFL is just the agent?

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Chewy said;



It is none of the FFL's business how the seller came into possession of the firearm for sale.

As previously advised. SAY NOTHING to the FFL that may unleash the latent COUNTER MONKEY.

It darn well is the FFL's business if he or she wants to keep their license and the circumstances were such that any reasonable FFL would suspect that the transferor lacked authority to do the transfer.

[Chewy65]

Isn't everyone overlooking a major purpose of probate procedures, which is to satisfy debts of the deceased? Aunt Sally's niece just might want to look into liabilities she assumes if she transfers assets of the estate without first obtaining autorization from the court.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

It darn well is the FFL's business if he or she wants to keep their license and the circumstances were such that any reasonable FFL would suspect that the transferor lacked authority to do the transfer.

If as you falsely claim the FFL has a legal onus to confirm, that which they have no ability to confirm. Prove it with a legal citation!

As I previously posted;

There is no statute, either Fed or state, that requires the seller to declare in any way, how they came into possession of the firearm they are selling. If you refer to Ca BOF form 929, and Fed ATF 4473, will you NOT find anyplace that such questions are asked of the seller.

Since both state and fed LE agencies don't even ask about provenance of a gun during a LEGAL transfer. Please explain how either of those entities could possibly hold any legal liability against an FFL for facilitating the transfer, that they themselves condoned?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by bwiese

It's been so long since I've sold a gun PPT I've lost track of paperflow.

But in a PPT, isn't the gun still the seller's and the FFL is just the agent?

I am not sure the FFL is an agent, as that word is generally understood. But he or she is definitely an intermediary, akin to escrow agents.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Isn't everyone overlooking a major purpose of probate procedures, which is to satisfy debts of the deceased? Aunt Sally's niece just might want to look into liabilities she assumes if she transfers assets of the estate without first obtaining authorization from the court.

Good point, but that probably depends on what she does with the proceeds.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by pacrat

If as you falsely claim the FFL has a legal onus to confirm, that which they have no ability to confirm. Prove it with a legal citation!

Actually, they may be able to confirm more than you think. During the SSE era, I offered to rent my SSE barrel and magazine block, to a person inquiring about how to do SSE. The person declined and offered me the off roster pistol at a VERY GOOD price. Not wanting to purchase a stolen pistol, I asked for the pistol's serial number. I went to my local FFL an asked if they could check the serial number against the list of stolen firearms. At first they said no, but then said the gun had not be listed as stolen. The pistol was DROSed to me as an exempt single shot, which I later sold by PPT as a semiauto.

Since both state and fed LE agencies don't even ask about provenance of a gun during a LEGAL transfer. Please explain how either of those entities could possibly hold any legal liability against an FFL for facilitating the transfer, that they themselves condoned?

Good question but let's not get overly aggressive with fellow members. Our discussions should be to educate and inform each other and from time to time all of us misspeak.

[pacrat]

[1] ... I went to my local FFL an asked if they could check the serial number against the list of stolen firearms. At first they said no, [2] ... but then said the gun had not be listed as stolen.

[1] ... Since NO FFL has the capability to access AFS, NICS, or NTC. They have NO MEANS to directly check whether a given firearm was ever reported as stolen. All such state and Fed databases are for LEA ONLY.

[2] ... Doesn't mean they actually had the access to relevant data bases to do such a search. They either lied to you, if they claimed they did. Or had a friendly LEO run the gun.

Still places, NO LEGAL ONUS, or LEGAL LIABILITY, to CONFIRM PROVINANCE on any FFL.

Do you consider politely asking; ["Please explain how"] as being "overly aggressive"?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by pacrat

[1] ... Since NO FFL has the capability to access AFS, NICS, or NTC. They have NO MEANS to directly check whether a given firearm was ever reported as stolen. All such state and Fed databases are for LEA ONLY.

Correct.

[2] ... Doesn't mean they actually had the access to relevant data bases to do such a search.

I did not mean to imply that they did. Remember, I said "they may be able to confirm more than you think."

They either lied to you, if they claimed they did. Or had a friendly LEO run the gun.

They did not lie.

Still places, NO LEGAL ONUS, or LEGAL LIABILITY, to CONFIRM PROVINANCE on any FFL.

Again correct.

Do you consider politely asking; ["Please explain how"] as being "overly aggressive"?

No, not overly aggressive. Lets say that it is nice to have friends in the right places. So now you have your answer.

[Chewy65]

BAJ475. It's nice to have the time and inclination to spend on some people, but I would rather allocate mine to other things.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

It darn well is the FFL's business if he or she wants to keep their license and the circumstances were such that any reasonable FFL would suspect that the transferor lacked authority to do the transfer.

Yes, particularly in cases where no will and laws of intestate succession
likely violated - like where some family grabs valuables from the house
the day after granny dies, without other parties' knowledge.

[pacrat]

Our discussions should be to educate and inform each other and from time to time all of us misspeak.

I agree, and when I do misspeak, place foot in mouth, or have a senior moment brainfart. I first confirm that I screwed up. Then I make corrections, and admit screwup.

[1] ... Since NO FFL has the capability to access AFS, NICS, or NTC. They have NO MEANS to directly check whether a given firearm was ever reported as stolen. All such state and Fed databases are for LEA ONLY.

Correction, I do personally know of [2] FFLs that have, or had, that capability. So "NO FFL" was inaccurate. There are exceptions.

One is an acquaintance of mine. That happens to be an FBI agent, who is also a partner in an Orange Co. FFL. The other was the now long gone SNS Guns in Downey. The shop name was taken from the first initials of the three Downey PD cops that owned the shop.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by pacrat

I agree, and when I do misspeak, place foot in mouth, or have a senior moment brainfart. I first confirm that I screwed up. Then I make corrections, and admit screwup.

Do you still think that the FFL isn't putting himself or his license in jeopardy if he assists with a transfer when the circumstances are such that he should reasonably have believed that the transferor lacked authority to sell the firearm?

I don't want want to be responsible for the death of any of your brain matter. Here is a hint. If a dealer overhears a person who accompanied a buyer into the store say, "That's the one I want," does that dealer have a problem? C onsider that the DOJ rep just happens to be standing a few feet away at the time. Staw purchase?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Do you still think that the FFL isn't putting himself or his license in jeopardy if he assists with a transfer when the circumstances are such that he should reasonably have believed that the transferor lacked authority to sell the firearm?

I don't want want to be responsible for the death of any of your brain matter. Here is a hint. If a dealer overhears a person who accompanied a buyer into the store say, "That's the one I want," does that dealer have a problem? Consider that the DOJ rep just happens to be standing a few feet away at the time. Staw purchase?

Ok, consider the possibility that the person who says "That's the one I want" happens to be the child or spouse of the buyer. Consider also that the two are friends and that the person who said "that's the one I want" was merely expressing the view that he or she was looking to buy the same firearm. The problem is that you started out by assuming what the FFL should have reasonably believed (the conclusion), but then used facts that have innocent explanations.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

Ok, consider the possibility that the person who says "That's the one I want" happens to be the child or spouse of the buyer. Consider also that the two are friends and that the person who said "that's the one I want" was merely expressing the view that he or she was looking to buy the same firearm. The problem is that you started out by assuming what the FFL should have reasonably believed (the conclusion), but then used facts that have innocent explanations.

True. I should have gone into more detail to stongly suggest that the gun is being bought by the guy who tells the straw-man which gun he wants. Things that strongly suggest to the FFL that this is a straw purchase. Such as, this is a small townn and that morning the FFL has breakfast at Flo's Eatery. While there he overhears two men talking about guns. He overhears the older man say how he really wants a particular Glock, but he unfairly cannot buy it because he "unfairly" has a criminal record. The two men then discuss it the other can buy it for the first. FFL minds his own business, finishes his breakfast, and heads to the LGS.

Shorlty after FFL opens for business, those two men show up at the counter where they linger for a few minutes before leaving the store. FFL having recognized them from Flo's keeps a lose eye on them as it is just a little odd that instead of leaving they tarry in the parking lot. FFL sees the older man, the one who said he has a criminal record, take out his wallet and pass several bills to the younger.

When the re-enter the store, the younger man walks straight up to the counter where the pistols are displayed. He asks to see a handgun, wich is not the one mentioned by the other man at Flo's. When young man says he wants to buy it, older man steps closer and whispers, "No, I want that one, which is the exact make and model the older man said he wanted during breakfast." Young man immediately tells FFL that he made a mistake and that he meant the other.

FFL wonders what is going on. The two guns are very different. One being a new .22 calibre long barreled wheel gun and the other a gently used .40 calibre Glock. He has been told of a recent pickup and crackdown in straw purchases.

BAJ475. The point I had hoped to make was not that there was sufficient evidence to convict for a straw purchase, but that a wise FFL would refrain from making the sale if he valued his license. That one transaction isn't going to cost him it, but might get him on a list for scrutiny.

Now, if all the facts laid out in this post became known, wouldn't you think the FFL had put his license in jeapordy? Especially if the second guy is taken into custody following an armed robbery and law enforcement looks into how he got the Glock, since he is charged as felon in possession. How does anyone know that the FFL heard and observed that stuff durnig breakfast and in the parking lot? Overheard at the bar and grill, a digruntled ex-counter monkey. Who knows. This is just a stuping hypo and **** happens.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Do you still think that the FFL isn't putting himself or his license in jeopardy if he assists with a transfer when the circumstances are such that he should reasonably have believed that the transferor lacked authority to sell the firearm?

I don't want want to be responsible for the death of any of your brain matter. Here is a hint. If a dealer overhears a person who accompanied a buyer into the store say, "That's the one I want," does that dealer have a problem? C onsider that the DOJ rep just happens to be standing a few feet away at the time. Staw purchase?

Hold onto your hats folks. Chewy is again headed into the weeds in pursuit of another game of obsfucatory deflection fantasy, "WHAT IF - WHACK A MOLE". Attempt to give even a smidgen of credence to his faulty premise.

Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
It darn well is the FFL's business if he or she wants to keep their license and the circumstances were such that any reasonable FFL would suspect that the transferor lacked authority to do the transfer.

Still no citation of either a statute or case law finding. That places an onus or liability for the FFL,

IN RELATION TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, AS RELATED BY THE OP

Which had no inference of any straw purchase.


Geeeesh! What next, after Breakfast at Flo's, overhearing conversations, firearms recovered at armed robberies, Is their no end to the obsfucations?

Yes, there are actions by FFLs that can put their license in jeopardy. NONE OF WHICH have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Yes, particularly in cases where no will and laws of intestate succession
likely violated - like where some family grabs valuables from the house
the day after granny dies, without other parties' knowledge.

Two words;

CIVIL MATTER

WHICH STILL PLACES NO ONUS OR LIABILITY ON ANY FFL.

[Chewy65]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Two words;

CIVIL MATTER

WHICH STILL PLACES NO ONUS OR LIABILITY ON ANY FFL.

I litigated such a "Civil Matter" as Bill was referencing. The primary cause was conversion. They happen all the time





, but this one involved some real coin and could well have gone criminal. Besides criminal, my client had to deal with the IRS for two years in which he was audited and pursued for alleged tax evasion.

Do you even know what "onus" means? Do you really think that a FFL has no responsibility to determine if a person has the right to transfer a firearm to another, when the FFL has reason to suspect that the would be transferor may not be the guns owner? Say this is the only LGS in miles and this FFL has been handling all the needs of a gentleman, who was a prolific gun owner with a large collection, for the past 40 years and during those years they had gotten to know each other quite well. Se well that it would have been difficult to imagine the customer buying a new gun from another. In fact, this FFL sold the very gun just weeks ago to his old buddy and the FFL immediately recognizes the gun. Is it your position that the FFL is under no "onus" to make any inquiry to enable him to determine that the wannabe transferor has a legal right to transfer this gun? Even the simplest inquiry, such as asking the wannabe transferor how he got the gun or if they own it?

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

I litigated such a "Civil Matter" as Bill was referencing. The primary cause was conversion. They happen all the time





, but this one involved some real coin and could well have gone criminal. Besides criminal, my client had to deal with the IRS for two years in which he was audited and pursued for alleged tax evasion.

Do you even know what "onus" means? Do you really think that a FFL has no responsibility to determine if a person has the right to transfer a firearm to another, when the FFL has reason to suspect that the would be transferor may not be the guns owner? Say this is the only LGS in miles and this FFL has been handling all the needs of a gentleman, who was a prolific gun owner with a large collection, for the past 40 years and during those years they had gotten to know each other quite well. Se well that it would have been difficult to imagine the customer buying a new gun from another. In fact, this FFL sold the very gun just weeks ago to his old buddy and the FFL immediately recognizes the gun. Is it your position that the FFL is under no "onus" to make any inquiry to enable him to determine that the wannabe transferor has a legal right to transfer this gun? Even the simplest inquiry, such as asking the wannabe transferor how he got the gun or if they own it?

^^^^^^^^ LOOK, SQUIRREL! ^^^^^^^^ AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN!

[Chewy65]

Pacrat,

I apologize for expecting you to be capable of simple logic. Best wishes for your recovery.

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by Chewy65

Pacrat,

I apologize for expecting you to be capable of simple logic. Best wishes for your recovery.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=901829

a) Please stay on topic in all forums.

8) Please stay focused on the legal issue presented

cdnpuck asked in OP?

Death in my friend's family

SO my friend's aunt died a few days ago, and she was cleaning the house out and found a couple of handguns. If she has power of attorney can she sell/transfer the guns to me through an FFL? Is there a way to look up if the guns are legally registered to her Aunt? (She didn't even know she owned any guns)

Your reading comprehension inadequacy, is in no way indicative of a fault in my logic.

you

It darn well is the FFL's business if he or she wants to keep their license and the circumstances were such that any reasonable FFL would suspect that the transferor lacked authority to do the transfer.

me

If as you falsely claim the FFL has a legal onus to confirm, that which they have no ability to confirm. Prove it with a legal citation!

You failed to provide a citation of any statute, supporting that claim.

You were wrong. All the "LOOK SQUIRRELS", deflections, obsfucations, and silly Flo's Diner fabrications. Will not make you right. Yet you persist.

SORRY; Your failures, also, are in no way indicative of any fault of mine.