Gifting A Handgun

[Frankcis]

I am stationed in GA right now. They do not require registration of your firearms and the ability to own pretty much anything. When I move back to CA could I gift a handgun to one of my parents without having to register the handgun to myself first?

[mike452]

You are suppose to tell the CA DOJ that you are bringing the gun in to CA and pay them $19/each then transfer it to your buddy.

I would just transfer and save the $19.

Pretty sure it will work since they only require the seller's ID and say you still at the same address.

[Frankcis]

I would just transfer and save the $19 aswell but in the future would it be questioned since it was not registered since the day of purchase in GA until my parent registered it with the intra-familial form in CA? I just don't want any legal issues if all I needed to do was pay $19 to register before transfer.

Also since the intra-familial form asks origin of the firearm would it be GA. In addition how would they know if they acquired it through me being a personal firearm importer due to moving back home?

[mike452]

If you move back to CA just do a regular transfer.
Intra-family form is to transfer to your family member while you are not in CA.

[markw]

Do you still maintain your CA residency? Just fill out form BOF 4544A (oplaw/intra-familial handgun transaction). Owner information section A. would be your parents info. Section B regarding the gun Origin would be USA or whatever else it says on the gun. italy, etc.. How possession was obtained would be "GIFT" and Acquired from: would be "family member" with the relationship, ie Son. If you're going to gift it to one of them, no sense in paying the $19 twice. Do it once with their ownership info.

[Frankcis]

Okay, thank you for clearing it up guys. I really appreciate it!

[Frankcis]

Forgot to ask, since I am stationed in GA would I be able to go back on vacation and gift a firearm from GA to my parent or would that fall under the whole interstate thing even though my permanent residency is in CA?

[Quiet]

If your active-duty military, Feds consider you a resident in which ever state you have permanent orders for.

[Frankcis]

So I am able to purchase firearms in CA with my Drivers License and GA with my orders. That doesn't seem to answer my question unless I am overlooking something. But thank you for your response.

[morrcarr67]

So I am able to purchase firearms in CA with my Drivers License and GA with my orders. That doesn't seem to answer my question unless I am overlooking something. But thank you for your response.

No.

Right now you are a resident of GA; for the purpose of buying guns, because you are in the Military with papers stationed in GA. The feds say you are only to buy guns in GA.

When you leave the service or are reassigned to a base in CA you could then buy guns in CA again.

If you bring handguns back to CA you have 60 days to register them; sell them to a CA resident; sell them to a CA dealer or turn them over to the local PD/SO.

Giving them to your parent/s and filling out the OP-Law form would keep you and everyone else legal.

[Librarian]

If your active-duty military, Feds consider you a resident in which ever state you have permanent orders for.

Yes, but I am almost entirely convinced - read 'haven't gotten my stuff together to read the law I was referred to' - that this is IN ADDITION TO where the service member 'thinks' he lives permanently.

So I am able to purchase firearms in CA with my Drivers License and GA with my orders. That doesn't seem to answer my question unless I am overlooking something. But thank you for your response.

No.

Right now you are a resident of GA; for the purpose of buying guns, because you are in the Military with papers stationed in GA. The feds say you are only to buy guns in GA.

When you leave the service or are reassigned to a base in CA you could then buy guns in CA again.

If you bring handguns back to CA you have 60 days to register them; sell them to a CA resident; sell them to a CA dealer or turn them over to the local PD/SO.

Giving them to your parent/s and filling out the OP-Law form would keep you and everyone else legal.

The trick about the ATF ruling is it did not address maintaining a residence in a 'home' state.

I'm not feeling all that perky just now; I'll do the research as soon as I'm able, and follow up.

[morrcarr67]

I'm not feeling all that perky just now; I'll do the research as soon as I'm able, and follow up.

Hope you feel better.

Always happy to read your take on things.

[Oceanbob]

I'm not feeling all that perky just now; I'll do the research as soon as I'm able, and follow up.

Hot tea and get to bed early.

[Librarian]

Migraine meds and a nap, actually.

OK, here I go.

In a thread earlier, a nice member gently whapped me upside the head with this link: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/sscra/l/blscramenu.htm

Of that, the significant bit of the act for these purposes is at Title 50, Appendix, of US Code at 595 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html

For the purposes of voting for any Federal office (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)) or a State or local office, a person who is absent from a State in compliance with military or naval orders shall not, solely by reason of that absence—
(1) be deemed to have lost a residence or domicile in that State, without regard to whether or not the person intends to return to that State;
(2) be deemed to have acquired a residence or domicile in any other State; or
(3) be deemed to have become a resident in or a resident of any other State.

Now, I wonder at the bolded part - BATF and other bits of the government have been known to make up their own definitions of things for their own purposes.

Similarly,

for purposes of taxation with respect to the person, personal property, or income of the servicemember by reason of being absent or present in any tax jurisdiction of the United States solely in compliance with military orders.

The about.com page on military residence - http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...meofrecord.htm - says

"Legal Residency," or "domicile", on the other hand refers to the place where a military member intends to return to and live after discharge or retirement, and which they consider their "permanent home." Legal residency determines what local (state) tax laws a military member is subject to, and in which local (city, county, state) elections they may vote in.

Because military members may have "legal residence" in one state, but be stationed in a different state, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, allows military members to pay taxes, register vehicles, vote, etc., in their "state of legal residence," rather than the state they are stationed in. This can sometimes result in a tax advantage because several states exempt military pay from state taxes.

So, what we have is Federal law that asserts residence rights for military personnel (and spouses) in a bunch of areas - and not a word about guns.

Does that exclude the right to buy guns? Can't tell; doesn't say either way. Usual rules of statutory construction suggest that anything left out is left out deliberately.

So, that leaves me unpersuaded that the "Servicemembers Civil Relief Act" actually influences gun-buying legalities.

When first I encountered this issue, I was sure that .mil could buy guns both their domiciles and their PCS location; I'd like that to be true. Hurts no one, and coming from a military family myself, I know a little bene like that would be nice.

I don't have the standing to write BATF and ask them if their 2001 ruling and 2005 letter (see the wiki at http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Fe...ments#Military)

a purchaser who is a member of the Armed Forces on
active duty is a resident of the State in which his or her permanent
duty station is located,

was meant to be exclusively what the ruling states, or in addition to the domicile a servicemember maintains. That is, I can't expect them to answer me - I'm not an FFL or a lawyer.

So, having nothing to conclusively modify the ATF ruling, I'm going to take the conservative route and continue to believe it means what it says, and no more.

I confess I don't like it that way, but I have nothing I can use to argue away from it.