Who's responsible? A federal gun law question.

[Ironchef]

So a son from Arizona is visiting a mother in Montana, is told by the local dealer in Montana that he won't sell/ship a gun to him in Arizona. So the Mother buys for son, son pays mother for it, etc, etc, and goes home to Arizona with new gun.

Son's gun in Arizona is discovered (used in crime, stolen and used in crime and not reported as stolen, etc). Is mother in trouble? What trouble is son in?

Anyone know these answers?

[bwiese]

Since (assuming) the son appears to not be a prohibited person, this is not a straw transfer so that's not an issue.

PLCAA, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, should protect the mother.

If the son was not part of the crime, and gun was stolen/burglarized and he just didn't notice it (thus not reporting it) he should be OK. If it were left on a back patio table where a teen could access it there may be under-18-access laws in AZ that could impart some liability. But if it was locked in house/car and it was stolen & not noticed, he should be in the clear.

However, remember that "you can sue a ham sandwich" so that doesn't mean onset of a fight (lawsuit) is precluded.

[Ironchef]

Interesting. I had assumed, probably from being Californian, that there'd be hell to pay for the registered owner of the gun as well as the unlawful owner of the gun who transfered/imported that gun to AZ.

Thanks for the detailed response, that makes sense.

Of course, if the son was in CA...and the above scenario happened...I'm guessing things would turn out differently somehow.

[bwiese]

Of course, if the son was in CA...and the above scenario happened...
I'm guessing things would turn out differently somehow.

Not necessarily.

If the transfers of the gun were legit down the chain, and Junior's gun were stolen from house/car (i.e., locked/unloaded/legit transport, or stored at home even if unlocked - house being the locked container- Junior had no knowledge of theft/crime/subsequent misuse, etc.) then there's nothing Junior could be charged with - unless things got sloppy and a minor got possession of it thru means other than outright break-in.

[krby]

Since (assuming) the son appears to not be a prohibited person, this is not a straw transfer so that's not an issue.

Bill, I thought purchasing from an FFL with then intent of giving the firearm to another person (prohibited or not) was a straw purchase.

Learn something new everyday.

[Ironchef]

Ok, what if the son is simply discovered with it (ie., lawful search) and it is learned that he has possession of it and it is registered by mom, who lives out of state?

And what if son lives in CA and is discovered with it, same scenario above?

[Librarian]

Ok, what if the son is simply discovered with it (ie., lawful search) and it is learned that he has possession of it and it is registered by mom, who lives out of state?

And what if son lives in CA and is discovered with it, same scenario above?

Feds say interstate handgun transfers through FFLs in state of residence of receiver.

If it was Mom in MT, son in CA, should have gone through CA FFL and intrafamilial transfer.

Potential 5 years in the Federal pokey and/or $10K fine for Mom.

I don't know why, but I think that unlikely.

[bwiese]

Librarian's got it.

[bwiese]

Bill, I thought purchasing from an FFL with then intent of giving the firearm to another person (prohibited or not) was a straw purchase.

Well kinda depends when the 4473 was filled out.
Nowadays they ask "Are you the actual buyer of this firearm?" (approx).

If mom turns around and gives it to Junior as a gift and Junior is not a denied person, is a resident of same state, and didn't supply funds, I think that's fine.

There was a case in MI where a dude paid another dude to buy a firearm. He was not a prohibited person - he just didn't wanna be on any list. ATF popped him for straw man purchase but case didn't hold - can't remember if at end of trial or appeal - because he could lawfully have purchased the gun anyway and thus was not evading anything except superstition. I think the 4473 questions were rewritten after that one to get a perjury charge, if anything.

[M. Sage]

Interesting. I had assumed, probably from being Californian, that there'd be hell to pay for the registered owner of the gun as well as the unlawful owner of the gun who transfered/imported that gun to AZ.

Thanks for the detailed response, that makes sense.

Of course, if the son was in CA...and the above scenario happened...I'm guessing things would turn out differently somehow.

The gun also might never have been registered. I'm not sure that either of the states you mentioned requires registration of handguns.

[Ding126]

I can't understand why an FFL in Montana refuses to sell & ship a gun to AZ? Lazy?