TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:It is illegal for a non-FFL to take a firearm in his or her hands and then cross state lines.

Wait, I can't carry my gun across state lines? I've gotta go through an FFL if I want to bring my gun with me while visiting friends or family in another state? I'm not trying to be dense or a pain or anything, I just don't wanna go to jail over something stupid that I though was legal.

Dave2 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:It is illegal for a non-FFL to take a firearm in his or her hands and then cross state lines.

Wait, I can't carry my gun across state lines? I've gotta go through an FFL if I want to bring my gun with me while visiting friends or family in another state?

You can take your legally owned firearm anywhere in the United States where you can legally possess it (not places such as the District of Columbia, like it or not—I'd scratch New York, New Jersey, most of Maryland, Chicago, and Hawaii off the list also).

What you can't do it transfer it to another person in a different state. Transfer basically means a permanent sale, trade, or gift. It also can't be disguised as a loan for an indefinite period. That would be really convenient for gangsters and gun-runners.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

equin wrote:So if you're going to the other state, such as MI, to pick up the firearm, do you then go to a MI FFL to effectuate the transfer?

Yes.

equin wrote:If so, I'm guessing the owner has to accompany you with the firearm to the MI FFL, right?

There is no legal requirement of that sort. It would not be a bad idea. Probably the FFL would be more comfortable that way. FFLs can refuse to complete a transaction of they think something is "funny" about it.

equin wrote:Or do you bring the firearm back to TX and go to a TX FFL to effectuate the transfer?

That would be illegal, as you said. It is illegal for a non-FFL to take a firearm in his or her hands and then cross state lines.

The original question (which I overlooked somewhat) was the owner of the firearms in Michigan coming to Texas—not the other way around.

- Jim

Gotcha. That makes sense. And yes, I guess we overlooked the OP's situation about the owner of the firearms coming to Texas. I suppose just to be clear if someone else searches this issue, the answer to that scenario is that once the owner of the firearm arrives in TX, the transfer has to take place via an FFL. For the purpose of clarifying the issue a bit further, would the owner have to go to the TX FFL to effectuate the transfer? Or would the recipient have to go? Or both? I tried searching the ATF site, but haven't been able to find an answer yet.

equin wrote:I guess we overlooked the OP's situation about the owner of the firearms coming to Texas. I suppose just to be clear if someone else searches this issue, the answer to that scenario is that once the owner of the firearm arrives in TX, the transfer has to take place via an FFL. For the purpose of clarifying the issue a bit further, would the owner have to go to the TX FFL to effectuate the transfer? Or would the recipient have to go? Or both?

All firearms transfers from an FFL to a non-FFL must be in person.

In this specific case, if the father came from Michigan to Texas, the father would not have to go to the FFL. However, as I said, it would probably let the FFL feel like it was a legitimate transaction and not something shady.

I am not a lawyer or an FFL and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for a few weeks. There might be some other legal "gotcha" that I don't know about.

- Jim

To recap: My father-in-law in MI wants to give me his firearms. He is planning to drive here with them. (This is totally legal as he owns them.)

To give them to me, we need to go to a Texas FFL to complete the transfer. As I read it, I do not need to go to MI and affect the transfer through an FFL there. However, if I did, we could also affect the transfer via a MI FFL. Then I could transport them back here as my firearms. (Legal, I I would then own them.) Sound right?

That is my understanding. Your father can drive to Texas and transfer the firearms to you here.

As I said above, I am not a lawyer or an FFL and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express for a few weeks.

The part of the federal law dealing with bequests is a distraction. Someone has to pass on before the concept of a bequest becomes meaningful. I hope that is not the case in the foreseeable future.

Also your father might like Texas so much that he stays. Maybe not Houston (where it seems you live) but keep him out of the Hill Country.

- Jim

Arrggghh!

OK, just got a note back from an FFL...he said that it is considered a private transaction and an FFL transfer is not required!!? I've got an inquiry into a second FFL and I'll see if I get the same answer twice!

MikeStone wrote:Arrggghh!

OK, just got a note back from an FFL...he said that it is considered a private transaction and an FFL transfer is not required!!? I've got an inquiry into a second FFL and I'll see if I get the same answer twice!

Make sure they understand it is an 'Inter-state' transaction and not a transaction between parties who reside in the same state.

A lot of people don't understand what they hear or read. Probably you can find an FFL that is a forum member, who understands what needs to be done.

- Jim

To give them to me, we need to go to a Texas FFL to complete the transfer. As I read it, I do not need to go to MI and affect the transfer through an FFL there. However, if I did, we could also affect the transfer via a MI FFL. Then I could transport them back here as my firearms. (Legal, I I would then own them.) Sound right?

Correct as far as federal law and Texas law are concerned. I cannot speak to MI law.

Change the circumstances and state law can have an impact. For example, a Florida resident cannot come to Texas and purchase a long gun here from a Texas FFL. The transfer has to go through a Florida FFL per their state law.

Just talked to an FFL who contacted the BATFE to get a ruling on the situation. According to the FFL, per conversation with the BATFE, no transfer is required, it's a private transaction.

This is too difficult, I think I'll just have him sell the firearms and pay me cash. Now, would that require a transfer? (Just kidding...)

MikeStone wrote:Just talked to an FFL who contacted the BATFE to get a ruling on the situation. According to the FFL, per conversation with the BATFE, no transfer is required, it's a private transaction.

And they know you're talking about a transfer across state lines? That revelation would be a very interesting interpretation.

I would want this opinion in writing on a BATFE letterhead.

The law (USC 922) is unusually clear for a federal law.

It is very unusual for a friend or family member to be prosecuted for an interstate gift. However, criminals are prosecuted for that all the time. It's confusing, because the crimes often involve multiple factors like straw purchases or stolen firearms.

- Jim

And they know you're talking about a transfer across state lines?

Yes, because I went back to the FFL to ensure that he understood I was talking about an interstate transfer...

MikeStone wrote:Just talked to an FFL who contacted the BATFE to get a ruling on the situation. According to the FFL, per conversation with the BATFE, no transfer is required, it's a private transaction.

This is too difficult, I think I'll just have him sell the firearms and pay me cash. Now, would that require a transfer? (Just kidding...)

It is not out of character for F-troop to have one person verbally approve something as no problem and then someone else countermand that and prosecute.

Look, I've known for 30 years it is illegal and seamustx posted the link to the statute.

Even if you are justifiably confused by all the uproar, paying a $10 transfer fee is cheap compared to 10 years and $10,000.