I'm aware that handgun transfers between parent and child can be done without going thru a licensed dealer and the background check,but what about parent/son-in-law or parent/daughter-in-law?
Printable View
I'm aware that handgun transfers between parent and child can be done without going thru a licensed dealer and the background check,but what about parent/son-in-law or parent/daughter-in-law?
Parent could give it to child, then child give it to spouse.
I don't believe in-law's are specifically covered in the statute, but the above would get around it.
"in law" is not part of the exceptions to the requirement to transfer through an FFL. As currently written.
18Pa.C.S.6111(c)
Counter to popular belief, there is no requirement the family member exemption in the above statute requires "gifting".Quote:
Duty of other persons. -- Any person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer and who desires to sell or transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person shall do so only upon the place of business of a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or county sheriff's office, the latter of whom shall follow the procedure set forth in this section as if he were the seller of the firearm. The provisions of this section shall not apply to transfers between spouses or to transfers between a parent and child or to transfers between grandparent and grandchild.
The statute bans "transfer" and lists exceptions for "transfers" that are allowed.
Sales, trades, gifts, are all "transfers".
Good point. I re-read the OP and thought it said give, but it doesn't.
Oh and it should also be pointed out that both parties must be PA residents. Even if one of the family exceptions apply...if one of the parties lives in another state, then the gun transfer must go thru an FFL.
With the exception of spouse (and we're probably talking "real" as opposed to "common law" spouse), think of a vertical blood line - great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, child. No blood connection? FFL.
Him and her are married, complete with a piece of paper from the government, he can transfer to her and she can transfer to him. He can transfer to her, and she can then transfer to her kids if they're not his kids, or vice versa.
And, the only reason I mention a piece of paper from the government concerning marriage is to preclude some ambitious D.A. from attempting anything adverse if the "marriage" issue comes into play. I don't think the statute defines "spouse."
With the exception of spouse (and we're probably talking "real" as opposed to "common law" spouse), think of a vertical blood line - great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, child. No blood connection? FFL.
Like everything else pertaining to our gun laws, this is a minefield.
Common law marriage is marriage, period. I have not seen any cases on point, but I would be very surprised to learn that a marriage recognized for all other purposes would be denied for purposes of an inter-family transfer of a firearm.
What constitutes a common law marriage, or proof thereof, DOES vary from time-to-time and type of proceeding. The issue of how much proof of the marriage has arisen most often when state-sponsored spousal benefits, such as workers compensation benefits, are involved. As a matter of public policy the Commonwealth strongly favors recognition of marriage and keeping families together ... unless some poor wretch stands to get some money out of the Commonwealth as a result. In that case, we demand a higher standard of proof.
A "common law marriage" exists, in Pennsylvania, where the parties contracted to marry. It is nothing more than an articulation of the intention to be married and to exchange the incidents of marriage with one-another.
The old saw about "cohabitation and holding out" constitutes evidence of the agreement to be married; it does not constitute or result in the marriage. What makes the marriage is a present manifestation of intent (usually by words) to be then and there married; in other words, an agreement.
However, the notion that people can decide on thier own that they want to be husband and wife, without the benevolent assistance of a church or the state, turned out to be intolerable to churches and the state. Common law marriage has now been abolished by statute, for putative marriages after 2005:
§ 1103. Common-law marriage
No common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005, shall be valid. Nothing in this part shall be deemed or taken to render any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted on or before January 1, 2005, invalid.
If two people contracted or agreed between themselves to be married prior to January 1, 2005, they are "spouses" for all purposes (even though they may have to prove it). There are no common law spouses in this Commonwealth after that date.