Fixing an unlawful transfer... how?

[knight0334]

I'd like to know why you shouldn't be worried about "receiving stolen property" but you should be worried about adding to the crime that you shouldn't be worried about.

To be guilty of receiving stolen property requires a jury to hear "gun" and a cop to find it in your house and then return a verdict of "Guilty." Nothing more or less.

Being found with an item reported stolen goes a long way towards proving the case, even if it wasn't stolen. Being not found with it does not contribute evidence to it being stolen. Being a firearm, if I wanted it to go away without a transfer, I would personally make it no longer a firearm before i made it go away.

I personally know a person that had a motorcycle stolen in PA. He reported it stolen. Six months later, some cops caught somebody with it. The person said the motorcycle was [b]given to him[b/]. He insisted on the same at trial. He went to jail. There was no corroborating evidence. Just a report of a theft, and somebody caught with the stolen property.

Now, let's tweak that just a little bit. Now, it's family members that hate you and won't talk to you. And they file a report over a stolen gun. The difference I see here is that:

1. It's a gun! OMG!
2. It's obvious you had a connection to the "robbery victim" and the firearm before your falling out.

You think this guy is in LESS jeopardy than the prior, REAL example I provided?

I didn't say that a person shouldn't be worried about receiving stolen property. But it takes knowledge of the fact to be guilty of it.

Now, should you receive a gun then find out it is stolen - then torch it, that could constitute a real crime by you. Where as receiving it without the knowledge of it being stolen isn't a crime.

The worst thing the OP could really face is forfeiture of the gun should it be stolen after he transfers it to himself(assuming he wasn't part of the crime).

[tl_3237]

I read § 5552 (c)(4) to effectively extend the SoL by up to eight more years, which would make it 13 years for a violation of §6111 (g)(2) or (g)(4), and 10 years for any other violation of §6111 (c) or (g).

I read that sub-section as 2 years from commission. After that 2 years an extension is granted of up to one year after LE discovery but in no case can prosecution commence after 8 years from commission for 6111(c) violation.

[ungawa]

I didn't say that a person shouldn't be worried about receiving stolen property. But it takes knowledge of the fact to be guilty of it.

Now, should you receive a gun then find out it is stolen - then torch it, that could constitute a real crime by you. Where as receiving it without the knowledge of it being stolen isn't a crime.

The worst thing the OP could really face is forfeiture of the gun should it be stolen after he transfers it to himself(assuming he wasn't part of the crime).

I think there is a little confusion between us.

I am not concerned that the firearm is stolen. I am concerned that the last owner reported it stolen to cover their ass. As little sense as that seems to make, it does seem to happen. And that the OP's friend will be found with it, and not charged with receiving stolen property (which didn't happen), but actually be charged with STEALING the gun (which didn't happen either).

At this point I think this hypothetical scenario has hijacked this thread a little bit and that was not my intent. I was trying to make a comment to suggest that I think there is reason for concern in situations such as these. And, given no additional info, I know what I would do (after investigating any legal issues).

[cakeshooter]

My god. Looking at the tennis ball going back and forth, well you didn't violate the law at all (oh your friend) so don't do shit. Shut up and keep the gun. Relax.

But if he intends to carry it, and the police stop him for some reason and run the numbers, it won't come up under his name and then he'll be questioned...

If he does not intend to carry it or use it for home defense that wouldn't be an issue.

[GunLawyer001]

I read § 5552 (c)(4) to effectively extend the SoL by up to eight more years, which would make it 13 years for a violation of §6111 (g)(2) or (g)(4), and 10 years for any other violation of §6111 (c) or (g).

I read that sub-section as 2 years from commission. After that 2 years an extension is granted of up to one year after LE discovery but in no case can prosecution commence after 8 years from commission for 6111(c) violation.

I'm going to have to retract my earlier assessment and go with Deadpan on this, with respect to the transferor (the estranged relative), anyway. §5552 (a) sets out a 2 year limitation. Then §5552 (b)(1) extends that to 5 years, for certain firearm transfer offenses under §8111(g)(2) and (4), Then that is itself extended by §5552 (c)(4) to a year from discovery, "but in no case shall this paragraph extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than eight years. " Since the period otherwise applicable without (c)(4) would be 5 years, extending that by another 8 years would get to that 13 years for the transferor.

None of this directly applies to the recipient of the firearm, unless the 2 year default limitation for conspiracy is imputedly extended to the limitation for the underlying crime. Since we haven't heard of any stand-alone conspiracy prosecutions of passive, non-prohibited recipients who didn't use the firearm in a crime, and didn't pass it on illegally to any 3rd party, it's not something to put on your A List of worries.

If there's a false allegation of theft by the transferor (not unrealistic if the alternative is that the transferor committed the crime by voluntarily giving it to him), then the Chapter 39 "theft" offenses (§3921 through §3933) might apply, and the 5 year limitation could then apply.

[Xringshooter]

You should NOT give the gun back to the original owner and have him re-do the transfer via an FFL, because what you're doing is committing a second unlawful transfer, from you to him. Like rape or robbery or speeding, you can't "undo" the crime, all you can do is try to cover it up. Don't make it worse by committing additional crimes, just get the firearm "into your name" and oblige the PSP in their probably-illegal but court-endorsed Database.

Duh, I sure wasn't thinking was I when I said to give it back Never entered my mind about it being another incorrect transfer. That's why we have GL001 to watch over us.

[RandomTask]

Torching it would just add to the crimes committed.

To be guilty of receiving stolen property you have knowledge that was stolen. If it was indeed stolen you just destroyed evidence.

That's where trading it in at a "guns for sneakers" program, etc., comes in handy. No questions asked.

[GunLawyer001]

That's where trading it in at a "guns for sneakers" program, etc., comes in handy. No questions asked.

That would still be "conversion", if you dispose of it after becoming aware that it does not belong to you. The fact that the PD running the program would be willfully oblivious to their complicity in helping you destroy evidence doesn't really mitigate your crime.

[ungawa]

That would still be "conversion", if you dispose of it after becoming aware that it does not belong to you. The fact that the PD running the program would be willfully oblivious to their complicity in helping you destroy evidence doesn't really mitigate your crime.

It was given to him, and therefore belongs to him. No?

[GunLawyer001]

It was given to him, and therefore belongs to him. No?

No, the giver can't give better title than he has, and theft doesn't give the thief good title; and if the evil relative says that it was stolen, then the fact that "it was given to him" is in dispute.

There are some exceptions to the "stolen goods never come with good title" under the UCC, but they aren't relevant here. If you buy a stolen gun from some private seller, it remains the property of the original owner, whether you are aware or not.