Fixing an unlawful transfer... how?

[dgood71]

Ok, here's the situation. A friend was given an handgun by a family member that was not a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild. The gun was lawfully purchased by the family member originally, but they just "didn't want it" after a period of time and gave it to my friend. No money changed hands, and the gun wasn't transferred through a dealer/FFL holder.

Now, I'm fairly certain the person who purchased the gun initially broke the law by giving it away, but is the receiver in violation of the law as well?

And, should the receiver want to make the transfer legal, how would that be done? (The family member and the receiver are not on speaking terms, so it's not like they could both show up at a dealer and just do the transfer)

Can the receiver have the gun transferred "on the books" without the original owner's involvement?

[Xringshooter]

Ok, here's the situation. A friend was given an handgun by a family member that was not a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild. The gun was lawfully purchased by the family member originally, but they just "didn't want it" after a period of time and gave it to my friend. No money changed hands, and the gun wasn't transferred through a dealer/FFL holder.

Now, I'm fairly certain the person who purchased the gun initially broke the law by giving it away, but is the receiver in violation of the law as well?

And, should the receiver want to make the transfer legal, how would that be done? (The family member and the receiver are not on speaking terms, so it's not like they could both show up at a dealer and just do the transfer)

Can the receiver have the gun transferred "on the books" without the original owner's involvement?

Short answer to your last sentence is yes. However, he would have a lot of explaining to do to a FFL to get it done if the giver of the gun is in the local area. Myself, as an FFL would be concerned with this:

This could become a sticky situation if your friend got the gun transferred to himself. He could do that but if he and his family member are not on speaking terms, and it got worse, the family member that originally gave it to your friend could go to the police and say your friend stole it. Then your friend would have to defend himself and even if he told the police the story about it being given to him (in this case the family member who give the gun away broke the law), would the police believe that story? Do you think the family member who gave the gun away is going to say they did it and get in trouble themselves?

He needs to get it back into the hands of the original owner somehow and them have it transferred correctly, if possible. To do this he may have to work through an intermediary (another family member that is on good terms with both people).


The intermediary would then work with both people to get the transfer done. The one in possession of the gun could go to the FFL and explain the circumstances, turn the gun over to the FFL, and fill out his part of the paperwork. Then the giver of the gun could go in and fill out his part of the paperwork. Then the recipient of the gun would go back to the FFL and have the PICS done and if all ok, pay for the transfer and leave with the gun legally transferred. This way they don't have to meet or speak to each other.

[dgood71]

Thanks. I'm not sure what the situation with the original owner is, whether they even talk to the rest of the family or not at this point. Kinds sounded like a "black sheep" situation where they may not even associate with the family any more. Anyway, I'll pass along the suggestion.

I did mention that having the firearm with no lawful transfer could be a bad thing if the original owner decided to claim it was stolen. That was an initial concern of mine as well. At least I know it's possible to do a "self transfer", even if it would normally raise a few eyebrows.

Am I correct in my belief that the recipient of the firearm has broken no laws because the transfer wasn't done? My understanding is that the seller/giver of the firearm is the culpable party if they don't transfer a gun properly, and the recipient is not in violation of the law by accepting the firearm. Do I have that much right?

[gnbrotz]

My understanding is that the seller/giver of the firearm is the culpable party if they don't transfer a gun properly, and the recipient is not in violation of the law by accepting the firearm. Do I have that much right?

This is my understanding as well. An attorney who I respect has hypothesized that there could be some type of "conspiracy" charge for the recipient if they were knowingly involved in skirting the law, but even if that were true, I'd think discovery and prosecution would be pretty unlikely - though technically the act was (possibly) illegal.

[GunLawyer001]

The statute of limitations (applicable to the transferor) for an unlawful transfer is at least 5 years, possibly as long as 13 years.* Title 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5552

The burden is on the transferor, not the transferee, although the firearm itself could be treated as contraband. As noted above, there's a theoretical possibility of a conspiracy charge, but I've never heard of it happening, not without a prohibited person or a violent crime in the mix.

Neither an FFL nor the PSP really care about you using an FFL to transfer a firearm to yourself. If anything, the PSP is pleased to update their records, and the fact that you created a paper trail will be exculpatory evidence if the original owner were to file a false claim for theft. Thieves tend not to do that sort of thing.

The main reason to auto-transfer at an FFL is to avoid the hazards of a local cop misusing the Database and confiscating your firearm. You'd have an uphill battle getting it back without that entry in the database, where the original transfer was in fact unlawful. With it linked to you in the Databse, the chance of confiscation is reduced many times.

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.

ETA: If you've possessed an LTCF from the beginning, then this was arguably a "loan", and it would be lawful. But if in fact it was a gift, you'd be lying if you called it a loan.

*ETA 2.1 - See post #17.

[ungawa]

Torch it.

It might already be reported stolen. Although I don't understand their logic, people often report firearms as stolen when they have transfer remorse to people they no longer like. For some reason they think filing false testimony protects them if the firearm is misused or confiscated.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't think my idea would break any laws, but you better check it for yourself first. It's what I would do, but it's certainly not advice.

[knight0334]

Torch it.

It might already be reported stolen. Although I don't understand their logic, people often report firearms as stolen when they have transfer remorse to people they no longer like. For some reason they think filing false testimony protects them if the firearm is misused or confiscated.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't think my idea would break any laws, but you better check it for yourself first. It's what I would do, but it's certainly not advice.

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.

§ 3925. Receiving stolen property

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of theft if he intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of movable property of another knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen, unless the property is received, retained, or disposed with intent to restore it to the owner.

(b) Definition.--As used in this section the word “receiving” means acquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property.

[whoshisface]

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.

[ungawa]

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.

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?

[HiredGoon]

Just what brand of gun is the OP talking about here? Is it even something worthwhile keeping?