Obscure question about the finer points of handgun transfers, pre-PICS

[QuakerOats]

Hi all.

This all happened a few decades ago, and I only have second-hand information, so bear with me. Essentially, one of my dad's grandparents' friends became... unstable as he got older. Not sure if it was Alzheimer's or what, but it's not important. He owned a .38 spl revolver, which his wife didn't trust to have in the house anymore, so she just gave it to my great-grandparents for safe keeping. After a while, the friend passed away, and his wife told them to just keep the gun. They eventually gifted it to my dad.

I know the transfer from grandparent to grandchild was legal, and today, the transfer from friend to friend should have had to go through PICS, but from what I can tell, PICS wasn't implemented until 1998. This would have happened well before that. My dad is under the impression that this gun is illegal because there's no record of transfer, and thus he's just kept it hidden in the basement since he got it.

Are there any old-timers out there who can tell me if that transfer should have been registered? I know no one really cares either way, but it'd be nice to be able to tell my dad that it's really not illegal, because he's way overcautious about everything.

Thanks a bunch. Let me know if there's anything you need clarified, it's kinda late and I might reread this tomorrow and find out that it doesn't make any sense.

[General Geoff]

From the sounds of it, this old .38 special revolver likely came into the possession of your great grandfather's friend before the GCA of 1968. As such there's probably ZERO record of the gun's very existence as far as the feds and the state know. There would be no way for anyone to prove that the gun wasn't originally bought by your great grandfather, either in- or out-of-state.


edit; without an exact year of when your great grandparents came into possession of the gun, there is no way of knowing for certain whether said transfer *should* have been done at an FFL. Also, assuming the transfer took place after PA's transfer requirement became law, legally, it was the duty of your great grandparents' friend to transfer said revolver at an FFL, and he and only he could be held criminally liable for not doing so; the buyer commits no crime for purchasing a handgun without it being transferred to him by an FFL. Since your great grandparents' friend is long since passed, there is no longer any suspect to pursue for violating said law, assuming said law existed at the time of the transfer.


So, in summation, the violation is unprovable, and even if it was provable, there would be no one to prosecute.

[GunLawyer001]

Hi all.

This all happened a few decades ago, and I only have second-hand information, so bear with me. Essentially, one of my dad's grandparents' friends became... unstable as he got older. Not sure if it was Alzheimer's or what, but it's not important. He owned a .38 spl revolver, which his wife didn't trust to have in the house anymore, so she just gave it to my great-grandparents for safe keeping. After a while, the friend passed away, and his wife told them to just keep the gun. They eventually gifted it to my dad.

I know the transfer from grandparent to grandchild was legal, and today, the transfer from friend to friend should have had to go through PICS, but from what I can tell, PICS wasn't implemented until 1998. This would have happened well before that. My dad is under the impression that this gun is illegal because there's no record of transfer, and thus he's just kept it hidden in the basement since he got it.

Are there any old-timers out there who can tell me if that transfer should have been registered? I know no one really cares either way, but it'd be nice to be able to tell my dad that it's really not illegal, because he's way overcautious about everything.

Thanks a bunch. Let me know if there's anything you need clarified, it's kinda late and I might reread this tomorrow and find out that it doesn't make any sense.

The transfer laws didn't start with PICS or Brady.

However, the laws restrict the transferor, not the transferee. And there's a statute of limitations anyway. So if the initial transfer happened decades ago, I wouldn't sweat it, unless a homicide was somehow involved.

If your dad wants a hassle-free life, he can go to a gunshop and transfer the gun to you, or to himself (that requires a cooperative dealer, not because it's illegal (it's not), but because it seems so pointless.) Once it transfers via a dealer, the dealer will send in the Record of Sale form to the state police, and the gun will then be linked to you or your dad (whichever you went with).

There's NO LEGAL REASON why this should be done, but the PRACTICAL reason is valid. When any cop runs the serial number of that gun, he'll probably check to see if it's listed as stolen, and then he'll completely misuse the Record of Sale Database to see if it's "registered" to you. We have no "registration" in PA. But you can either go with the flow and "register" it to avoid problems, or you can accept the fact that a cop may confiscate it and your dad will have no way to prove that he owns it. (In any hearing for return of property, the burden is on the petitioner to prove ownership. Your dad has no sales receipt.)

[Remington788]

Great topic.
My family has a legend of "grandpa's gun", whatever the heck was issued by the PPD in the 1930s. I think one of my aunts has it now, though no one has seen it in 40 years.

[PA Rifleman]

... or you can accept the fact that a cop may confiscate it and your dad will have no way to prove that he owns it. (In any hearing for return of property, the burden is on the petitioner to prove ownership. Your dad has no sales receipt.)

In this scenario, would the initial act of LEO confiscation constitute prima facie (or de facto) evidence the plaintiff/petitioner was in possession before it was confiscated? And lacking a stolen gun report, what would be the likely outcome?

In this scenario, how does LEO confiscation not violate the fourth amendment?

[streaker69]

In this scenario, how does LEO confiscation not violate the fourth amendment?

It does, but apparently they don't care.

[GunLawyer001]

In this scenario, would the initial act of LEO confiscation constitute prima facie (or de facto) evidence the plaintiff/petitioner was in possession before it was confiscated? And lacking a stolen gun report, what would be the likely outcome?

In this scenario, how does LEO confiscation not violate the fourth amendment?

It does, but apparently they don't care.

It's certainly some evidence of a possessory interest, and in the absence of evidence that it is NOT legally possessed, no seizure should take place. Certainly, no warrant could possibly be issued for the arrest of the person for unlawful possession based on the mere observation that "the Database doesn't match". It's not like a carload of Hispanic males with a credit card issued to Mrs. Neussbaum.

As for the 4th Amendment, while I believe that there's no such thing as a "little injustice", in practice the courts disagree. Some of them view post-deprivation due process as adequate, even when the cost of that due process exceeds the value of the returned property. That's why our UFA provides for attorney fees for petitioners who prevail.

[-JD-]

[snip]
As for the 4th Amendment, while I believe that there's no such thing as a "little injustice", in practice the courts disagree. Some of them view post-deprivation due process as adequate, even when the cost of that due process exceeds the value of the returned property. That's why our UFA provides for attorney fees for petitioners who prevail.

In your experience how frequently is a petitioner made (close-to?) whole?

[GunLawyer001]

In your experience how frequently is a petitioner made (close-to?) whole?

In my experience, the police usually turn over the gun once I direct their attention to the provision authorizing an award of fees. But that requires someone to hire me first. The award is not certain, and the relatively low value of a gun makes that a gamble.

Jon Mirowitz has more experience with a PD that acts unreasonably, I suspect that the Philly PD has had to pay his fee more than once.

[streaker69]

In my experience, the police usually turn over the gun once I direct their attention to the provision authorizing an award of fees. But that requires someone to hire me first. The award is not certain, and the relatively low value of a gun makes that a gamble.

Jon Mirowitz has more experience with a PD that acts unreasonably, I suspect that the Philly PD has had to pay his fee more than once.

That's where I see the problem, and this isn't an issue I have with you, but the law in general. Let's say the police seize my weapon illegally, like has been documented in many cases. I come to you immediately for help. You want me to pay for your services to write them a letter explaining how terribly mistaken they are. You charge me for your time, which is the right thing to do, and the police shortly thereafter give me my firearm back.

Do you think I would have any chance at getting that money back I paid to you to write a simple letter? Probably not without paying you even more money to pursue the issue further. To me it seems like a total circle jerk.

Maybe you could write out a fill in the blank form letter with your information and signature on it, for $20 we could download a copy when we have an issue and fill the blanks to get our firearms back.