Another handgun transfer question with a twist

[Python73]

Here's the situation:

- Grandfather gives pistol to father (different states), grandfather passes.
- Father gives same pistol to son (both in PA), father passes.
- Son has gun now.

So... the GF to F xfer was a no-go, should have been done via FFL due to state lines. But the F to S xfer is good, no paperwork needed. I'm unclear if the GF to F shenanigans puts a wrench in that or not.

[tl_3237]

Here's the situation:

- Grandfather gives pistol to father (different states), grandfather passes.
- Father gives same pistol to son (both in PA), father passes.
- Son has gun now.

So... the GF to F xfer was a no-go, should have been done via FFL due to state lines. But the F to S xfer is good, no paperwork needed. I'm unclear if the GF to F shenanigans puts a wrench in that or not.

Since both the potential violators performing an improper transfer are deceased, there doesn't seem any issue regarding criminal matters.

Assuming that the GF and F were true owners in the property sense, then Son is now the true owner and legally (via legal transfer from F) possesses it, IMO.

[spartakis252]

I definitely no lawyer so don't listen to a word I say

But would this be one of those situations where Son should "transfer" the gun to himself just so there is a proof of ownership? And if Son successfully transfers the gun to himself, as in the gun isn't stolen or etc..., would then that nullify any transfer history that didn't happen? Or would this open a can of bad day for Son?

[Xringshooter]

I definitely no lawyer so don't listen to a word I say

But would this be one of those situations where Son should "transfer" the gun to himself just so there is a proof of ownership? And if Son successfully transfers the gun to himself, as in the gun isn't stolen or etc..., would then that nullify any transfer history that didn't happen? Or would this open a can of bad day for Son?

Nope, not in my opinion. He got them legally from his father. What happened before that has nothing to do with him. This "transfer to himself" doesn't have to happen unless the son wanted to do this. If he did, and the guns weren't stolen or reported stolen, then his name would then be attached to them in the SALES database (which we know is not supposed to be used a registry by the police ). That would "nullify" anything that happened in the past and whouldn't "open a can of worms".

[DucatiRon]

I think we also covered before that the legality falls on transferer not the transferee so beings that the GF is now past that is a mute point. As for recording that gun in the sales database I would leave that up to the sons decision.

[t1066]

I think we also covered before that the legality falls on transferer not the transferee so beings that the GF is now past that is a mute point. As for recording that gun in the sales database I would leave that up to the sons decision.

I'd like to point out the word in that phrase is 'moot', not mute.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point (definition 2)

Not trying to go spelling commando on you, just pointing it out since it is such an archaic word that not a lot of people are familiar with it.

[R.W.J]

I'd like to point out the word in that phrase is 'moot', not mute.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot_point (definition 2)

Not trying to go spelling commando on you, just pointing it out since it is such an archaic word that not a lot of people are familiar with it.

Really???..........

[spartakis252]

Nope, not in my opinion. He got them legally from his father. What happened before that has nothing to do with him. This "transfer to himself" doesn't have to happen unless the son wanted to do this. If he did, and the guns weren't stolen or reported stolen, then his name would then be attached to them in the SALES database (which we know is not supposed to be used a registry by the police ). That would "nullify" anything that happened in the past and whouldn't "open a can of worms".

Yes that SALES database that the police like to accidental use to figure out if a gun is registered to you. This being one of my points of why I think the transfer would help Son if he were to have to prove ownership. He would then have paper work proving its his and it would make him the legal owner(although he technically already is, without proof).
I guess it would matter only if the gun(s) in question have a chance of being confiscated. If it/they are just gonna sit in the safe I wouldn't think it matter as much.

[medsteele]

I'd rather not add it nor myself to the "not a registry" registry.

[Kramer]

Yes that SALES database that the police like to accidental use to figure out if a gun is registered to you. This being one of my points of why I think the transfer would help Son if he were to have to prove ownership. He would then have paper work proving its his and it would make him the legal owner(although he technically already is, without proof).
I guess it would matter only if the gun(s) in question have a chance of being confiscated. If it/they are just gonna sit in the safe I wouldn't think it matter as much.

Good post!

If he has plans to carry it or take it out to the range a lot, he might want to "register", it in case he has to "prove ownership" or it will be confiscated... as sad as that sounds.