Relinquishing firearms during the course of a court case?

**Carson** · April 9th, 2025, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Emptymag

OK, but is there legally a difference?

That's what I'm unsure of.
This isn't the first time someone had to have someone else hold onto their guns for a while in this manner - I just can't recall what the "parameters" are.

Legally, I don*t think so. That is why I said Spirit of the Law. And I am sure things differ between entities. I am sure service is more cordial with a mid western PA Sheriff than the Philadelphia Sheriff.

**Carson** · April 9th, 2025, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by markshere2

Lawfare run amok has been one defining characteristic since Obama took office.
Perhaps before, but it became obvious to me that "the process is the punishment" for those of us that dare to disagree with the leftist elites.

You speak of "the spirit of the definition" as if it is meaningful in court. I don't think I would want to pin my hopes on that.

Back in 2015 I chimed in on the thread mentioned above.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=292460

I have changed my position since then to reflect a later post from Ian

"I have done this for someone a few years back.

Cops came asked for his guns, he said he got rid of them, "please search, I have none". He moved out. The PFA was thrown out after a while.

Messy divorce later, I returned them."

What John Law doesn't know about, can't hurt you.

The hard part is knowing who to trust.

I hear what you are saying. And I fully agree with your last sentence. I guess that is why lawyers are busy. And sometimes family and/or friends screw a man over.

**ImminentDanger** · April 10th, 2025, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Aendil

Edit: After talking with the county sheriff's office, I an convinced any transfer takes a 4473 and an FFL to complete.

The sheriff is part of the government from which the citizens need protection, especially in cases of firearms. There is a provision:

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108.3 Relinquishment to third party for safekeeping
(a) General rule.--A defendant who is the subject of a protection from abuse order, which order provides for the relinquishment of firearms, other weapons or ammunition during the period of time the order is in effect, may, within the time frame specified in the order and in lieu of relinquishment to the sheriff, relinquish any firearms, other weapons or ammunition to a third party for safekeeping.

That keeps the hands of the government off one's personal firearms (or tracking them thru registrations). If such a friend is available, why would a free citizen not exercise their Right to such a choice?

...

**benny swartz** · April 10th, 2025, 06:35 AM

i am thinking the guys discussing the area this is happening ? makes all the difference .
our sheriffs were ok with someone holding the firearms during certain scenarios and the ones where the weapons were mentioned in the charges ? they held them.
while it is a sad scenario where the person trusts a person to hold guns , yet demands a document to specify who legally owns them ? is just a society change over the years .
now as for the claim that they are requiring a 4473 for each firearm ? they dont want the person retaining any ownership of said firearms . which in case law ? they are actually red flagging the person based on charges . not on outcome of said charges . sad state of affairs . its one thing to ask a person to not be holding or around them for a period , let alone , sell them all .
this is honestly why our sheriff positions are so important of an election . they will be the one interpreting the law , and executing the law.
and i can already tell you from previous interactions . they couldnt handle class 03 questions without consulting the secretary.

**WCMG** · April 10th, 2025, 08:47 AM

We have done this for several people with court issues. So, check around for local FFL's who will store them for a small fee. Now we require a 4473 to get them back, but that's to cover our ass.

**Aendil** · April 10th, 2025, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by benny swartz

i am thinking the guys discussing the area this is happening ? makes all the difference .
our sheriffs were ok with someone holding the firearms during certain scenarios and the ones where the weapons were mentioned in the charges ? they held them.
while it is a sad scenario where the person trusts a person to hold guns , yet demands a document to specify who legally owns them ? is just a society change over the years .
now as for the claim that they are requiring a 4473 for each firearm ? they dont want the person retaining any ownership of said firearms . which in case law ? they are actually red flagging the person based on charges . not on outcome of said charges . sad state of affairs . its one thing to ask a person to not be holding or around them for a period , let alone , sell them all .
this is honestly why our sheriff positions are so important of an election . they will be the one interpreting the law , and executing the law.
and i can already tell you from previous interactions . they couldnt handle class 03 questions without consulting the secretary.

You are correct! Bucks county. 4473 can list all the firearms, right? It does not necessarily evidence of transfer of ownership. It evidences transfer of possession. I think the goal is that you don't transfer firearms to people who won't pass a PICS check, which makes total sense.