transfer between parent/child definition

[PeteG]

Adoption makes a child one's child for all purposes. A legally adopted child would be one's child for purposes of a transfer between "parent and child."

[mrjam2jab]

I wouldn't think that "step" is allowed either then, right?

Step father to step son for example.

Now thats an interesting thought. The man whom i claim to be my father is actually my stepfather. He has been my stepfather since i was about 6 months old...I never knew my bio-father...so as far as I'm concerned he is my father...but i was never legally adopted by him...we've never had the same last name.

So i guess we wouldnt fall under the exemption?

[manyplews]

Thanks for the comments,guys!

[mauser]

Now thats an interesting thought. The man whom i claim to be my father is actually my stepfather. He has been my stepfather since i was about 6 months old...I never knew my bio-father...so as far as I'm concerned he is my father...but i was never legally adopted by him...we've never had the same last name.

So i guess we wouldnt fall under the exemption?

Your mother could transfer a gun to you, your step-father could transfer a gun to your mother, providing that none of the parties involved is a prohibited person.
That's all legitimate and above board.
One scenario here; Step-dad gives mom a pistol to carry for protection, it's now hers. She isn't comfortable with it, gets something different and transfers the first one to you. It's now yours. Simple and legal.

[son of the revolution]

With the exception of spouse (and we're probably talking "real" as opposed to "common law" spouse), think of a vertical blood line - great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, child. No blood connection? FFL.

Like everything else pertaining to our gun laws, this is a minefield.

Common law marriage is marriage, period. I have not seen any cases on point, but I would be very surprised to learn that a marriage recognized for all other purposes would be denied for purposes of an inter-family transfer of a firearm.

What constitutes a common law marriage, or proof thereof, DOES vary from time-to-time and type of proceeding. The issue of how much proof of the marriage has arisen most often when state-sponsored spousal benefits, such as workers compensation benefits, are involved. As a matter of public policy the Commonwealth strongly favors recognition of marriage and keeping families together ... unless some poor wretch stands to get some money out of the Commonwealth as a result. In that case, we demand a higher standard of proof.

A "common law marriage" exists, in Pennsylvania, where the parties contracted to marry. It is nothing more than an articulation of the intention to be married and to exchange the incidents of marriage with one-another.

The old saw about "cohabitation and holding out" constitutes evidence of the agreement to be married; it does not constitute or result in the marriage. What makes the marriage is a present manifestation of intent (usually by words) to be then and there married; in other words, an agreement.

However, the notion that people can decide on thier own that they want to be husband and wife, without the benevolent assistance of a church or the state, turned out to be intolerable to churches and the state. Common law marriage has now been abolished by statute, for putative marriages after 2005:

§ 1103. Common-law marriage

No common-law marriage contracted after January 1, 2005, shall be valid. Nothing in this part shall be deemed or taken to render any common-law marriage otherwise lawful and contracted on or before January 1, 2005, invalid.

If two people contracted or agreed between themselves to be married prior to January 1, 2005, they are "spouses" for all purposes (even though they may have to prove it). There are no common law spouses in this Commonwealth after that date.

Curious about this because your post and the Statutory language doesnt make it clear. What if you met all the definitions of " common law marriage " prior to 2005 , but move to PA AFTER they changed the law ? Would you be recognized under the old standard with the appropriate " proof " or are would you have had to have been a resident of PA before the change ?

[Justin]

Something I've been curious about:

Lets say I wanted to trade pistols with my uncle. Provided neither of us are prohibited persons, I'm assuming that it would be possible to use my Grandfather as a common transferrer. As in, I want to trade him, so we each give our guns to grandpap, and grandpap gives us the other gun in return.

I see nothing in the text prohibiting such. I'm sure that some DA might want to make it seem more than it is - i.e. we are just finding a way to "skirt legally transferring" the guns, but such an assertion would be wrong as it would be a legal transfer.

Am I wrong?

[tl_3237]

Something I've been curious about:

Lets say I wanted to trade pistols with my uncle. Provided neither of us are prohibited persons, I'm assuming that it would be possible to use my Grandfather as a common transferrer. As in, I want to trade him, so we each give our guns to grandpap, and grandpap gives us the other gun in return.

I see nothing in the text prohibiting such. I'm sure that some DA might want to make it seem more than it is - i.e. we are just finding a way to "skirt legally transferring" the guns, but such an assertion would be wrong as it would be a legal transfer.

Am I wrong?

Any sequence of events are subject to judicial review and, if the intent is readily proved to be a purposeful circumvention of a statute, it can be declared a 'sham' activity. What you're proposing, taking in isolation, appears to comport with the 6111 statute (assuming all Pa residents and not prohibited persons) but, taken in their totality, would be a 'sham' transfer IMO.