The COVID19 SCAMdemic... Economy So Strong That eBay Hard Up For Business

[Corprin]

At this point it's hilarious you're still trying to argue it

It’s funny that you still have no clue what you are talking about, yet insist on arguing without providing any legally backed points of argument.

I’m wondering, do you have a background in interpreting, applying, and otherwise dealing in law, to include the USC and CFR? Do you have an FFL? Do you have any modicum of actual knowledge on this subject? Or, are you just regurgitating the crap you hear in your bUt MuH FreEdUmS echo chamber?

 

[anotero]

Yes, as it is not a bona fide gift.

You gave your father, who can legally obtain the hand gun, money to buy it for you, who cannot legally obtain the hand gun. You are using your father as an agent for the purchase.

Let’s go one level deeper. If you give your father, who lives out of state, money to buy a single shot shotgun (you can still have hose in CA, right?) for you because it’s cheaper where he is. He then sends the shotgun to you FFL to FFL, it is illegal.

Both of these scenarios have been upheld in numerous court cases up to and including the SCOUS.

Wrong. The very fact that Cali law allows intrafamilial transfers means i can legally obtain it. Nowhere on the forms here, when buying buying/transferring through ffl a firearm does it ask whether it's bona fide or not, or who will be using the gun. There's a transferee field on the form, that's it.

 

[Corprin]

Lol. Mkay.

Seriously, this is a pretty well discussed topic within the Gun world. The NRA ILA and even USA Carry have discussions on the subject of gifting.

Wrong. The very fact that Cali law allows intrafamilial transfers means i can legally obtain it. Nowhere on the forms here, when buying buying/transferring through ffl a firearm does it ask whether it's bona fide or not, or who will be using the gun. There's a transferee field on the form, that's it.

Your father lives in another state, and you use him to buy a non-roster handgun for you. You then have him transfer the gun to you through wonky CA law. Because you are not legally allowed to buy that gun in another state yourself, and your father is acting as your agent, its illegal.

If your father buys the pistol with his money as a bona fide gift, and then gifts that to you, you are bound by the transfer laws for that non-roster handgun as you were implying.

It comes down to the intent of the purchase.

 

[brat_burner]

Borders, smhorders bros

 

[jimlloyd40]

The admission in court was Rittenhouse received his unemployment check, said something to the affect that he’d use the money to buy an AR15. He then gave the money to Black to buy him the rifle, which Black would secure at his dad’s place, until Rittenhouse became legally allowed to own it.

The government need only prove the intent of the “gifting” was to allow the purchase of the firearm for a person not legally allowed to do so themselves.

I don’t know where you are getting your information from, but maybe you should sit down with 18 USC Section 44, and 27 CFR for a bit?

This seems pretty clear to me. Like I said I don't have a dog in this argument and can agree with different posts from both sides of the argument but I don't get why what Corprin said isn't correct. It looks like the law is pretty clear cut. What exactly is the point of the argument? Isn't this exactly the reason the parents were arrested in the Michigan case?

 

[anotero]

Seriously, this is a pretty well discussed topic within the Gun world. The NRA ILA and even USA Carry have discussions on the subject of gifting.



Your father lives in another state, and you use him to buy a non-roster handgun for you. You then have him transfer the gun to you through wonky CA law. Because you are not legally allowed to buy that gun in another state yourself, and your father is acting as your agent, its illegal.

If your father buys the pistol with his money as a bona fide gift, and then gifts that to you, you are bound by the transfer laws for that non-roster handgun as you were implying.

It comes down to the intent of the purchase.

Intent is an abstraction. Had intent been the focal point of laws, manslaughter charges would not exist. Just because you think that Cali law is wonky doesn't mean it's less of a law.

 

[Subliminal]

This seems pretty clear to me. Like I said I don't have a dog in this argument and can agree with different posts from both sides of the argument but I don't get why what Corprin said isn't correct. It looks like the law is pretty clear cut. What exactly is the point of the argument? Isn't this exactly the reason the parents were arrested in the Michigan case?

It's not illegal to transfer ownership of a gun to someone who can legally own it

 

[Corprin]

Intent is an abstraction. Had intent been the focal point of laws, manslaughter charges would not exist. Just because you think that Cali law is wonky doesn't mean it's less of a law.

The ATF leans heavy on intent in these cases.

as for CA being wonky, I think it’s a nice way of saying it. They are laws, but they don’t overrule the federal laws regarding firearm transfers.

 

[jimlloyd40]

It's not illegal to transfer ownership of a gun to someone who can legally own it

I thought he legally couldn't own it until he was 18.

 

[anotero]

The ATF leans heavy on intent in these cases.

as for CA being wonky, I think it’s a nice way of saying it. They are laws, but they don’t overrule the federal laws regarding firearm transfers.

FFL transfer forms do not inquire about bona fide etc. Like i said: intent is an abstraction. Good luck proving it. Moreover there's no federal handun roster.

 

[Subliminal]

I thought he legally couldn't own it until he was 18.

Correct, which is why Dominick Black owned it until Kyle turned 18. The night of the incident Kyle got the gun from Dominick's house in Kenosha Wisconsin

 

[Corprin]

FFL transfer forms do not inquire about bona fide etc. Like i said: intent is an abstraction. Good luck proving it. Moreover there's no federal handun roster.

I (acting as the government in our discussion) don’t need to prove it. In your scenario, you proved it for me.

As you are a CA resident, you can only buy a firearm out of state under the CA regulatory/statutory standards, then the gun is transferred through a CA FFL. If the handgun is something you cannot buy yourself in CA, you can’t buy it outside of CA either.

You gave the money to your dad to buy you a handgun in another state you’d otherwise not be able to by yourself in CA. He then “gifts” it to you under the familial transfer provisions of CA law. This still constitutes an illegal act.

In the Rittenhouse/Black case, they proved the intent themselves, under oath.

 

[Subliminal]

FFL transfer forms do not inquire about bona fide etc. Like i said: intent is an abstraction. Good luck proving it. Moreover there's no federal handun roster.

Corprin's case is as strong as Binger's

 

[Corprin]

Corprin's case is as strong as Binger's

Then prove “my case“ weak, give us something substantive to work with.

 

[Subliminal]

Then prove “my case“ weak, give us something substantive to work on.

Who is "us" exactly? You're literally the only one arguing this