New Rifle gifted and regifted :(

[Aguila Blanca]

Some states have a clause that if say A has passed, B could act as the estate holder and transfer to B, then to C.
There is more leniancy in family estate it looks to me. Especially if it has neve been registered.

In order for the bequest provision to apply, the owner of the firearm must have died. In this case, it was specifically stated that the grandfather in CT "gave" the firearm to his son in MA. There is no possible way this can be construed to fall within the bequest provisions of Federal law.

A & B both committed a federal crime by illegally transferring a firearm. The age of A & B is immaterial.....they violated a law that has been on the books since 1968.

They will compound this "error" by involving C. So far C is the only one with a lick of sense.

Consult a hypothetical attorney.
Wrong. Consult your own attorney.
Gifting of firearms is legal under Federal regulations. ...And it doesn't matter how many times it changes owners. (Some restrictions may apply, but not in this scenario.)

Individual State laws may differ.

Dogtown Tom is correct. The original owner was in Connecticut. The person to whom he gave it is in Massachusetts. The "gifting" part is allowed by law, but the gift nonetheless involves an interstate transfer. I am quite certain that neither CT nor MA allows face-to-face transfers without paperwork, nor does Federal law. Under Federal law, the recipient must take possession by transfer through an FFL in his (or her) state of residence.

Original transfer was done in CT. This is perfectly legal.

No, it was not legal because the giver was a resident of CT and the recipient was a resident of MA. The gift was an interstate transfer and, as such, was subject to Federal law.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

#1: If rifle's aren't registered, how the hell is anyone going to know or bother to inquire about it anyway? Aside from using it during the commission of a violent crime, in what situation would this ever come up? Not trying to be cheeky, but these are not titled properties, like cars, stock, real estate, etc.

#2: Why does C even have to own it at this point? Can't he just be using it on loan? Temporarily for sporting purposes until perhaps the time of inheritance?

Note for flame purposes: I am not suggesting that anyone commit a crime.

 

[sigcurious]

OP, don't forget to find out if the rifle is even legal in MA. I did a little looking around but all I could find was that the MA assault weapons ban is similar to the old federal one. If that is true, that specific model of Colt is has a decent chance of not being legal in MA even if there were no questions about the legality of the transfers.

 

[Wag]

I have to apologize for not fact checking better. Rather, I regurgitated things I've heard over the years and now I find it's incorrect.

I'm embarrassed.

But more better edumacated. Thanks for the fixes, guys.

--Wag--

 

[Aguila Blanca]

OP, don't forget to find out if the rifle is even legal in MA. I did a little looking around but all I could find was that the MA assault weapons ban is similar to the old federal one. If that is true, that specific model of Colt is has a decent chance of not being legal in MA even if there were no questions about the legality of the transfers.

And to further muddy the waters, Connecticut also has on the books a state AWB that closely echoes the now-expired Federal AWB. Depending on when the first owner acquired the rifle in CT, it might have been pre-ban and thus legal from that perspective, but I think Connecticut required registration of pre-ban "assault weapons" as a condition of keeping them. (Not sure on that.) Depending on configuration and date of manufacture, this rifle may not be legal in either CT or MA.

 

[Hardcase]

#1: If rifle's aren't registered, how the hell is anyone going to know or bother to inquire about it anyway? Aside from using it during the commission of a violent crime, in what situation would this ever come up? Not trying to be cheeky, but these are not titled properties, like cars, stock, real estate, etc.

#2: Why does C even have to own it at this point? Can't he just be using it on loan? Temporarily for sporting purposes until perhaps the time of inheritance?

Fair questions. And it may be that the answer to #1 is that, practically speaking, it doesn't matter. The problem is that even though we may not be able to come up with a situation, it doesn't mean that one wouldn't arise. As Donald Rumsfeld said, it's the "unknown" unknowns that trip us up.

As far as #2 goes, I wouldn't want to have to depend upon that for a defense if it ever came down to it.

OP, don't forget to find out if the rifle is even legal in MA.

The stock must be fixed, no bayonet lug, fixed compensator (or non-threaded barrel) and 10 round (or large pre-AWB) magazine.

And to further muddy the waters, Connecticut also has on the books a state AWB that closely echoes the now-expired Federal AWB.

Connecticut's rules are almost the same, except that there does not appear to be a limit on magazine capacity. There is a list of banned "assault" rifles by name (which includes the Colt AR-15 and Sporter), but since this rifle is a CAR-A3, it is OK as long as it meets the other requirements. I assumed that since this hypothetical rifle was given to the hypothetical person who worked for Colt in Connecticut, it would be legal to own there.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if rifle's aren't registered, how the hell is anyone going to know or bother to inquire about it anyway? Aside from using it during the commission of a violent crime, in what situation would this ever come up? Not trying to be cheeky, but these are not titled properties, like cars, stock, real estate, etc...

I dare say that everyone who commits a criminal act expects not to be found out, and sometimes the person who commits the criminal act is wrong about not being found out. And often the criminal is found out because of happenstance or a random act -- the wrong thing said in passing to the wrong person, a posting on the Internet, etc.

Personally, I'd rather not tempt fate, especially when the possible downside is highly unacceptable, e.g., a federal felony beef with an associated lifetime loss of gun rights. In any case, we follow the law on TFL.

...Why does C even have to own it at this point? Can't he just be using it on loan? Temporarily for sporting purposes until perhaps the time of inheritance?...

Considering that as hypothesized the "lender's" possession of the rifle came about through multiple criminal acts, C's possession of the rifle, even on loan, might not be the best idea.