Split ownership of firearm
- Thread starter militant
- Start date
As far as I know, only one (1) name can go on the Form 4473 (federal transaction record) as the actual recipient.
Ditto w/ the SP-65 (state/Virginia) transaction record.
As to private sales (no background check) and/or "community" property/joint ownership after that, ...let the lawyers decide.
Ditto w/ the SP-65 (state/Virginia) transaction record.
As to private sales (no background check) and/or "community" property/joint ownership after that, ...let the lawyers decide.
What is the base problem ??
Now then, whenever I see a post like this, I question the point of departure. Could you elaborated on the basic problem? For example, I know a woman who is the executor of her father's estate and there are multiple firearms in question that she is responsible to sell and the monies to be equally distributed amongst her siblings. I'm sure that "most" of these are still under her father's name. ......
Be Safe !!!
My understanding is that there is no such thing. You can have multiple firearms on a single 4473-form but not multiple signatures. ....
Now then, whenever I see a post like this, I question the point of departure. Could you elaborated on the basic problem? For example, I know a woman who is the executor of her father's estate and there are multiple firearms in question that she is responsible to sell and the monies to be equally distributed amongst her siblings. I'm sure that "most" of these are still under her father's name. ......
Be Safe !!!
That is what I was getting at. If a gun owner got too old to manage his/her firearms, this may help. I was just hoping to start a discussion. I have always kinda saw cars and firearms similar in the sense that they both have have a serial number (vin #) and can both cause serious harm. Only on a car, two people could be owners.
Spats McGee
Administrator
(emphasis supplied)militant said:
Caveat: I have not dug into these legal issues, so what follows is a from-the-hip commentary. Do not rely upon this for legal advice.
I'm sure I've researched this in the past, but I haven't gone back through it for this post. That said, the term "title" is a funny thing in law. Most of our (US) law dealing with real property and heritable estates traces its roots back to feudal English law, if memory serves. The documents to which we commonly refer as "title," such as to a car or a house, are really only "evidence of title." The "title" which one might hold to a house is simply "the formal right to ownership," according to my handy-dandy Black's Law Dictionary, at least with reference to real property.
Neither the serial number nor the capacity to do damage is determinative of whether more than one person may hold an ownership interest in an item of personal property. Neither is the matter of one being a right and one a privilege. Yes, you can have multiple people on a certificate of title for a car or a deed for a house. (Mind you, the "house part of the question" has some very peculiar, yet very significant wrinkles that won't apply to the car or a firearm.) No, the 4473 does not have any spaces for other transferees. However, the 4473 is a "Firearms Transaction Record." It is not a deed. It is not what I would call an "operative document" in terms of the underlying transaction. It is only a record of the transaction. I'm not convinced that it's dispositive of ownership, only of the transfer to one person. So, hypothetically speaking: (1) I write a check for $5000 to Wilson Combat for their ultra-spiffy ZombieBlaster Mark IV; (2) WC sends my pistol to my local FFL, who makes the transfer; (3) Mrs. McGee finds out and files for divorce. Who gets the pistol? Under Arkansas law, I do, but I probably have to pay her half the value of it. I did, after all, pay for it out of our joint account.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But the question on the 4473 saysSpats McGee said:
Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
That's the infamous question 11.a. If we look at the instructions for question 11.a it says:
Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. §922(g),, or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.
So out of that mess we can extract the following: "For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself." Since logic does not apply when dealing with the BATFE, I see no way around the definition of the buyer/transferee acquiring the firearm for him/herself.
What about a limited liability corporation to hold firearms? The corporation is the sole owner, but there can be multiple owners of the corporation.
The Actual Transferee, despite some of our assumptions here does not mean owner.
In my state, currently, if I want to take my brother's S&W 460 for a spin out in the woods, he and I probably - and I'm not going to be the test case, I don't need to shoot his 460 before our next trip to the Iowa farm that bad- have to go to an FFL, pay their transfer fee, fill out a 4473 form, call NICS, the whole ball of wax. But in no way does that give me any sort of title to the firearm. At best I have only one(?) of the bundle of sticks (as title has been explained in the past)? I have possession. I may or may not even have all of possession.
In my state, currently, if I want to take my brother's S&W 460 for a spin out in the woods, he and I probably - and I'm not going to be the test case, I don't need to shoot his 460 before our next trip to the Iowa farm that bad- have to go to an FFL, pay their transfer fee, fill out a 4473 form, call NICS, the whole ball of wax. But in no way does that give me any sort of title to the firearm. At best I have only one(?) of the bundle of sticks (as title has been explained in the past)? I have possession. I may or may not even have all of possession.
I suspect that a firearm purchased by a husband or wife while they are married is effectively owned by both of them in a community property state. Of course, this is not particularly important until one of them dies or they get a divorce or one of them is a losing defendant in a civil lawsuit.
I don't really see it. The concept of a "title" would entail registration of some sort, and most of us would be vehemently against such a thing.
As to the 4473, that's just a bill of sale for the original transaction. Its main purpose is to allow tracing of a firearm to the original purchaser in case it comes under investigation. It doesn't establish ownership.
For example, I can buy a gun, fill out the 4473, then give it to someone as a gift. The 4473 would be irrelevant in such a case.
As tangible assets, firearms can be listed in wills or somesuch to establish ownership.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And I would go even a bit further down this path and suggest that the 4473 is not in fact a document of title (or intended to be evidence title).Spats McGee said:
The title of the 4473 is "Firearms Transaction Record." At the top of the form it says:
So the 4473 isn't really a document of title (like a "pink slip" or a deed is). It's purpose is to test one's qualifications to have a firearm transferred into his possession. And what that means is that the answer to the OP's question probably can't be found in the 4473.
As far as whether there can be some form of shared title to a gun, I don't know. I suspect finding a good answer as to whether it could be done and how it could be done would call for some pretty in depth research into both firearms law and property law.
It would be well to note that in cases where shared title is common, the joint owners have certain responsibilities to each other with regard to the use and preservation of the property.
Spats McGee
Administrator
What about them? It's an awfully broad question you've got there. I'm not, and never have been, an estate lawyer, so trusts have never really been my thing. The short story is: it depends on how kind of trust and how it's structured. Yeah, I know. Very lawyerly of me.raimius said:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
And an important thing to remember about trusts is that they are not legal entities. Title to whatever property is "in trust" is held by one or more persons (natural or artificial), i. e., the trustee(s).raimius said:
http://usa.gov/topics/money/personal-finance/trusts.shtml
I am NOT a trust expert, but I understand that the trustee(s) are responsible for administration of trust assets on behalf of the person(s) who created the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the person(s) who created the trust.
I am NOT a trust expert, but I understand that the trustee(s) are responsible for administration of trust assets on behalf of the person(s) who created the trust for the benefit of the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the person(s) who created the trust.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Wrong! A simplified, and in this context misleading, non-technical statement trying to make the concept accessible to laypersons -- even though not legally accurate.lefteye said:
A trust does not own anything. People might talk in casual terms about a trust owning something or having assets, but that's only a shorthand for the more detailed, technical reality.
It's kind of like the old "I say clip, but you know I mean magazine" discussion. If one lawyer talks to another about the assets of a trust, they both know that what is really meant is the property owned by the trustee in trust. But to someone without the background to understand the shorthand, it appears that there is some legal entity called a "trust" which owns certain property. That illustrates how a casual misuse of terms can lead to a serious misunderstanding. As the Chinese say, "The first step toward wisdom is calling things by their right names."
The legal reality is that the trustee (a person -- natural or artificial (a corporation) as the case may be) holds (owns) the assets in trust, subject to the terms of the trust document, for the benefit of one or more beneficiaries. Let's look at some definitions of "trust":
There's really no difference between a gun trust and any other trust, except that one would expect that in something called a gun trust the property owned by the trustee(s) would be guns (and maybe some special attention would be called for to assure compliance with state and federal gun laws). Beyond that, there can be a lot of variation in the terms of a trust. The settlor's purposes, the nature of the property to be held in trust by the trustee(s), the settlor's tax concerns, provisions for a successor trustee, provisions for successor beneficiaries, etc., will all figure in the way a trust document will be written.
Last edited:
Sorry. The source I quoted erroneously suggests the trust, rather than the trustee, holds (owns) the property or assets in the trust for the person who created the trust. Technically, a trust is a legal document that cannot "own" anything, and the trustee holds (owns) the trust assets for the benefit of the beneficiary or beneficiaries. The person who created the trust may be the beneficiary and may, of course, designate other beneficiaries. I believe the trustee may not be a beneficiary since that would create a conflict of interest. 
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That's quite alright. This tends to be very arcane stuff, and some very able lawyers just haven't had reason to get into the finer points.lefteye said:
I did, because while I wasn't a trust lawyer I did a lot of ERISA and employee benefit work. Trusts are a common vehicle for providing employee benefits, so trust issues came up all the time.
But just to show how not paying attention to those finer points can get one into trouble, see Portico Mgmt. Grp., LLC v. Harrison, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 151 (Cal. App., 2011), at 157:
Guy won his case but can't collect the judgement because he didn't properly sue the trustees.
Not at all, from what I've understood from asking about this in the past. To use the example from the first time I asked about it, even a candy bar has title. When you buy it from the grocery store, they give you a receipt, and that's your evidence of title, or candy bar pink slip.
Looking at something called the Uniform Commercial Code - And Chapter 7 is all about Warehouse Receipts, Bills of Lading, and other Documents of Title" very little of which is registered in a database.