Split ownership of firearm

[Frank Ettin]

The concept of a "title" would entail registration of some sort,

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...

Yup. "Title" basically just means "ownership."

The issue can often be establishing ownership if there are conflicting claims. I claim title to the socks I'm wearing, but I've had them for a long time and probably didn't keep the receipt. So if someone else really, really wanted these old socks and claimed that he in fact owned them, I might have trouble effectively defending my title to them. With regard to my socks, I can live with that.

For some other, more expensive and desirable objects, like the watch I'm wearing or the fountain pen in my pocket, I do have various forms of documentation that could probably help me successful defend against someone's claim.

Certain "documents of title" have well established legal meanings and effects. Often such things are matters of public record, and that can be especially helpful if one needs to defend title against a conflicting claim.

Certainly we keep the deed to our house and the "pink slips" for our cars in a safe place. And our deed is a matter of public record. That doesn't establish our ownership; it's merely deemed to be legal notice to the whole world that me and my wife own it. That assures that some twit who claims he won this house from somebody at a poker game can't complain that he didn't know it actually belongs to my me and my wife.

 

[Wyoredman]

I don't see why two people can't own the same gun.

Take, for instance, a Barrett Model 82A1. I wish I had the money to buy this rifle. There is one for sale in the local paper!

I mention it to my buddy. He says if that he will come up with half the cost if I come up with the other half. Great, now we can both afford it!

We make a deal with the owner, buy the gun and take it home. We work out an agreement that if one of us wants out of ownership, the other must buy the remaining 50% or we sell it and split the proceeds! Write it down. Simple, we now each have half ownership in a rifle neither of us could afford alone!

Nothing illegal about it either!

 

[JimDandy]

I'm sure two people CAN own the same gun. Not one lawyer in here has said they can't. Not one lawyer in here has even hinted at anything near that, most of them have tried to point out assumptions over 4473 forms and trusts were incorrect.

Us laymen are still conflating possession and ownership. The 4473 form doesn't actually transfer ownership, title, or whatever you want to call who the Class A thing-a-ma-jig belongs to. Very very few firearms laws refer to ownership. To be honest other than a passing reference to inheritance I can't think of any. Every firearms law I've seen has dealt with possession.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Us laymen are still conflating possession and ownership. ...Very very few firearms laws refer to ownership. To be honest other than a passing reference to inheritance I can't think of any. Every firearms law I've seen has dealt with possession.

A good insight, and a complicating factor.

Legal title is not the same thing as the right to physical possession. One may lawfully have [temporary] physical possession of a gun I own, not he. Of course that assumes that he is not prohibited from possessing a gun under federal or state law, and the transfer/possession laws of some States, like New York and, now, Washington, may be an obstacle.

On the other hand it appears possible for someone to be prohibited from possessing a gun but still have legal title to it. In U.S. v. Casterline, 103 F.3d 76 (C.A.9 (Or.), 1996), the 9th Circuit set aside a conviction for being a felon in possession of a gun, because the conviction was based solely on evidence of ownership, but under circumstances in which the defendant could not possibly have had access to or possession of the guns. Casterline was in prison at the time, and the guns were in the sheriff's department evidence locker. As the Ninth Circuit wrote in Casterline, at 79 (emphasis added):

...The felon-in-possession statute is prophylactic, intended "to keep guns out of the hands of those who have demonstrated that 'they may not be trusted to possess a firearm without becoming a threat to society.' " Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 572, 97 S.Ct. 1963 1968, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Ownership without physical access to, or dominion and control over, the firearm does not constitute possession. If the felon owns a firearm, but does not actually possess or have dominion and control over it, then he does not possess the firearm for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). ....

 

[green_MTman]

Carry permits a side of coarse.

whar does it matter as long as both husband and wife are gun eligible and the guns are willed to spouse upon death.guns can be shared equally for target and field use.and gun collection can be split in divorce 50/50 if there is a pre nup.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Us laymen are still conflating possession and ownership. The 4473 form doesn't actually transfer ownership, title, or whatever you want to call who the Class A thing-a-ma-jig belongs to. Very very few firearms laws refer to ownership. To be honest other than a passing reference to inheritance I can't think of any. Every firearms law I've seen has dealt with possession.

I understand, in general, the distinction between ownership and possession. If I lend my hedge trimmer to my neighbor, he has possession but I am still the owner. Got it.

So how do you get around question 11.a on the 4473 where it asks "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?" Yes, I see that the question might be interpreted to make a distinction between ownership and possession, but then the question is followed by this statement (which is in bold-face type on the 4473:

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.

If I am the buyer, I become the owner upon the completion of the transaction. If I am NOT the buyer, then I am taking possession on behalf of someone else, and the bold-face sentence on the 4473 says we can't do that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....If I am the buyer, I become the owner upon the completion of the transaction. If I am NOT the buyer, then I am taking possession on behalf of someone else, and the bold-face sentence on the 4473 says we can't do that.

Yes, that is another complicating factor.

I guess what this comes down to is (1) in theory there can be joint ownership of a firearm; but (2) federal and state firearm transfer and possession laws make things complicated. So with regard to the OP's original question:

...You can have two peoples names on the title of a car or house ect.... Why not a firearm? if this was so, it may take care of some of the transfer laws in some states.

joint ownership doesn't necessarily resolve difficulties caused by state transfer laws.

 

[JimDandy]

So how do you get around question 11.a on the 4473 where it asks

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.

Well the rest of the description of the question, for one, isn't getting around it. It deals with it. "You are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself"

When I borrow my brother's 460, I'm not borrowing it for anyone else, I'm borrowing it for myself, so I can (according to the State of Washington- so far) answer yes on the 4473. I'm not buying it, but, I'm the actual transferee. The single sentence you quoted appears to be one of the few places the form does not / both buyer and transferee.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

So how do you get around question 11.a on the 4473 where it asks

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.

Well the rest of the description of the question, for one, isn't getting around it. It deals with it. "You are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself"

When I borrow my brother's 460, I'm not borrowing it for anyone else, I'm borrowing it for myself, so I can (according to the State of Washington- so far) answer yes on the 4473. I'm not buying it, but, I'm the actual transferee. The single sentence you quoted appears to be one of the few places the form does not / both buyer and transferee.

But the two bits you quoted were asked in response to Frank's post regarding a distinction between "possession" and "ownership." Even if you go by the instructions for question 11.a, it's simply not legal for someone other than the owner to take possession of a firearm from an FFL through a 4473 transfer. (With one exception, which does not entail a loan.)

It seems to me that the new Washington state law requiring formal transfers for even short-term loans just muddies the waters further.

The full text of the instruction for question 11.a reads as follows:

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.

I understand where you're going, but I don't agree that the language of the instruction gets you there. The examples of being a legitimate transferee all deal with situations in which the transferee is the owner. Loans, of any duration, are not mentioned and almost certainly weren't contemplated when the 4473 was created.

It appears that the only exception is the one at the end, under which one party may pick up a repaired firearm for another person ... in which case the instruction says not to answer question 11.a.

Form 4473 is a federal BATFE form. The State of Washington has zero authority to make or issue any interpretations of it or issue any directives as to what should or shouldn't be answered.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?
Can I claim the assets of the trust on a investment/commercial loan application if the assets of the trust are actually owned by me in trust of the beneficiaries?
I think that would be a good way to end up in jail.

Seems more grey than black and white to me.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?....

Talk to your lawyer if you have questions about the trust for which you're trustee. You've seen the legal authority published here.

....Can I claim the assets of the trust on a investment/commercial loan application if the assets of the trust are actually owned by me in trust of the beneficiaries?
I think that would be a good way to end up in jail...

And no you can't. You don't have beneficial use of those assets. You hold them as a fiduciary, in trust, for the benefit of someone else.

But further discussion of the fine points of trust law is off topic for this thread.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I'm just trying to provide examples where a trust is treated like a legal entity by federal agencies. The IRS clearly treats an irrevocable trust the same as a corporation. As a result, US DOE and USCIS also treat trusts as assets owned by the beneficiaries, not the trustee, even if beneficiary access is limited. Three federal agencies that pretty clearly treat a trust as a separate legal entity or the beneficiaries as the owner of trust assets.
I am not so certain ATFE, another federal agency, would not consider the beneficiaries of a trust holding a firearm with access to said firearm to be, effectively, owners of that firearm in regard to federal law governing the ownership of firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I am trustee of a trust.
Why do they need EINs if they aren't legal entities? Why would the IRS issue EINs to something that doesn't legally exist?....

On reflection this deserves a better answer, but let's not get sidetracked into an in depth discussion of the law of trusts.

The IRS is interested in collecting taxes; and where there are assets, especially assets that appreciate or general investment income (usually assets held in trust are invested), the IRS will want to get its cut. That should come as no surprise.

But the IRS has a conundrum when dealing with assets held in trust. The trustee is legal owner, but he doesn't have beneficial use of the assets. And as a fiduciary, it would be improper for the trustee to commingle assets he holds in trust with his personal assets. So investment gains, losses, income and expenses with regard to trust assets need to be accounted for separately from the trustee's personal gains, losses, income and expenses.

To facilitate this, the IRS will issue a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN, not really an EIN) so the trustee can report and file tax returns separately with regard to trust assets and expenses. In effect, the IRS looks at a trust for tax purposes as it if were an entity. But as outlined in several posts, a trust is not an entity. This IRS fiction for tax purposes does not change the nature of a trust as outlined in this thread already.

Note also that not all trusts file taxes in this way. In some case, depending on how a trust has been set up, trust income is taxable as the assets of the grantor.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm just trying to provide examples where a trust is treated like a legal entity by federal agencies....

Which does not change the nature, character of legal reality of a trust.

...The IRS clearly treats an irrevocable trust the same as a corporation. As a result, US DOE and USCIS also treat trusts as assets owned by the beneficiaries, not the trustee, even if beneficiary access is limited...

I've discussed the tax issue above. And it's possible that for administrative convenience various fictions may be resorted to with regard to trusts.

But trusts are what they are.

 

[Buzzcook]

If a company such as a rifle range can own guns and a corporation such as a security firm can own guns; I suspect that their is a legal method for private individuals to share ownership of guns.

I suspect it doesn't have to be that complicated. For example I have two grandsons, both over eighteen. I could gift one rifle to the both of them for their shared enjoyment. The only documentation would be the card I send with the gift stating that they're supposed to share.

That is as long as there is no inter state transfer.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If a company such as a rifle range can own guns and a corporation such as a security firm can own guns; I suspect that their is a legal method for private individuals to share ownership of guns....

That doesn't necessarily follow.

I believe that in general ranges that rent guns also have an FFL. Every range renting guns that I personally know of either is also a gun store or at least does transfers.

A corporation is a legal entity and is thus functionally a single individual.

 

[Buzzcook]

Frank is the FFL possessed by an individual or the company.

Yes a corporation is an individual in some ways, it is also a group of individuals.

If you remember back in the 70's and 80's there was a rush of people incorporating themselves for tax purposes.
While I think it is absurdly extreme a group of individuals could incorporate in order to share ownership of firearms.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank is the FFL possessed by an individual or the company...

I believe that the license is held by an individual. If the business is conducted by a corporation, the license is held by an officer who is responsible for the proper conduct of the business.

....Yes a corporation is an individual in some ways, it is also a group of individuals....

No, legally a corporation is not a group of individuals. Although a group of individuals form a corporation and would be the directors and officers responsible for the operation of the corporation, the corporation itself has a legal existence and identity separate and distinct from the individuals who run (and own) it.

...If you remember back in the 70's and 80's there was a rush of people incorporating themselves for tax purposes...

No, I don't remember that. Please provide some details and documentation.

Forming and operating as a corporation is not something to be taken lightly:

• You pay a lawyer $300.00 to $500.00 an hour to form a corporation, including making the various governmental filings necessary (in the State of incorporation and in any State the corporation is qualified in).
  
  
• You pay the filing fees.
  
  
• You fund the corporation to preserve the corporate identity.
  
  
• You make, or pay someone to make, the periodic governmental filings required to maintain the corporation in good standing (in the State of incorporation and in any State the corporation is qualified in) and pay the required fees.

Do might want to do some research into what's involved in forming and maintaining a corporation -- here for example. All that folderol might be worthwhile if you're operating a business. It hardly seems worth it just to own a gun.

 

[colbad]

Ownership arrangements between two parties do not serve to modify Federal Law concerning the 4473. You most certainly can be co-owners and draw up a document as such for anything you want.

 

[JimDandy]

No, I don't remember that. Please provide some details and documentation.

I couldn't do that either, but I remember seeing the fad mentioned on a Barney Miller episode. So while I doubt it was "everybody", I took the pop culture reference to mean that there was some unusual blip level of population who tried to "work the system" by doing so during that time period.