Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION => THE 2ND AMENDMENT => Topic started by: Acebird on August 01, 2018, 06:05:02 pm
-
I know I shouldn't ask ...
How does one legally dispose of or keep a Smith and Wesson new in plastic bag revolver? What is required to obtain a gun permit if you already have the gun? Previous owner is deceased. Origination of gun is unknown. Actual age of gun could be old.
-
Find a friend with a permit to hold it for you until you find your state's regs ad do the routine for where you live.
-
Ace,
Hold it until you move to Florida. We do not register guns, period.
Jim
-
By the way, it is very easy to get a concealed weapon permit.
Jim
-
By Law in NY you are suppose to turn it over to the county sheriff (or maybe an FFL, but without it being yours I'm not sure they will take it) to hold while you attempt to get the proper permit. Depending on the county it can take 6 months or more.
-
Sounds like NY does not think you have a second amendment.
Jim
-
Ace,
Hold it until you move to Florida. We do not register guns, period.
Jim
But then how do I travel with it? How do I prove it is not stolen? I was under the impression if you had a permit you could travel within the states.
-
Go to a local gun shop and ask if they will ship it to Jim. He can get a local ffl to accept it. It will be there when you get there.
Personally, I would lock it in the trunk or truck bed in a suitcase and go. There's no reason for you to be stopped and searched.
-
Personally, I would lock it in the trunk or truck bed in a suitcase and go. There's no reason for you to be stopped and searched.
And avoid driving through NJ. Although you have no reason to be stopped, sometimes bleep happens (accident, breakdown) and you have no choice.
-
Sounds like NY does not think you have a second amendment.
Jim
It won't be long Jim and FL will be the same
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/more-than-450-people-in-florida-ordered-to-give-up-guns-under-new-law-report-says.html
-
If I can't travel with it it is not worth the hassle. I think we will just call the sheriff and let them deal with the guns and ammunition (there is more than one). We don't have any time to fool around and the last thing I want to be charged with is gun trafficking. The bullets are huge. It must be a 45.
-
Legal advice, get from an attorney.
However, it is legal to ship a gun to yourself. Address it to yourself in Florida.
It would be a crying shame to turn over such a fine firearm to the polizei for destruction. Besides, from what I've heard of NY police, they just might decide to nail you for possession even if you're merely turning them over.
-
Depending on age and models, they could be quite valuable. I started getting rid of guns last year by selling to FFL holders, mostly collectors. I was selling mostly WW1-era rifles, and came away with over $7,000 from five or six firearms. The one pistol I sold was a Colt Ace made in 1938. It sold for $2,500. The Colt Ace was a .22 made using a 1911 .45 frame. The best advice is to ship to Jim through a FFL dealer for a few bucks per gun for his trouble. Turning them over to a sheriff is a bad idea. As for the ammunition, there are collectors who pay big bucks for some of the old boxes the ammo came in. I used to have a federal license, but dropped it about 30 years ago when it became more trouble than it was worth. When I was licensed I charged $5 or $10 to handle a shipment like you're talking about (per gun, plus shipping charges, with you bringing them to me unsealed but packaged).
-
Legal advice, get from an attorney.
However, it is legal to ship a gun to yourself. Address it to yourself in Florida.
It would be a crying shame to turn over such a fine firearm to the polizei for destruction. Besides, from what I've heard of NY police, they just might decide to nail you for possession even if you're merely turning them over.
As a lawyer, I agree with most of what you said, Hops, except for addressing it to yourself in Florida. You can, apparently, ship to a FFL holder, but NOT to an unlicensed person, so not to Jim. Postal service won't accept handguns, leaving you with UPS or FedEx. Ammo can't be shipped, according to one souce I looked at. Check all this out with a local FFL holder in your area, because everything has changed since I held an FFL.
-
There ain't no way in heck these guns will be destroyed. I am not that naive. But it ain't worth the hassle for me to take possession. It isn't like I don't know people that could make them disappear. Yes Dallas I expect they would be worth a lot of money.
-
Besides, from what I've heard of NY police, they just might decide to nail you for possession even if you're merely turning them over.
I don't have possession. I just know where they are.
-
If you can legally take possession (I'm talking about lawful heir turns tham over to you, not stupid NY law on possession), when you move south, there's no way in heck anybody is going to take everything out of a moving van or U-Haul to look for hidden guns. If they are in the bottom of boxes of household goods, they should be safe even from the sticky fingers of moving company people.
BTW, handguns usually travel from south to north, so nobody is looking for handguns being moved from to the firearm-friendly southern states. You have a great awakening coming when you move to Florida. You might even become conservative in your thinking. (okay, I doubt it, but it could happen. I've known several New Yorkers [ mostly retired NYS cops] who moved to Texas and suddenly felt liberated.
-
You're right, Dallas. Me and Jim get him down here and we'll edi-cate him as to the MAGA world. :wink: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:
-
My only desire for having the gun is to travel alone with it across the greater USA. More for animal protection then fear from being mugged. I recently bought a very small camper. I call it my dog house on wheels. My wife hates camping and I love it. So for a couple of months a year I will get my thrill of seeing again how great this country is. Complements of Uncle Sam's benefit package before Trump takes it away.
The best state to get a permit would be the one that is the hardest to obtain. Then it is more a slam dunk for all the other states. I do not have the time to research making a gun legal to own when I have no idea of it's origin.
Dallas, I wouldn't feel comfortable with a NY cop feeling liberated. One of the reasons this state is so liberal is because you can't trust law enforcement.
-
Ace, check out this link.
https://www.freshfromflorida.com/Consumer-Resources/Concealed-Weapon-License/Concealed-Weapon-License-Reciprocity
-
I can meet you in PA. and bring it the rest of the way on my permit.
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/north-carolina-gun-laws/
-
I do not have the time to research making a gun legal to own when I have no idea of it's origin.
Only in a place like New York would that be a concern. I could not prove the provenance of most of the guns I own. To get a license to carry, you don't even have to own a gun. You can rent one where you take the course. You can rent guns before the course and fire different guns to determine which gun you feel most comfortable with. In most states, unless the gun has been stolen and is in the NCIC data base, it's presumed to be legal. To me, "making it legal" should be of no concern.
The way right to carry has evolved in Texas, a CHL is almost an impediment, since someone without a CHL has almost as much leeway to carry as soneone licensed, while certain actions by a license-holder can get hin/her in big trouble.
It's interesting that Vermont, that very liberal state near you, allows its citizens to carry without a license. Shows that they trust their citizens, while New York, New Jersey and some others fear their citizens or something.
-
Yeah Wally the right to bear arms is a federal issue not a state issue. So why aren't the states laws thrown out the window and have it totally handled by the federal government? Revenue. Too much money being made on gun control. I think the NRA has a big hand it that.
It is a federal right so it should be a federal regulation that is the same for every state. Does any other country handle gun control on a state by state basis?
-
It's a constitutional matter, Ace. The states are sovereign, so they have control over their own laws, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the US constitution. It was this way 200 years before the NRA.
-
The states are sovereign, so they have control over their own laws, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the US constitution.
But we know they do and as long as restrictions are going to be made or permits are going to be required then my feeling is it should be federal so the permit is valid in all states.
-
The states are sovereign, so they have control over their own laws, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the US constitution.
But we know they do and as long as restrictions are going to be made or permits are going to be required then my feeling is it should be federal so the permit is valid in all states.
Should be and that's something the NRA has been supporting -- national reciprocity. The problem is that there are states that refuse to issue permits to their own citizens (unless they are well-connected), so they sure aren't going to recognize permits from another state. Then there are states that issue permits without any demonstration of knowledge of the laws or proficiency. It's frightening that their permit holders should be accorded the same recognition as those from a state like Texas that require a day in the classroom (probably one of the most demanding states in this regard, but still insufficient, imho) plus range qualification. What I see as reasonable is a uniform code to be adopted by the states and have reciprocity among all states that adopt the uniform code. I've had a concealed carry permit or license in Texas since the law was adopted and i rarely carry out of state, even where my license is recognized by reciprocity, because there are minor differences in the rules governing how, when and where I can carry and I don't have time to learn the administrative rules for each state I travel through. A uniform code spelling out the details for all jurisdictions adopting the code would certainly ease my mind. As it is, Texas has made some changes in recent years that make me uneasy, such as qualifying with a .22 caliber revolver and then being able to carry a .45 semi-automatic.
-
What I see as reasonable is a uniform code to be adopted by the states and have reciprocity among all states that adopt the uniform code.
Makes some sense but it doubles the amount of government. The only thing I see necessary for the state to do is list the no gun zone areas. The NRA needs to get the heck out of government along with every other special interest.
-
Ace,
Makes some sense but it doubles the amount of government. The only thing I see necessary for the state to do is list the no gun zone areas.
Brian,
The correct term is kill zone. No one can have a gun in these areas except the Mass murderer.
We never had these problems until the government started making kill zones.
Jim
-
Common Jim people have been killing each other since before Adam and Eve. It is part of our animal instinct. It is very unlikely it will go away.
-
Ace, there's a big difference in someone killing someone and a mass murder of strangers for no reason other than mental incapacity. Let's compare apples to apples here.
-
The problem is that the government gives them a safe place to kill a lot of people before the police can get their and stop them.
Jim
-
Ace, there's a big difference in someone killing someone and a mass murder of strangers for no reason other than mental incapacity. Let's compare apples to apples here.
Wally they all have reasons. Maybe not what you and I would call legitimate reasons but they are there.
-
The problem is that the government gives them a safe place to kill a lot of people before the police can get their and stop them.
Jim
Huh? It is the police that want the no gun zones so they know that anyone in that area not wearing a uniform is a criminal and a fair target.
No system is perfect. What might work in one area would not work in another. I am sure if you asked a SWAT team they would prefer all the local law enforcement wasn't present to get in their way.
-
The problem is that the government gives them a safe place to kill a lot of people before the police can get their and stop them.
Jim
Huh? It is the police that want the no gun zones so they know that anyone in that area not wearing a uniform is a criminal and a fair target.
.
That is what is called a War Zone. The uniformed militarized police are free to fire upon anyone not wearing the correct uniform. Zieg Heil!
-
The states are sovereign, so they have control over their own laws, insofar as it doesn't conflict with the US constitution.
But we know they do and as long as restrictions are going to be made or permits are going to be required then my feeling is it should be federal so the permit is valid in all states.
Do you hear yourself? Ace, you know that you are free to do your own thinking in this country. Maybe you could try that instead of feeling everything. At least think about it... :shocked:
-
I suppose you think Jeffrey Dahmer had a reason, too. Maybe we should ban all frying pans to keep people from eating each other. Like hops said, maybe you should start thinking rather than feeling.
-
Update:
Guns are gone. My wife called the sheriff and let the secretary know that we found guns in a storage bin. She wanted all kinds of information about the guns that my wife didn't know. About 20 minutes later a Utica cop shows up at the gate and follows a customer through. Typical stupid Utica cop. Now what are you going to do buddy? There is over 500 storage bins all locked. Mind you we are not open yet. Of course he comes back and my wife tells him to meet her at bin #... The first thing the cops says is who would put guns in a storage bin? I suppose the question should be who would turn them in? Then he goes off on my wife for not having the keys to take off the trigger locks. Honest to God how dumb do you have to be to be a cop? Well anyway he would only take the guns and ammo and nothing else.
I think it was a good idea to call the sheriff because it involved two forms of law enforcement so the cop couldn't just walk off with the guns for himself.
BTW I looked as the Smith and Wesson closer this time it was a .357 magnum not a 45.
My wife said if she had to do it over again she would bury them in the back yard and flip law enforcement the bird.
-
I would have bought them from you.
Jims
-
Any licensed firearms dealer would have bought them.
-
Heck Jim, If Wally wanted to drive just another 70 miles north into NY from PA I would have given him them. Then he could have brought them to the next beefest and we all could have done some target shooting. I understand why Wally did not want to come to this state and pick them up. I hope you all understand why I did not want to traffic them out of the state.
-
Update:
Guns are gone. My wife called the sheriff and let the secretary know that we found guns in a storage bin. She wanted all kinds of information about the guns that my wife didn't know. About 20 minutes later a Utica cop shows up at the gate and follows a customer through. Typical stupid Utica cop. Now what are you going to do buddy? There is over 500 storage bins all locked. Mind you we are not open yet. Of course he comes back and my wife tells him to meet her at bin #... The first thing the cops says is who would put guns in a storage bin? I suppose the question should be who would turn them in? Then he goes off on my wife for not having the keys to take off the trigger locks. Honest to God how dumb do you have to be to be a cop? Well anyway he would only take the guns and ammo and nothing else.
I think it was a good idea to call the sheriff because it involved two forms of law enforcement so the cop couldn't just walk off with the guns for himself.
BTW I looked as the Smith and Wesson closer this time it was a .357 magnum not a 45.
My wife said if she had to do it over again she would bury them in the back yard and flip law enforcement the bird.
And these stupid cops are the same militarized cops that you want to be the only armed people in a given area.
Glad you got your situation resolved. A crying pity such fine firearms ended up with NY's stupidest.
-
Hops, you are wining about something that is never going to go your way. There will always be no gun zones and most likely the areas will increase not decrease.
-
And there will be more mass killings at those killing zones. That is what these politicians want so they can take our guns away.
Jim
-
Ace, I'm not whining about anything. I was pointing out your stated reliance upon the police to save you in the event of an emergency, yet you were complaining about how stupid they are. You also advocate for citizens to be dis-armed.
Still posting your feelings instead of thinking?
Over 90% of mass shootings occur in no-weapon zones, while the AVERAGE US POLICE RESPONSE TIME IS 8 MINUTES
A lot of dis-armed citizens can die in the time it takes for a "stupid" (your terminology, not mine) cop to show up.
-
You also advocate for citizens to be dis-armed.
I certainly do not. But I also don't believe there is any liable protection from a citizen based police force or some adaptation of the wild, wild west.
-
You also advocate for citizens to be dis-armed.
I certainly do not. But I also don't believe there is any liable protection from a citizen based police force or some adaptation of the wild, wild west.
hmmm, you do understand that in the U.S. the police are, in fact, a civilian police force, as per the Constitution, yes?
It is only in recent years that the questionable policy of police militarization has been occurring.
Yet you still insist that these "stupid" police are supposed to come in an average of 8 minutes to protect us in so-called gun-free zones, and that we have no right to carry weapons to protect ourselves from immediate threat to life and limb. You are flat wrong there. In fact, the 9th circuit court (one of the most liberal courts in the country!) just last week handed down the opinion that all law-abiding citizens , have the right to open-carry arms. No, the militarized police do not need "gun free", gestapo free-fire zones as you advocate.
-
one more point;
The "the wild, wild West" you're so afraid of is largely myth of dime novels and movie screen.
The modern strict gun-controlled areas like NYC, Chicago, Wash. DC and Detroit are much, much more violent than the Wild West ever was.
-
Well Hops you could waltz over to Yellowstone with your six shooter and test out the ruling.
-
Did and done. Just certain buildings the Federalis forbid it.
National Park regulations state that carrying firearms in NPs are subject to the laws of the State in which the park is located. Simple. WY is an avidly open carry state. And concealed carry without permit, for law abiding WY citizens.
-
Did and done. Just certain buildings the Federalis forbid it.
National Park regulations state that carrying firearms in NPs are subject to the laws of the State in which the park is located. Simple. WY is an avidly open carry state. And concealed carry without permit, for law abiding WY citizens.
Good to know. But, Hops, why does anyone open carry? I was glad when Texas passed open carry because then I couldn't be penalized if my weapon printed or otherwise was visible, but I kind dislike the idea of being the first one to go down if bad guys decide to rob my neighborhood store where I happen to be shopping just because they can see that I'm armed. I can see that if you have enough guns showing, there'd be a major deterrent, but I'm just curious about the other advantages of open carry.
-
Dallas,
People behave so much better when they know other people around them are armed.
In Israel, almost all Israelis carry Uzis. Only the Suicidal ones act badly.
Jim
-
Dallas,
People behave so much better when they know other people around them are armed.
In Israel, almost all Israelis carry Uzis. Only the Suicidal ones act badly.
Jim
Well, that's what I meant when I wrote that if enough guns are showing, but I don't want to be the one known armed citizen in a place about to be robbed. Some of these kids are so crazy they'd shoot you for kicks when they didn't really come in planning to use their guns for anything but intimidation.
-
Dallas,
I was in a restaurant with my shooting buddies one hot night. One buddy is a federal marshal. This night he had his weapon exposed and he was on the end of the booth. Three men walked in wearing trench coats. He spotted them as they entered. They walked around the far end of the restaurant and then came past us. They saw his gun and continued walking and left by the emergency exit. I suspect if he wasn?t carrying exposed, we would probably been involved with a mass robbery.
Jim
-
Dallas,
I was in a restaurant with my shooting buddies one hot night. One buddy is a federal marshal. This night he had his weapon exposed and he was on the end of the booth. Three men walked in wearing trench coats. He spotted them as they entered. They walked around the far end of the restaurant and then came past us. They saw his gun and continued walking and left by the emergency exit. I suspect if he wasn?t carrying exposed, we would probably been involved with a mass robbery.
Jim
Yes, that probably resulted in you not being involved in a shootout or robbery or something, but those guys didn't give up their lives of crime as a result. They just found a softer target, don't you think? I sure don't want to go looking for trouble, but I want to be prepared if trouble finds me. I have very conflicted feelings about the whole matter as you might imagine. As a prosecuter, I used to like talking to criminals I had helped convict. Not talking about somebody who was maybe a one-time felon, but career criminals. We nailed one guy for 89 burglaries that we could prove. He was maybe 35-40 years old and had been a lifelong criminal. He agreed that it was really strange that he learned locksmithing at San Quentin. Most of these guys were very likable and easy to talk with about their criminal careers. The drug dealers were never open to discussions, though.
-
Jim, I totally agree about people being better behaved when a lot of them are armed. That's why there really were not many gunfights at the OK Corral, or most anyplace else in the old west. Those cowboys all carried guns, but I doubt if many of them really were good shots, or were gunslingers like in the movies. The "old west" lasted about 10 years around the 1880s. Most cowboys, if they had a gun at all, carried them to shoot snakes and coyotes. The gunslingers like Wyatt Earp, the James brothers, the Daltons, Billy the Kid and so on were social misfits who lasted a few years. The dime novels written for the people back east were mostly fiction.
-
but those guys didn't give up their lives of crime as a result.
Nor are they worried about a farmer with a pistol. I am certain if they wanted to they could take out Hops in a heartbeat.
-
but those guys didn't give up their lives of crime as a result.
Nor are they worried about a farmer with a pistol. I am certain if they wanted to they could take out Hops in a heartbeat.
Audie Murphy was a farm boy. A lot of farm boys have proved to have what it takes when the shtf. Judge not.
-
I am not judging. We are talking about harden criminals, most likely not by themselves.
-
The question is simple, Ace. Being faced with a hardened criminal is not a choice. If it happens, do you want to be armed and well trained, or unarmed and helpless? That's all you get to decide.
I'll take armed and well trained any day, whether the outcome is good or bad.
-
Did and done. Just certain buildings the Federalis forbid it.
National Park regulations state that carrying firearms in NPs are subject to the laws of the State in which the park is located. Simple. WY is an avidly open carry state. And concealed carry without permit, for law abiding WY citizens.
Good to know. But, Hops, why does anyone open carry?
You would have to ask the 'anybody'. It's an individual choice.
There is a misconception that "open carry" means blatantly obvious carry, such as a fully- outfitted AR10 or AK74 strapped to the back, which just ain't necessarily true. But hey, those demonstrations are what make the news, so.....
Most of the times I've seen a person carrying openly, it was a smaller framed handgun, worn well-holstered on the hip. Hardly news worthy.
-
but those guys didn't give up their lives of crime as a result.
Nor are they worried about a farmer with a pistol. I am certain if they wanted to they could take out Hops in a heartbeat.
So, I know a few farmers. Virtually all of them take time to practice with their firearms. so do I. I reload my own ammunition, so I have plenty to practice with.
Shooting is a perishable skill. so while I and my farming friends are free to practice at will, your jail-birds that won't give up their lives of crime are sitting in prison practicing their metal stamping skills and making shanks.
Who do you think is most likely to win a gunfight; a well practiced farmer, completely and intimately familiar with his own weapon, or the recently paroled jailbird with a stolen handgun, with which he is only vaguely familiar and, if he's lucky, has fired only a dozen rounds through?
Or, who would win between the suburbanite beekeeper who has only limited knowledge of firearms, is paranoid of handguns, and refuses to arm himself and referenced armed jail bird?
-
Who do you think is most likely to win a gunfight;
Ah, you see that is where you might lose your life hops. It is not a gun fight. It is incarceration with other harden criminals where they learn from each others mistakes. They have all the time in the world to do so and their punishment if they get caught is no different then what they have already experienced so they have nothing to lose. I am not sure you are differentiating the difference between a harden criminal and a nut job that goes off and kills a bunch of people. With a nut job we are both at risk but with a harden criminal you are at risk because you might get in their way and you assume you would win a gun fight even though it might not be with guns.
-
> It was this way 200 years before the NRA.
The constitution was approved in 1788 and the bill of rights was approved in 1791. The NRA was established in 1871, 80 years before the NRA the 2nd amendment was passed. Also 80 years before the NRA the 10th amendment was passed which reserved to the states and the individuals anything not specified as the jurisdiction of the federal government in the constitution. No where near 200 years.
-
Who do you think is most likely to win a gunfight;
Ah, you see that is where you might lose your life hops. It is not a gun fight. It is incarceration with other harden criminals where they learn from each others mistakes. They have all the time in the world to do so and their punishment if they get caught is no different then what they have already experienced so they have nothing to lose. I am not sure you are differentiating the difference between a harden criminal and a nut job that goes off and kills a bunch of people. With a nut job we are both at risk but with a harden criminal you are at risk because you might get in their way and you assume you would win a gun fight even though it might not be with guns.
Huh? What?
So you say there is nothing I can do to protect myself, just because they might be a nutjob or hardened criminal? You say I might as well not try to protect myself? That's where you lose.
You assume that hanging out in prison is better training than intentional, focused training with live ammo. You assume that I know nothing of fighting. You assume that them having nothing to lose is more powerful than me fighting to protect what I have. You assume too much.
Ace, you are moving from a gun-paranoid Northeastern enclave to a Southern environment where there is a much more liberal (ironically!) attitude toward personal firearms. You would have been better off shipping those guns you found to yourself in Florida and begun the change of attitude to thought over emotion.
-
> It was this way 200 years before the NRA.
It makes it difficult to find posts when you don't use quotes especially when a thread gets a few pages long.
-
Ace,
I skipped to page 4, didn't read the entire thread so this may have been suggested.
If you take the gun apart, like remove the slide or cylinder, it is not a gun, just a couple of pieces of metal.
Put one section in the trunk and another in your cab and you are legal. More legal is you skip the ammo.
Enjoy your travels.
-
Ace,
I skipped to page 4, didn't read the entire thread so this may have been suggested.
If you take the gun apart, like remove the slide or cylinder, it is not a gun, just a couple of pieces of metal.
Put one section in the trunk and another in your cab and you are legal. More legal is you skip the ammo.
Enjoy your travels.
You are not considering the troopers in New Jersey, who have been known to treat ancient muzzle-loading pistols as if they were assault weapons, and those possessing them as gun-runners.
I think the law views the receiver (frame/part with the serial number on it) as the firearm. You can ship a cylinder, slide, barrel, stock or whatever with no problem, but when you ship a receiver you have to comply with strict rules. Strip everything, including springs and screw off the receiver and it's still the receiver, which means the firearm.
This is something I don't understand about these 3-D printed firearms. When they print a receiver without a serial number, they are manufacturing a firearm without a license and it is probably illegal. Any other part for a firearm that they create is perfectly legal.
-
On further reflection, the law allows a person to make a firearm, with or without a serial number, for his or her personal use only, and not for sale or as a gift, without a license, so I guess that part of my previous post was all wet. Ignore it. I was unable to modify that post to remove the dumb paragraph. Sorry.
-
Dallas,
You can buy a receiver that is no more than 80% complete and it is not considered a firearm. As you mentioned other parts of the gun are not a problem.
Jim
-
You are not considering the troopers in New Jersey, who have been known to treat ancient muzzle-loading pistols as if they were assault weapons, and those possessing them as gun-runners.
In that case the troopers were scanning license plates looking for CCW holders from out of state. I think Ace is not a CCW holder. But you are correct in that some agencies have a strange view of what is a firearm.
I was not suggesting Ace ship the handgun. He implied he wanted to travel with it and use it for varmits when he camped. In most parts of the US, if the gun is disassembled, and is divided into areas or sections of your car, it is not a gun. The reasoning is you would have to assemble it to use it. The parts alone do not make it a gun.
The receiver, or part with the serial number, when shipped, as far as I know must go to a FFL. I do know of one exception first hand. I shipped an entire handgun back to the manufacturer and it was returned after repair directly to me. The manufacturer stated this exchange is permitted by law.
If I were Ace I would not travel with an assembled hand gun until I knew which states are reciprocal and which are not. I'd drive anywhere with half a gun in the glove compartment and the other half in the trunk.
-
A lot of good all this does Brian now, but an ATF Q&A says you can send a firearm to yourself in another state by sending it addressed to yourself, in care of another person, so long as the other person does not open the package or "take possession of" the firearm. Hunters do it all the time, according to the website. But Brian already said goodbye to those guns. Just everybody else remember if it comes up again. Still, it wouldn't hurt to check at that time, since ATF has been known to change its policies from time to time, like on bump stocks. First they have to test which way the wind is blowing, then they made a decision, then if nobody howls too loud, that's their policy.
Jvalentour, a gun owner can ship to a FFL holder.
I don't think Brian has as CHL, so reciprocity doesdn't enter into it. I do have a CHL, and I do check reciprocity, but the rules for carrying vary so much from state to state that I am extra careful when in another state. Some places, you can't carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, while in Texas you can unless 51% of the revenue of the restaurant is from alcohol, and that can change almost monthly for some places. Best to avoid the issue. I hate seeing a sign with 51 on it after going in a place and having to turn around and lock a gun in the trunk, thus telling thieves where to find a gun. So I lock it away well before arriving at a restaurant or just leave it at home. If you're going to be drinking at all, it's best to leave it at home to start with, imho.
-
Thanks Dallasbeek.
I did not know I could mail to myself legally to another state.
I think we are both on the same page here.
-
Thanks Dallasbeek.
I did not know I could mail to myself legally to another state.
I think we are both on the same page here.
Not mail. Ship. Ship by common carrier like FedEx or UPS. Sending or attempting to send by United States Postal Service is a big no-no.
-
I'd drive anywhere with half a gun in the glove compartment and the other half in the trunk.
That would have been nice to know (if it is true) before we gave it to the cop.
Dallas, I don't know what a CHL is.
The problem was time and circumstances for shipping. In order to ship I would have had to take possession of the gun. The value of the gun might have been close to 4 figures. Forget the stupid TV show, NYS law for self storage can get complicated when a person dies and there is value in the bin. You can't just rob the estate of thousands of dollars. There is red tape involved. And that takes a lot of time.
-
Ace,
I skipped to page 4, didn't read the entire thread so this may have been suggested.
If you take the gun apart, like remove the slide or cylinder, it is not a gun, just a couple of pieces of metal.
Put one section in the trunk and another in your cab and you are legal. More legal is you skip the ammo.
Enjoy your travels.
You are not considering the troopers in New Jersey, who have been known to treat ancient muzzle-loading pistols as if they were assault weapons, and those possessing them as gun-runners.
I think the law views the receiver (frame/part with the serial number on it) as the firearm. You can ship a cylinder, slide, barrel, stock or whatever with no problem, but when you ship a receiver you have to comply with strict rules. Strip everything, including springs and screw off the receiver and it's still the receiver, which means the firearm.
This is something I don't understand about these 3-D printed firearms. When they print a receiver without a serial number, they are manufacturing a firearm without a license and it is probably illegal. Any other part for a firearm that they create is perfectly legal.
Actually, under Federal law and in most states it is legal to manufacture your own firearm, but it MUST have a serial number and location of manufacture on the receiver. Use it without required markings, it is big crime.
Also, a gun must be made with enough metal to set off a metal detector. No all-plastic guns are allowed. BTW a spring and firing pin heavy enough to actuate the primer is usually enough metal to be detected.
The 3D printed guns are actually only functional models, not intended to be fired. If they do get fired, it will likely be only once. They are not strong enough to withstand the considerable pressures a gun is subject. There are other plastic and/or metallic gun models on the market. User buys a kit, assembles it and presto, a mechanical duplicate of the real thing. Only difference, the model will blow up in you hand if you try to fire it. #D printe model is just as dangerous if one were stupid enough to try shooting it.
This whole issue is nothing but paranoid whining.
-
Dallas, I don't know what a CHL is.
The problem was time and circumstances for shipping. In order to ship I would have had to take possession of the gun. The value of the gun might have been close to 4 figures. Forget the stupid TV show, NYS law for self storage can get complicated when a person dies and there is value in the bin. You can't just rob the estate of thousands of dollars. There is red tape involved. And that takes a lot of time.
CHL is concealed handgun license. I guess now it's LTC (license to carry) since our legislature passed a law allowing open carry. Every state seems to have a different name for it. I see CCW, whatever that stands for, but probably about the sale as CHL, LTC or whatever.
Like I said, this whole thread means nothing to you now, since you turned the gun over to the police, but it seems to have stirred a lot of interest, so....
-
Hops, could you find a citation for a law requiring a serial number on every firearm? I was looking at an ATF website and it said if the weapon was made for your personal use, no SN was required. If you are making it for sale or anyone else, it has to have a SN and you need a manufactrer's license.
Some new consumer-grade printers are coming out that print in metal. There are some high end printers that do that now, and they are used to make automotive parts that can take heavy use.
An all-plastic gun that would get through metal detectors would still intimidate the heck out of me unless it was very obviously plastic. Even then, I'd probably hesitate to resist.