Relatives and leaving a pistol?

[sookandy]

If this is the wrong area please feel free to move it. I think I know the answer but just wanted to check. If I were to leave a pistol at my dad's house which I go to often in Ohio would that technically be breaking the law? By not transferring it through an FFL since it would be in his possession most of the time. And no I haven't done it yet.

[Jumping Frog]

It is not illegal to loan a pistol to another private individual out of state.

It may be prudent to have the loan documented in writing, signed, dated & notarized to demonstrate intent.

[n5wd]

It is not illegal to loan a pistol to another private individual out of state.

It may be prudent to have the loan documented in writing, signed, dated & notarized to demonstrate intent.

Jumping Frog is correct, assuming that your Dad is not a prohibited person (i.e. a felon, convicted of domestic violence, a fugitive from justice, etc.), nor is anyone else in the household. If someone IS a prohibited person, you'd best be making sure that they do not have access to the firearm.

[EEllis]

If it is still your pistol you can do anything you want with it. Take it anywhere, leave it anywhere. If you are selling it or giving it permanently to someone then sure, you should do a transfer which can be had for $20 or less if you shop around so ......

[sookandy]

Thanks for the info everyone. I appreciate it.

[Rrash]

Not illegal at all, provided he isn't a felon, etc.

If he isn't locking it up, however, you might want to provide him with some sort of lock box. You never know when someone might come over with little kids or something along those lines. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago on a hunting trip, where I found myself staying at a friend's house as a guest, and there were small children running amok. They had no gun safe or really any adequate storage area, so I found myself disassembling a handgun and placing the components in different rooms, etc.

[Jumping Frog]

If you are selling it or giving it permanently to someone then sure, you should do a transfer which can be had for $20 or less if you shop around so ......

More than"should".

A private individual transferring a firearm by gift or sale across state lines to another private individual MUST have that transfer go through a federal firearms licensee (FFL). Failure to use an FFL for an interstate transfer between non-licensees is a federal felony.

The only exception is a bequest at death. Inheriting a firearm across state lines does not require an FFL.

Note my original answer was limited to "loaning" a firearm, which is NOT a transfer and which is legal.

[EEllis]

If you are selling it or giving it permanently to someone then sure, you should do a transfer which can be had for $20 or less if you shop around so ......

More than"should".

A private individual transferring a firearm by gift or sale across state lines to another private individual MUST have that transfer go through a federal firearms licensee (FFL). Failure to use an FFL for an interstate transfer between non-licensees is a federal felony.

The only exception is a bequest at death. Inheriting a firearm across state lines does not require an FFL.

Note my original answer was limited to "loaning" a firearm, which is NOT a transfer and which is legal.

How the heck is it more than should? Are you just picking for the heck of it or what? With any law all we have is should and in this case unless someone is stupid enough to write a bill of sale or whatever or run their mouths to BATF then the Feds cannot have any evidence from which to base a charge so yes I think should is a pretty fair way to phrase it.

[Jumping Frog]

"Should" implies a "good practice", "optional".

It isn't optional or a best practice, it is the law with a felony as the jackpot.

"Shall" is usually used in legal language to denote it must be done.

A private person transferring a firearm to another private person across state line SHALL transfer via FFL, not u]SHOULD[/u].

[EEllis]

If it were really not optional then we wouldn't have people breaking the law. Since we know that's not truly I guess the shall is a bit wishful thinking and I'm happy with should.