Temporarily "swapping guns"?

[Safetech]

This may be a dumb question, but...

What are the rules/laws regarding a husband and wife trading handguns for the day (for the purpose of "dressing around the firearm", for example)?

If Mrs. Safetech wanted to carry my SR9C (registered in my name), and I agreed to swap and carry her SR9 (registered in her name) for the day, is there anything preventing us from doing that?

 

[MDlocal]

I was told by a Capt McCauley at MSP that you could "loan" a gun to someone you knew was a legal gun owner.

 

[Mooseman]

There is nothing preventing you and any legal gun owner from swapping.

 

[Safetech]

Thanks guys.

 

[TimGB]

There is nothing preventing you and any legal gun owner from swapping.

I was wondering about a similar situation and found this thread. What if the other person (in this case my wife) is not a gun owner? All of our guns are registered in my name. And does anything change after 10/1/13? We were kicking around getting the next gun registered in her name anyway in part to get her out of the training requirements under the new law.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Inigoes]

There is nothing preventing you and any legal gun owner from swapping.

As long as the term "swapping" does not mean "transfer of ownership".

One can indefinitely (no specified return date) loan a firearm also.

 

[swinokur]

MD SC said gratuitous loans to qualified persons are legal.

see ruling

 

[Sean415]

Quite interesting. Never knew that

 

[fabsroman]

Have to wonder how the necessity of having a handgun qualification permit to purchase a handgun might throw a wrench into that ruling?

Good ruling though, with a lot of common sense. Sad though that it had to make it all the way to the Court of Appeals.

 

[swinokur]

Isn't the qualification permit to purchase a firearm? The ruling still stands even in the event of a law change?

A purchase and a loan are different in my view are they not? No legal transfer took place.

 

[Inigoes]

Have to wonder how the necessity of having a handgun qualification permit to purchase a handgun might throw a wrench into that ruling?

Good ruling though, with a lot of common sense. Sad though that it had to make it all the way to the Court of Appeals.

None

There is no transfer of ownership, thus the purchase law will not come into play.

 

[Brychan]

Just remember the law of marriage:

What is her's is her's, what is yours is her's.

 

[fabsroman]

None

There is no transfer of ownership, thus the purchase law will not come into play.

In response to the first question we hold that the plain language and legislative history of the“Regulated Firearms” subheading indicates that the word “transfer,” as used in § 442(d ), is used in an ownership context and does not apply to the situation extant in the case subjudice–that of a gratuitous temporary exchange or loan between two adults who are otherwise
permitted to own and obtain regulated firearms.

It is the "obtain" in the holding that has me slightly worried. Then again, it does not say "purchase".

I would bet the Court sticks with its holding even after the handgun qualification license is required to purchase handguns. The entire case made no sense at the Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals levels. How they could possibly think that somebody has to complete a Form 77r just to borrow a gun from a buddy is beside me. Again, it comes down to people having no clue whatsoever about the firearm purchase process. Just sad that the Judge in the Circuit Court and the Judges on the Court of Special Appeals did not take the time to reason this through.

Have to wonder how much it ended up costing the defendant for all these appeals.

 

[Inigoes]

In response to the first question we hold that the plain language and legislative history of the“Regulated Firearms” subheading indicates that the word “transfer,” as used in § 442(d ), is used in an ownership context and does not apply to the situation extant in the case subjudice–that of a gratuitous temporary exchange or loan between two adults who are otherwise
permitted to own and obtain regulated firearms.

It is the "obtain" in the holding that has me slightly worried. Then again, it does not say "purchase".

I would bet the Court sticks with its holding even after the handgun qualification license is required to purchase handguns. The entire case made no sense at the Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals levels. How they could possibly think that somebody has to complete a Form 77r just to borrow a gun from a buddy is beside me. Again, it comes down to people having no clue whatsoever about the firearm purchase process. Just sad that the Judge in the Circuit Court and the Judges on the Court of Special Appeals did not take the time to reason this through.

Have to wonder how much it ended up costing the defendant for all these appeals.

Obtain covers the non-purchasing ways of transferring ownership, such as gifting.

 

[TimGB]

I could definitely see under the new law that one could read it that you need the handgun qualification license to "obtain" the firearm so you can't loan it to someone that does not have one.

I don't know if the same might apply to rentals at run ranges (I know that has been kicked around in the other thread).

 

[swinokur]

How can you nullify a court ruling? IANAL.

 

[aquashooter]

My wife has a carry permit in the state where she lives. I leave one of my Chief Specials at her house for her to use when I'm not there because I don't trust the AMT Backup that she has. Also, on the rare occasion that I fly up there, I don't have to worry about packing a weapon in my luggage. When I tell people that my wife lives 320 miles away, the first question that they ask is "How can I do that?"

 

[JD-IAFF]

How can you nullify a court ruling? IANAL.

Subsequent legislation?

I'm going to be reserved about this one, but we need to consider the changed verbiage of §5-117-1(B)(1), namely:

(B) A person may purchase, rent or receive (emphasis mine) a handgun only if the person:

(1) possess a valid handgun qualification license issued to the person by the Secretary in accordance with this section, and;

Chow hinged on the definition of transfer. We're now dealing with the definition of receive. I realize that seems like splitting hairs, but that's what courts do. It'll take a test case for this one to be decided, IMO.

 

[shiloh228]

How about bringing your wife to the range and letting her shoot your gun?

 

[swinokur]

and also please insure you are only swapping guns and not wives.