Temporarily "swapping guns"?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,942
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    Obtain covers the non-purchasing ways of transferring ownership, such as gifting.

    I think you just shot yourself in the foot with that statement. Under SB281, a handgun cannot be gifted to somebody unless they have a handgun qualification license. At least that is my take on it. So, they would need a handgun qualification license to "obtain" the handgun under your scenario.

    SB281 puts a little bit of a grey area in that case, but I still think people should be able to loan handguns to other people as long as the person would not be prohibited from owning a firearm in the first place. Then again, maybe it was the Legislature's intent to prevent handguns from changing hands and being loaned out to everybody and their mother without any type of tracking mechanism in place.
     

    fabsroman

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 14, 2009
    35,942
    Winfield/Taylorsville in Carroll
    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.

    And the Court will take into consideration that the Legislature decided to replace "transfer" with "receive". Wonder if there is any actual legislative notes as to why "receive" was used.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,646
    Messages
    7,289,890
    Members
    33,496
    Latest member
    GD-3

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom