2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: aieahound on January 26, 2020, 11:21:15 PM
-
Just had a member post that I was dumb enough to add my wife on my handgun registration.
and you were dumb enough to put both your names on the registration which required her to sign my permit.
It’s my understanding that your spouse needs to be listed on the registration to avoid illegal lending of a handgun.
Thoughts about joint registration?
I promise no further posts from me on this thread.
Just wondering about thoughts on joint registration.
-
You're not dumb enough, you were smart enough. God forbid something happen to you, your wife gets the firearms without any issues. Otherwise HPD gets them until she or other family member can get through the requirements to obtain firearms. And we all know that HPD or any other PD would never lose or mistreat any items held in an evidence locker. This is doubly true if you've been here long enough to acquire any items that are no longer legal.
But in any event, you can always loan your firearm to anyone, provided they are not a prohibited person.
§134-4 Transfer, possession of firearms. (a) No transfer of any rifle having a barrel length of sixteen inches or over or any shotgun having a barrel length of eighteen inches or over, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or by a prior owner, or unregistered shall be made to any person under the age of eighteen years, except as provided by section 134-5.
(b) No person shall possess any firearm that is owned by another, regardless of whether the owner has consented to possession of the firearm, without a permit from the chief of police of the appropriate county, except as provided in subsection (c) and section 134-5.
(c) Any lawfully acquired rifle or shotgun may be lent to an adult for use within the State for a period not to exceed fifteen days without a permit; provided that where the rifle or shotgun is to be used outside of the State, the loan may be for a period not to exceed seventy-five days.
-
Just had a member post that I was dumb enough to add my wife on my handgun registration.
It’s my understanding that your spouse needs to be listed on the registration to avoid illegal lending of a handgun.
Thoughts about joint registration?
I promise no further posts from me on this thread.
Just wondering about thoughts on joint registration.
Sorry AH but I don't want my wife's name on the registration. If something happens to me she has strict orders to send them to my relative that inherits them from my estate. Since HPD has decided they don't want to know when a gun leaves the islands then for me, this is the best solution. I asked them to destroy all of my registration records when I move away and they said they would not/didn't care.
It is a big hassle for me to transfer in or out if my wife has to get involved. Which is why I don't want her name on the registration.
-
Back when we had firearms, we also co-registered them with each other.
Simple explanation was no matter who's firearm we picked up in a case of HD, we were legally allowed to possess it and therefore if any shots were fired in self defense, it would occur via a lawfully owned firearm.
Was also beneficial when one of us went shooting with friends or newbies, we could bring each others firearms for more variety
This also would have solved a lot of issues regarding possession,transfer and sale upon the death of one of the spouses. (take note Inspector, your wife would be unable to transfer firearms not registered to her)
.
Yeah, some of the boys at HPD (rhymes with Chew, LOL) gave us some grief regarding possible hassles if divorce or separation were to occur, but we told him if there was a divorce or separation, there would only be one surviving spouse any way. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Obviously, one must have a trusting relationship with ones spouse to have co-registration. :love:
Good on you Dog :thumbsup:
-
Should the firearms lending ban pass this year, same will apply to long guns. No loaning to spouses unless it's on the registration.
-
Sorry AH but I don't want my wife's name on the registration. If something happens to me she has strict orders to send them to my relative that inherits them from my estate. Since HPD has decided they don't want to know when a gun leaves the islands then for me, this is the best solution. I asked them to destroy all of my registration records when I move away and they said they would not/didn't care.
It is a big hassle for me to transfer in or out if my wife has to get involved. Which is why I don't want her name on the registration.
Psst. . . I think your revolvers are seksi! ;D
Back when we had firearms, we also co-registered them with each other.
Simple explanation was no matter who's firearm we picked up in a case of HD, we were legally allowed to possess it and therefore if any shots were fired in self defense, it would occur via a lawfully owned firearm.
Was also beneficial when one of us went shooting with friends or newbies, we could bring each others firearms for more variety
This also would have solved a lot of issues regarding possession,transfer and sale upon the death of one of the spouses. (take note Inspector, your wife would be unable to transfer firearms not registered to her)
.
Yeah, some of the boys at HPD (rhymes with Chew, LOL) gave us some grief regarding possible hassles if divorce or separation were to occur, but we told him if there was a divorce or separation, there would only be one surviving spouse any way. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Obviously, one must have a trusting relationship with ones spouse to have co-registration. :love:
Good on you Dog :thumbsup:
I encountered that somewhat when my dad passed, as well as helping my aunty when my uncle passed. This also includes documenting ownership in the case of old firearms that may not have been registered. I thought I was gonna have to give up a few guns, but it turned out they were registered, but under an older system and they didn't show up in the computer.
Seems like Inspector has his wishes already documented. In my case, HPD asked for a notarized letter from my sister that she didn't want the guns. While she and her husband enjoy shooting, they have no interest in owning any.
-
I have my wife on most of the guns for the following reasons:
1) Handguns are not allowed to be lent to anyone, even if in the same household. U have to be there. So what happens if you're at work and she uses the handgun for home defense? Charges could be brought to her. Compared to rifles, you can let her borrow for 15 days. This is the main concern. Or when we travel with them, she carries 1 handgun in her checked luggage.
2) If I die or incapacitated, she's on the title so no problems.
Cons told to me by HPD
1) If you ever get divorced, shes on title
2) Need to waste time to add her on each gun, 2 week wait and background check needs to be done. Like buying a new handgun. 2 trips to HPD.
-
I have my wife on most of the guns for the following reasons:
1) Handguns are not allowed to be lent to anyone, even if in the same household. U have to be there. So what happens if you're at work and she uses the handgun for home defense? Charges could be brought to her. Compared to rifles, you can let her borrow for 15 days. This is the main concern. Or when we travel with them, she carries 1 handgun in her checked luggage.
2) If I die or incapacitated, she's on the title so no problems.
Cons told to me by HPD
1) If you ever get divorced, shes on title
2) Need to waste time to add her on each gun, 2 week wait and background check needs to be done. Like buying a new handgun. 2 trips to HPD.
(Additional Con:)
3) If you want to sell a handgun, both registered owners are required to sign the permit to acquire. They also have to sign any bill of sale to make it legal. That means both must be willing and available to sign -- either meeting up at HPD together to save the buyer 2 extra trips, or hope the buyer is willing and available to accommodate all registered owners' schedules.
"I'm sorry, but my spouse is [ visiting family | traveling for work | working 12 hour shifts | can't take a half hour for lunch ] to meet at HPD when the permit would be ready.
You'll have to [ wait at least XX weeks before applying | be willing to make at least 2 additional trips to gather signatures and register ] before you can pick up the gun."
That assumes one of the two owners doesn't have an emergency arise. Two owners doubles the risk that "something could come up" to make you have to go through the application process again.
In the case of HD use, giving someone access to a handgun in case of emergency is not "lending" it to them. I don't think anyone can point to a single Hawaii case where someone using a gun for self defense was charged with a firearm violation based solely on not being a registered owner for the handgun they used.
Legally, you're only required to keep guns locked up and inaccessible to people in the home who are prohibited: minors, felons, addicts, etc. So, the gun's registered owner won't be charged if someone uses their gun who isn't prohibited.
Self defense becomes exigent circumstances. If the handgun was in a legal "place to keep," the defender will also not face charges.
Justifiable self defense is not a crime.
-
(Additional Con:)
3) If you want to sell a handgun, both registered owners are required to sign the permit to acquire. They also have to sign any bill of sale to make it legal. That means both must be willing and available to sign -- either meeting up at HPD together to save the buyer 2 extra trips, or hope the buyer is willing and available to accommodate all registered owners' schedules.
"I'm sorry, but my spouse is [ visiting family | traveling for work | working 12 hour shifts | can't take a half hour for lunch ] to meet at HPD when the permit would be ready.
You'll have to [ wait at least XX weeks before applying | be willing to make at least 2 additional trips to gather signatures and register ] before you can pick up the gun."
That assumes one of the two owners doesn't have an emergency arise. Two owners doubles the risk that "something could come up" to make you have to go through the application process again.
In the case of HD use, giving someone access to a handgun in case of emergency is not "lending" it to them. I don't think anyone can point to a single Hawaii case where someone using a gun for self defense was charged with a firearm violation based solely on not being a registered owner for the handgun they used.
Legally, you're only required to keep guns locked up and inaccessible to people in the home who are prohibited: minors, felons, addicts, etc. So, the gun's registered owner won't be charged if someone uses their gun who isn't prohibited.
Self defense becomes exigent circumstances. If the handgun was in a legal "place to keep," the defender will also not face charges.
Justifiable self defense is not a crime.
"Justifiable self defense is not a crime."
Call me a Jaded Mandarin but
not in this state.
You will be arrested.
You will lose your guns.
You will spend thousands in legal fees.
Cops are not your Friend.
Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
-
I was thinking about this but my wife hasn't taken any classes so technically she wouldn't be able to be on any of the handguns.
She isn't into guns but it would be easier if I died that she be able to keep the guns until my kids are old enough to get them.
-
"Justifiable self defense is not a crime."
Call me a Jaded Mandarin but
not in this state.
You will be arrested.
You will lose your guns.
You will spend thousands in legal fees.
Cops are not your Friend.
Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.
You will be arrested pending investigation.
The gun you used will be booked in as evidence.
Whether or not you lose your guns or need legal representation long term will depend on whether any charges are filed against you.
If the facts support a claim of justified self defense, you'll be released without arraignment.
It's happened quite often.
In felony cases, the police are allowed to arrest a person and hold them in custody for a maximum of 48 hours
without bail. At the end of the 48 hours, the police have to decide whether or not to let the person go or to continue
to hold them. If they decide to release the person, they are free to go without charges and without having to post
bail. This is known as being released pending investigation, or "RPI."
An RPI does not mean that your case is closed. Rather, it indicates that the police need more time to investigate
your charges. In most felony cases, the government has between 3 to 6 years starting from the date of the crime to
file charges. In sexual assault cases involving victims under the age of 18, the government has between 3 to 6
years starting from the time the victim turns 18. There is no time limit to file criminal charges in murder cases.
As you said, the best decision is to say as little as possible and request legal representation during questioning -- preferably an attorney with experience in firearm self defense.
Once you have a lawyer, the Cops can't contact or question you directly unless your lawyer is present.
"I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation, but I would like consult my lawyer before I make any formal statements."
-
If someone is red flagged, but the gun is jointly owned, can they still take it away?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Should the firearms lending ban pass this year, same will apply to long guns. No loaning to spouses unless it's on the registration.
https://hifico.org/hb1600/
https://hifico.org/sb2811/
If someone is red flagged, but the gun is jointly owned, can they still take it away?
For HPD, the answer is always yes.
-
If someone is red flagged, but the gun is jointly owned, can they still take it away?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Interesting question.
My first inclination is the co-owner would have to show they can secure the firearm/s to prevent access by the red flagged person.
Of course, the courts here are more interested in confiscation than personal safety, so all bets are off that they'll act rationally.
-
If someone is red flagged, but the gun is jointly owned, can they still take it away?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
are you worried you will be red flagged? or mrs cmo?
-
are you worried you will be red flagged? or mrs cmo?
depends if tourettes is cause...heads
-
If someone is red flagged, but the gun is jointly owned, can they still take it away?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I think they would take them but there might be one way around that. If he goes in to take his name off the firearms and leaves only his wife on then I don't think they could legally touch them since the restraining order or red flag order doesn't say the wife has to turn it in.
-
I think they would take them but there might be one way around that. If he goes in to take his name off the firearms and leaves only his wife on then I don't think they could legally touch them since the restraining order or red flag order doesn't say the wife has to turn it in.
Since hpd has no official transfer of title, a hand written napkin would suffice.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
I think they would take them but there might be one way around that. If he goes in to take his name off the firearms and leaves only his wife on then I don't think they could legally touch them since the restraining order or red flag order doesn't say the wife has to turn it in.
The Cops aren't going to give the owners time to run to the firearms section and change registrations after showing up to confiscate.
They just aren't.
If the law allows for transferring custody to a friend or family member, that might be possible. Some states allow that. I don't think Hawaii will put that in the law, since the whole red flag scenario requires stealth and swift confiscation before the owner even knows about it.
-
The Cops aren't going to give the owners time to run to the firearms section and change registrations after showing up to confiscate.
They just aren't.
If the law allows for transferring custody to a friend or family member, that might be possible. Some states allow that. I don't think Hawaii will put that in the law, since the whole red flag scenario requires stealth and swift confiscation before the owner even knows about it.
Sometimes people are served when they are not at home and in that case the person doesn't have to turn them in right away but within a certain time frame. So if someone is served at work or at court then they have x amount of days to turn the guns into police, or possibly sell/transfer them. I went shooting with a guy who got a few firearms from his friend because of a TRO or abuse arrest. Can't remember the details but somehow the guy was able to transfer the firearms to his friend. This was about 17 years ago though.
I believe the law allows transferring but I can't recall the specifics on to who or how. They might have to be seized first and then ownership is transferred. At least if the wife is already on title then she shouldn't have to go through permitting process to get them back from HPD.
-
Sometimes people are served when they are not at home and in that case the person doesn't have to turn them in right away but within a certain time frame. So if someone is served at work or at court then they have x amount of days to turn the guns into police, or possibly sell/transfer them. I went shooting with a guy who got a few firearms from his friend because of a TRO or abuse arrest. Can't remember the details but somehow the guy was able to transfer the firearms to his friend. This was about 17 years ago though.
I believe the law allows transferring but I can't recall the specifics on to who or how. They might have to be seized first and then ownership is transferred. At least if the wife is already on title then she shouldn't have to go through permitting process to get them back from HPD.
HPD will still require permits and wait period. Their mandate is to require a background check for all transfers. They see returning your property to you as a transfer.
If having your name on the registration avoided having to apply for new permits, then every other person who had their gun taken and returned was forced to do it wrong.
-
Sometimes people are served when they are not at home and in that case the person doesn't have to turn them in right away but within a certain time frame. So if someone is served at work or at court then they have x amount of days to turn the guns into police, or possibly sell/transfer them. I went shooting with a guy who got a few firearms from his friend because of a TRO or abuse arrest. Can't remember the details but somehow the guy was able to transfer the firearms to his friend. This was about 17 years ago though.
I believe the law allows transferring but I can't recall the specifics on to who or how. They might have to be seized first and then ownership is transferred. At least if the wife is already on title then she shouldn't have to go through permitting process to get them back from HPD.
Didnt they say red flags will be carried out by ssd. So odds are the person will be home and sleeping.
Since 2 names are on title, there is no need to transfer ownership. Just need to remove 1 name. Hence the napkin that states ownership is given up. Can't confiscate what you dont own. Remember, hpd doesnt unregister firearms either.
"This is not my firearm or ammo. Its my wifes".
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Having both, you and spouse, on any registration or title is good in the sense that if something happens to one or the other, whether it be legally or through death, the property, no matter what it is, be it a car, house, or in this case, a firearm, will not be confiscated. It just becomes in the custody of the other legal owner, who is the remaining spouse. No hassle, understood that the person can legally own said property.
Now, the other side of the spectrum, if you want to depart from the partnership, taking the property to have sole custody may prove to be harder situation, as the gold digging whore spouse might want to cash in. This is hypothetically speaking, btw...
All this might have been said earlier in the thread, but I'm too lazy to go back and read... :shaka:
-
Didnt they say red flags will be carried out by ssd. So odds are the person will be home and sleeping.
Since 2 names are on title, there is no need to transfer ownership. Just need to remove 1 name. Hence the napkin that states ownership is given up. Can't confiscate what you dont own. Remember, hpd doesnt unregister firearms either.
"This is not my firearm or ammo. Its my wifes".
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yes sir, we know. But its that you have access to it, so we will need to take it all anyways. Here's the evidence form you need to recover them at some later date. Sign hard, it's 3 copies.
-
Get the book Kiddies
§134-7 Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty. (a) No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(b) No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(f) No person who has been restrained pursuant to an order of any court, including an ex parte order as provided in this subsection, from contacting, threatening, or physically abusing any person, shall possess, control, or transfer ownership of any firearm or ammunition therefor, so long as the protective order, restraining order, (TRO) or any extension is in effect, unless the order, for good cause shown, specifically permits the possession of a firearm and ammunition. The restraining order or order of protection shall specifically include a statement that possession, control, or transfer of ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the person named in the order is prohibited.[/size] Such person shall relinquish possession and control of any firearm and ammunition owned by that person to the police department of the appropriate county for safekeeping for the duration of the order or extension thereof. In the case of an ex parte order, the affidavit or statement under oath that forms the basis for the order shall contain a statement of the facts that support a finding that the person to be restrained owns, intends to obtain or to transfer ownership of, or possesses a firearm, and that the firearm may be used to threaten, injure, or abuse any person. The ex parte order shall be effective upon service pursuant to section 586-6. At the time of service of a restraining order involving firearms and ammunition issued by any court, the police officer may take custody of any and all firearms and ammunition in plain sight, those discovered pursuant to a consensual search, and those firearms surrendered by the person restrained. If the person restrained is the registered owner of a firearm and knows the location of the firearm, but refuses to surrender the firearm or refuses to disclose the location of the firearm, the person restrained shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In any case, when a police officer is unable to locate the firearms and ammunition either registered under this chapter or known to the person granted protection by the court, the police officer shall apply to the court for a search warrant pursuant to chapter 803 for the limited purpose of seizing the firearm and ammunition.
Good cause consideration may include but not be limited to the protection and safety of the person to whom a restraining order is granted.
(g) Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, control, or the right to transfer ownership of firearms and ammunition under this section shall surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition in compliance with section 134-7.3.
(h) Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony; provided that any felon violating subsection (b) shall be guilty of a class B felony. Any person violating subsection (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Case Notes
Defendant police chief was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff firearm permit applicant's 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for monetary damages for alleged violations of plaintiff's Second Amendment right to bear arms and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right because a reasonable official in defendant's circumstances would not have understood that defendant's conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the denial of plaintiff's permit; this section, on which the denial was based, had not been invalidated by case or legislative action. 869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (2012).
Genuine issue of material fact existed regarding: (1) whether plaintiff had been under counseling for addiction to, abuse of, or dependence upon a drug or intoxicating liquor; and (2) whether plaintiff had been "medically documented to be no longer adversely affected" by drugs or intoxicating liquor. As a result, plaintiff had not established a Second Amendment right to possess firearms. 976 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (2013).
-
So is removing 1 of 2 names a "transfer of ownership"?
-
Get the book Kiddies
§134-7 Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty. (a) No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(b) No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
(f) No person who has been restrained pursuant to an order of any court, including an ex parte order as provided in this subsection, from contacting, threatening, or physically abusing any person, shall possess, control, or transfer ownership of any firearm or ammunition therefor, so long as the protective order, restraining order, (TRO) or any extension is in effect, unless the order, for good cause shown, specifically permits the possession of a firearm and ammunition. The restraining order or order of protection shall specifically include a statement that possession, control, or transfer of ownership of a firearm or ammunition by the person named in the order is prohibited.[/u] Such person shall relinquish possession and control of any firearm and ammunition owned by that person to the police department of the appropriate county for safekeeping for the duration of the order or extension thereof. In the case of an ex parte order, the affidavit or statement under oath that forms the basis for the order shall contain a statement of the facts that support a finding that the person to be restrained owns, intends to obtain or to transfer ownership of, or possesses a firearm, and that the firearm may be used to threaten, injure, or abuse any person. The ex parte order shall be effective upon service pursuant to section 586-6. At the time of service of a restraining order involving firearms and ammunition issued by any court, the police officer may take custody of any and all firearms and ammunition in plain sight, those discovered pursuant to a consensual search, and those firearms surrendered by the person restrained. If the person restrained is the registered owner of a firearm and knows the location of the firearm, but refuses to surrender the firearm or refuses to disclose the location of the firearm, the person restrained shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In any case, when a police officer is unable to locate the firearms and ammunition either registered under this chapter or known to the person granted protection by the court, the police officer shall apply to the court for a search warrant pursuant to chapter 803 for the limited purpose of seizing the firearm and ammunition.
Good cause consideration may include but not be limited to the protection and safety of the person to whom a restraining order is granted.
(g) Any person disqualified from ownership, possession, control, or the right to transfer ownership of firearms and ammunition under this section shall surrender or dispose of all firearms and ammunition in compliance with section 134-7.3.
(h) Any person violating subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony; provided that any felon violating subsection (b) shall be guilty of a class B felony. Any person violating subsection (c), (d), (e), (f), or (g) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Case Notes
Defendant police chief was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff firearm permit applicant's 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims for monetary damages for alleged violations of plaintiff's Second Amendment right to bear arms and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process right because a reasonable official in defendant's circumstances would not have understood that defendant's conduct violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the denial of plaintiff's permit; this section, on which the denial was based, had not been invalidated by case or legislative action. 869 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (2012).
Genuine issue of material fact existed regarding: (1) whether plaintiff had been under counseling for addiction to, abuse of, or dependence upon a drug or intoxicating liquor; and (2) whether plaintiff had been "medically documented to be no longer adversely affected" by drugs or intoxicating liquor. As a result, plaintiff had not established a Second Amendment right to possess firearms. 976 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (2013).
This still doesn't address joint registration. And in my Holiday Inn Express lawyering, wouldn't the seizure be unlawful as the police would now be seizing property legally belonging to another party NOT under the ex-parte order? It is NOT a transfer of ownership as the other registrant IS an owner. No different than a car title with both persons on the title. When you sell the car both must sign it or it's not valid
-
This still doesn't address joint registration. And in my Holiday Inn Express lawyering, wouldn't the seizure be unlawful as the police would now be seizing property legally belonging to another party NOT under the ex-parte order? It is NOT a transfer of ownership as the other registrant IS an owner. No different than a car title with both persons on the title. When you sell the car both must sign it or it's not valid
My post was primarily in response to post via EEF regarding TRO and Transfers though I think this would also apply to Red Flag.
I should have quoted him, apologies. :oops:
I've always wondered about seizure in a Joint Ownership as it would be violating the rights of another person.
Joint Ownership would not involve physical legal transfer of registration which is unauthorized as registration is already in hand of second party and relinquishing your "firearms or ammunition" as required does not include relinquishing your registration.
My guess is it would revolve around access to possession by now unauthorized person.
-
My guess is it would revolve around access to possession by now unauthorized person.
So I forgot the combo to the safe and there are locks on all ammo cans that only the wife has the key for. Or I'm moving out of the home right this instant and no longer living here. So I wouldn't have access.
-
My post was primarily in response to post via EEF regarding TRO and Transfers though I think this would also apply to Red Flag.
I should have quoted him, apologies. :oops:
SNIP
Why did ya do that for? Glutton for frustration? :rofl:
-
So is removing 1 of 2 names a "transfer of ownership"?
No. A transfer requires the NEW owner to apply for a permit. if 2 people have their names on the registration (after both successfully obtained permits), and you remove one, you're not changing ownership to a new owner.
Removing a name is easy. Adding that person back again requires the same gun control two-step they did the first time (permit, background check & waiting period).
I gave the Cops a fit when I transferred a handgun to my daughter. She then moved out of state. Later, she sent me the pistol back since she decided to buy something different.
It took 3 Cops asking the exact same questions before the lightbulb finally went on.
Since she wasn't required to unregister, they still showed her as the owner. But, she wanted to transfer the gun back to me and needed to use an FFL for an out-of-state transfer. The transfer to me was from OGC, NOT from my daughter.
Me -> her -> OGC -> me
All exactly as required, but HPD was confused that OGC was transferring a gun to me that they showed was owned by a resident (no FFL required in their minds).
It was as if they thought I was trying to pull a fast one, even though an FFL was in the loop. :crazy:
-
These discussions of "what if you get red flagged or a TRO and more than one owner exists?" is exactly why the laws are never written to address these specific cases.
The more specific they make the laws, the more loopholes people can find. The broader the wording, the more latitude the Cops have to enforce it and let the prosecutors sort it out. Giving the Cops too many "if-then-else" rules to memorize just confuses them and makes it more likely the arrest or confiscation won't happen until the Cops get clarification.
That's my read on it anyway.
-
HPD will still require permits and wait period. Their mandate is to require a background check for all transfers. They see returning your property to you as a transfer.
If having your name on the registration avoided having to apply for new permits, then every other person who had their gun taken and returned was forced to do it wrong.
If the gun was taken from you because you cannot have it then yes, they do require new checks and to get the guns back but if you weren't the target I don't think they require this. I was talking to a guy who got his whole safe stolen with some guns. Cops were able to recover the safe and some of the guns and gave the guns right back to the guy without a permit.
As I understand it (and I could be wrong) when someone has their gun seized they have to go through the background check again to ensure that the person hadn't been convicted of some disqualifying offense in the meantime.
But of course what they can do and what they actually do are not always in sync and unless someone sues them they might not win the argument. I guess this is just something we will have to ask the firearms guys next time we are there.
-
Didnt they say red flags will be carried out by ssd. So odds are the person will be home and sleeping.
Since 2 names are on title, there is no need to transfer ownership. Just need to remove 1 name. Hence the napkin that states ownership is given up. Can't confiscate what you dont own. Remember, hpd doesnt unregister firearms either.
"This is not my firearm or ammo. Its my wifes".
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It isn't uncommon for a TRO (and I assume a red flag order will be the same) to be served on an individual at places other than their homes.
-
My post was primarily in response to post via EEF regarding TRO and Transfers though I think this would also apply to Red Flag.
I should have quoted him, apologies. :oops:
I've always wondered about seizure in a Joint Ownership as it would be violating the rights of another person.
Joint Ownership would not involve physical legal transfer of registration which is unauthorized as registration is already in hand of second party and relinquishing your "firearms or ammunition" as required does not include relinquishing your registration.
My guess is it would revolve around access to possession by now unauthorized person.
As I read it, technically they can't stop the wife of a prohibited person from owning a firearm but of course this does raise obvious effectiveness issues. If the wife keeps the guns at home then the husband would likely still have easy access to them and it would all be basically meaningless. And on the other side of the coin, you can't take away the wife's rights because of the husband's actions. No easy answer there.
-
As I read it, technically they can't stop the wife of a prohibited person from owning a firearm but of course this does raise obvious effectiveness issues. If the wife keeps the guns at home then the husband would likely still have easy access to them and it would all be basically meaningless. And on the other side of the coin, you can't take away the wife's rights because of the husband's actions. No easy answer there.
Easy answer is to have due process.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Easy answer is to have due process.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
With all the due process in the world this would still be an issue. If your spouse is a convicted felon they cannot possess a firearm but that does not justify banning you from owning a firearm.