There should be a law school extension course for non-attorneys on the subject of "how to talk (and not talk) with your attorney". Being an ethical attorney, Darius has to provide you with proper advice assuming that the facts you've presented to him are true. Some of those facts are things that would be difficult or impossible to prove in a court. For example, you stated that the guns were never transferred to your father, so Darius as advised you based on that statement of fact. Given that the state's database of gun transfers is essentially non-existent prior to the implementation of the current FA10 system, it would be difficult or impossible to prove that such a transfer had not taken place at some time in the past, and, if such a transfer had taken place prior to the current system, it likely could only be proven by producing a bill of sale or copies of the original blue cards one might have kept.
Had you omitted this sort of fact that neither you or the state could likely prove either way, Darius would likely advised you "if the guns were transferred, then ..., otherwise ...". However, since you have told him that the guns weren't transferred, he can only advise you based on that assumption, since otherwise his advice might be construed as suggesting that you, ah, I believe the current term among such notable attorneys as the two Democrat candidates for the presidency is "misspeak". A totally unethical attorney might have said something along the lines of "since there's no way they could ever prove that the guns weren't transferred to your father, just forget what you posted and pretend that they were, in which case ...". Of course a smart but unethical attorney would never give such advice in an an open forum such as this, and, since you've already posted openly that the guns weren't transferred, you'd be a fool to attempt to pretend otherwise.
My advice (and IANAL) would be to only provide the bare minimum information to an attorney initially, thus allowing him to ask for whatever additional information he needs in order to advise you, and ethically remain ignorant of other information that might get in the way of such advice if he were to know it.
Ken (who has obviously known one too many "connected" people in his lifetime)