What to do?

[Transporter]

Here's one that I hope the much more knowledgeable can help with.

For starters, I live in MA and have a LTC class A no restrictions.

About a year and a half ago my friend /co-worker became engaged. The guy she wound up marrying had just gotten divorced. The guy had moved out of his house and moved in with my friend. In the process of getting all his stuff moved, he had a problem. He had a Ruger MK I, and a Browning Auto 5. My friend/co-worker is not big into guns, and as they were moving into my friends house, she didn't want the guns in her place. So I agreed to hold onto the Ruger and the Browning. After the wedding they were going to get a new place together, so at that point I'd give the ruger and Browning back. Well, it seems that the boyfriend turned husband had let his LTC lapse, and now isn't going to renew it. Further complicating things is that me and my friend/coworker had a falling out, and we don't speak anymore.

So I had originally agreed to store the Ruger and the Browning, but now I'm holding them full time. The question now is, what do I/can I do with the Ruger and Browning?

 

[Cross-X]

Find the gun owner, tell him you still have the guns, and meet him at an FFL's shop and have the FFL do a transfer of the guns, either to you if you want to buy them, or to his shop if the guy wants to sell or consign them to the FFL.

And, just so you know, the gun owner doesn't need a valid LTC in order to sell firearms to an FFL.

 

[Len-2A Training]

C-X's suggestion is the ONLY legal alternative, short of turning them into a PD for destruction (blasphemy, I know)!

 

[Transporter]

K, but legally, I could hold onto the guns indefinately, I just could never sell them. Correct?

The problem here is that my friend and her now husband and I are no longer on speaking terms. So I'm kinda stuck with them for now.

 

[Cross-X]

K, but legally, I could hold onto the guns indefinately, I just could never sell them. Correct?

Yes, you could do that, but, trust me, being an unpaid warehouse for someone else's guns gets real old once months drag on into years. I know this.

Try to locate the owner if you can, and make him get off the dime and move the guns out of your custody. If he wants to transfer them to a properly licensed MA resident, these transactions must also be accomplished via an FFL, assuming the present owner still lacks a valid LTC.

Darius Arbabi

 

[Jay G]

How can getting to shoot different guns ever get old?

Yes, you could do that, but, trust me, being an unpaid warehouse for someone else's guns gets real old once months drag on into years. I know this.

Try to locate the owner if you can, and make him get off the dime and move the guns out of your custody. If he wants to transfer them to a properly licensed MA resident, these transactions must also be accomplished via an FFL, assuming the present owner still lacks a valid LTC.

Darius Arbabi

 

[Cross-X]

How can getting to shoot different guns ever get old?

If that was a part of the original storage deal, you've got a point there, my man.

 

[FPrice]

I once ended up storing a shotgun under similar circumstances. And it took a long time to resolve the situation.

But I am curious about one thing. What alternatives would you have if the owner refused to communicate with you or take the guns back? Or do anything about it. Can you give them to an FFL or anyone other than the police if you did not want to be responsible for them? What legal options do you have if the owner won't take them back and you don't want them for whatever reason.

 

[dwarven1]

I still have a friend's Marlin 60... At some point, he's going to get his LTC... I hope.

 

[RKG]

K, but legally, I could hold onto the guns indefinately, I just could never sell them. Correct?

The problem here is that my friend and her now husband and I are no longer on speaking terms. So I'm kinda stuck with them for now.

This is true in theory but a bit dicey in practice.

Let us define a legal term: "bailee." A bailee is a person who, by arrangement with the owner, has possession of personal property but no legal interest in it whatsoever (except, in the case of a commercial bailee, a lien for storage charges). Because a bailee has no legal interest in the property, putting property into the possession of a bailee is not a transfer. However, all bailments assume that they are for some specific purpose and will at some time end.

If you hold onto the property indefinitely, and, worse, if you take the liberty of from time to time using it as if it were your own, someone could reasonably conclude that the prior owner (the "bailor") has made a de facto transfer of title to the property to you. If the property happens to be firearms, such a conclusion would be troublesome, since the legal formalities required of such transfers were not attended to. If such an allegation were made, you would have a difficult time defending against it, and the consequences of failing to defend against it could be troublesome.

I therefore recommend what Cross-X has suggested. And if, in response to FPrice's query, if you send the owner a request as Cross-X has described it and get no response, follow up with a letter, send certified mail to a good address:

Reciting your prior communication and the lack of a response;

Saying that if you do not here in a short defined period of time, you will treat the property as abandoned in your custody; and

State that, since you don't agree to being a gratuitous bailee any longer, you intend to surrender the abandonned property to the local police department for such disposition as the PD may make, including destruction.

 

[Scrivener]

I still have a friend's Marlin 60... At some point, he's going to get his LTC... I hope.

A Marlin requires a mere FID, which is SHALL issue. In short, he has no excuse for not getting a license and recovering his property.

 

[OnTheRoad]

I wonder if you can assess a "garageholders lien" on the property and take possession of it if the owner does not either assume custody or pay storage fees on and after a certain date?

 

[dwarven1]

A Marlin requires a mere FID, which is SHALL issue. In short, he has no excuse for not getting a license and recovering his property.

I know that, Keith... but he is talking about getting into shooting more than a .22 rifle, so I don't mind holding onto it if I get another shooting buddy out of the deal. Bob just... procrastinates a little.

 

[Scrivener]

I know that, Keith... but he is talking about getting into shooting more than a .22 rifle...

"Talking" being the operative term.

Perhaps if he started with the FID, which the cops have to give him unless he's statutorily barred, he'd be better positioned to get the LTC he's procrastinating over.

If he has no license, how is it he has (had) a gun?

 

[dwarven1]

"Talking" being the operative term.

Perhaps if he started with the FID, which the cops have to give him unless he's statutorily barred, he'd be better positioned to get the LTC he's procrastinating over.

If he has no license, how is it he has (had) a gun?

How else? He had one of those "lifetime" FIDs. When I asked him if he'd gotten it renewed and got a "no" answer, I suggested to him that I hold it for him until he does.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Although the law specifically grandfathers those with the old FIDs effective in 1998, I can almost guarantee that his chief will REQUIRE ("suitability") him to take a firearms course for a new FID or LTC!

Since he's a fence-sitter, this will put most "over the edge" to say "to hell with it" and he'll never do anything to reestablish his gun rights. I still know people who were hunters, own guns, let their lifetime FIDs expire, and refused to bother doing anything about it. Hopefully they got rid of the guns, but I doubt it.

 

[Scrivener]

How else? He had one of those "lifetime" FIDs. When I asked him if he'd gotten it renewed and got a "no" answer, I suggested to him that I hold it for him until he does.

Of course - one of those "gun owners" in only the strict, technical sense.

 

[dwarven1]

Being fair to Bob, Scrivener, the Army supplied all his firearm needs until they retired him a couple of years ago.

 

[Scrivener]

Being fair to Bob, Scrivener, the Army supplied all his firearm needs until they retired him a couple of years ago.

The army now issues Marlin 60's ?

 

[dwarven1]

.22LR, .223... what's the difference?

 

[drgrant]

Here's some more food for thought....

What happens if.... someone you know leaves you care of a rifle, then
many years pass and they fall off the face of the earth (so to speak) and you
can't find or get in touch with them? Can you "legally" take full ownership of
that rifle (lets assume for the sake of argument, that it is a piece of shit, and
that you want to consign it at the local FFL) or is it stuck in "borrowed" limbo forever?

-Mike

 

[RKG]

Here's some more food for thought....

What happens if.... someone you know leaves you care of a rifle, then
many years pass and they fall off the face of the earth (so to speak) and you
can't find or get in touch with them? Can you "legally" take full ownership of
that rifle (lets assume for the sake of argument, that it is a piece of shit, and
that you want to consign it at the local FFL) or is it stuck in "borrowed" limbo forever?

-Mike

What you have raised is the fascinating, if obscure, issue of whether the doctrine of adverse possession applies to chattels.

(A "chattel" is an item of property that is not real estate. The doctrine of "adverse possession" holds that one who holds possession of real property he does not own, adversely to the right of the owner, for an uninterrupted period of 20 years (the statute of limitations for the recovery of possession of realty), becomes the title owner of the land (subject to a whole bunch of other qualifications not relevant for the moment).)

Though I would hesitate to rely upon it without a good deal of research and consultation with other lawyers, the answer may well be "yes." See Chapin v. Freeland, 142 Mass. 383 (1886).

If this is so, then at some point title passes to you. However, if this question is more than hypothetical, don't rely on the foregoing without consulting your own counsel and disclosing to him all of the details.

 

[KMaurer]

...However, if this question is more than hypothetical, don't rely on the foregoing without consulting your own counsel and disclosing to him all of the details.

Teachable moment alert: There some extremely good advice here, regardless of the situation. When talking about hypothetical situations that may or may not apply, or applied in the some unspecified time in the past or might theoretically apply at some unknown future time, to you or someone you know, the fewer specifics disclosed in public (e.g., here), the better. OTOH, when talking about such a case with you attorney, way too many people try to present a version that they think presents their case in the best light, leaving out potentially messy details. Well, the reason that your spending money for an attorney is that the world runs on messy details. Some attorneys might take your description of the situation as accurate, resulting in a far from favorable outcome for you when those details come to light, which at a minimum would be mean you just flushed that money down the drain. A good attorney will take your description with more than a grain of salt, and spend a lot of time prying all the details from you (with the meter running all the time). That will usually mean better legal advice and a greater likelihood of a favorable outcome, but a higher price that it would have been had you disclosed all the details, whether or not you consider them relevant or whether or not they portray you in a flattering light, from the beginning.

Ken

 

[dwarven1]

A good attorney will take your description with more than a grain of salt, and spend a lot of time prying all the details from you (with the meter running all the time). That will usually mean better legal advice and a greater likelihood of a favorable outcome, but a higher price that it would have been had you disclosed all the details, whether or not you consider them relevant or whether or not they portray you in a flattering light, from the beginning.

This is EXCELLENT advice - remember that you're paying the attorney for his expertise. He won't be telling the world your messy little secrets, and he NEEDS to know them so that he can make things work out for you the best way.

He's a hired gun, but he's YOUR hired gun.