Hello all,

I live in BC Canada and am a Canadian/American dual citizen. I often visit my mother in WA and was wondering the legalities of me taking her Glock 19 to the range or to the woods for target practice?

As a dual citizen I have a US passport, and my ID and drivers license are canadian, would I need her in attendance or is it totally legal for me to go alone? This has never been clear to me.

Cheers guys!

First post!!

Since you are a U.S. citizen, I don't see any issues from that standpoint. The problem that you'll have is with Washington state's law, compliments of the idiotic Initiative 594 two years ago, that regulates "transfers" of firearms. The law is a bit vague, but I think most would agree that it makes it illegal for her to let you borrow the gun for a solo range trip.

The law is less hazy if she goes with you. On the bright side at least you don't have to secure a permit from the federal police to transport a pistol from your house to any given destination ahead of time like some places *cough* Canada *cough*; because we all know that would stop someone who was already set on breaking laws right in their tracks.

There is an exemption for gifts between members of immediate family:

"(4) This section does not apply to:

A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;"

So, she can gift it to you, and you can gift it to her, no background check required.

Yeah . . . with a wink and a nod, and hope you never need to defend it.

Come on, ANZAC. Don't play both sides here.

I've been shooting for almost 40 years, never had anyone ask me for a guns serial number or where I got it from.
If the cops are trying to find out where you got a particular gun from, you have much bigger problems than a 594 charge.

She could give it to him, and store it in a safe there for his use.

The text says transfers include gifts and loans, and so the exception to the rule requiring a background check for transfers including gift and loans includes immediate family members. With this exception that is in the law, I think you would be hard pressed to find a cop that would interpret it as being illegal for a mother to give her son a gun to go and use.

Cite please . . . where does it say that loans to family members are allowed? Educate me.

Yeah, I'd like a citation for the legality of loaning too.

I don't think the "gift" thing would fly if someone wanted to be a prick about it.

bona fide adj
[Latin, in good faith]
1 a : characterized by good faith and lack of fraud or deceit [a bona fide offer]
b : valid under or in compliance with the law [retirement incentives made part of a bona fide employee benefit plan]
2 : made with or characterized by sincerity [a bona fide belief]
3 : being real or genuine [bona fide residents]

gift n
1 : an intentional and gratuitous transfer of real or personal property by a donor with legal capacity who actually or constructively delivers the property to the donee with the intent of giving up dominion over the property and investing it in the donee who accepts it

Source:
http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/bona-fide.html
http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/gift.html

I believe if it is within the family it is ok to transfer and won't need a bg check. I'd take it out anyway. Just keep it locked and unloaded in the trunk during the car ride to the range.

It says that transfers, which are defined to include gifts and loans, do not require a background check for transfers to family members.

Nowhere is a gift defined as not a loan.

"(25) "Transfer" means the intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans."

So, as long as it is without consideration of payment, transfers include gifts and loans.

"A transfer (INCLUDING GIFTS AND LOANS - from the definition) between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;"

If they meant ONLY gifts and not all transfers, they would have said the exception was "A GIFT between immediate family members".

(by bona-fide gift, they mean no money changing hands)

Your reading of the law in question is broad.




A simpler way of saying the above is:
This section does not apply to a transfer between immediate family members... that is a bona fide gift. As soon as they put down the words "that is a bona fide gift" they modified the definition of "transfer" as it applies to this particular subsection of the law.

In other words bona fide gifts between family members are excepted but loans are only excepted for an express purpose which doesn't include a trip to the range.

*Edited to correct formatting errors.

In addition since it has not been cited clearly yet on this thread (including by me so don't get your panties in a wad anyone) below is the link to the actual final text of I-594 direct from the WA Secretary of State website:


https://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_483.pdf

594...... Clear as muddy water, just the way they wanted it.