Lost possible stolen and laws

[Koda]

If your name is on the BGC, report the gun stolen and walk away from everything and just wait it out.

 

[RVTECH]

report the gun stolen and walk away from everything and just wait it out.

Ditto this - best advice.

Regardless of all the 'he said she said' being stolen is probably the technical legal reality of it.

 

[Mark W.]

Am I missing something here? If the brother could not pass a BGC the rifle can not be his as the only way for the brother to own it at the time of purchase is through a 4473. OR if you are in Oregon as a gift from you. If you say you did not give the rifle to your brother then you did give a person known to you as not able to purchase a rifle a rifle.

 

[RVTECH]

If you say you did not give the rifle to your brother then you did give a person known to you as not able to purchase a rifle

AND correct me if I am wrong but if he knew his brother couldn't pass a BGC then he couldn't even let him have it for the trigger replacement right?

 

[Nosferatu]

Figure at least $1000 to have a lawyer figure this out for you. Is the rifle worth at least double that?

If not, report it stolen & walk away. This reduces your liability from that date forward.

 

[Koda]

Keep in mind OSP doesn't give a reason for a denial. Its not a good sign, but it doesn't mean its a "legit" denial either.

Im more concerned why the FFL allowed the gun to transfer to a person that didnt order and "actually" pay for it. It could be because they are brothers but I don't see how that exception applies to the initial purchase. IIRC there is a case law of a father son convicted of straw purchasing this way.

 

[bpyycpyy]

My opinion (for what it's worth) would be to simply forget about it as the weapon in question isn't likely worth what it would could possibly cost you in attorney's fees and/or law enforcement trouble. I would even suggest offering to pay for your nieces transfer of the weapon to the friend to make sure it's out of your name as person of ownership. If she were to refuse that offer, I'd worry about the "friend" as possibly being someone who can't legally possess a firearm. In that case, I might lean towards seeing if you could transfer it to the niece or as a last resort report it stolen. I'm not familiar with how the family gifting thing goes but that might be an option too, gift it to your niece (but get signed paperwork from her) so you have proof that she accepted it as a gift (ignore this suggestion if gifting to her isn't a legal option to clear your name as owner of said weapon).

 

[Skully]

Am I missing something here? If the brother could not pass a BGC the rifle can not be his as the only way for the brother to own it at the time of purchase is through a 4473. OR if you are in Oregon as a gift from you. If you say you did not give the rifle to your brother then you did give a person known to you as not able to purchase a rifle a rifle.

Oregon screws people hard on expungments of records so if he had other guns (I assume at least a few he passed a 4473) even if he can't pass a background it is (probably) legal as OSP blames feds, feds blame osp, but if he didn't somewhat do that process and had something that legitimate prohibits him yes that's in bad territory. Hypothetically I have meet people with expunged records who own guns but couldn't get it off OSP crap and they haven't had any issues in traffic stops. That said, this whole situation is not worth the trouble. If they do a 4473 on it when she sells it then it's legit out of your hair anyways. If you want to report it stolen do that but honestly cut your loses unless it's a irreplaceable gun worth potential legal issues.

 

[Koda]

I just remembered that Oregon law now requires the owner to report stolen guns.
If the OP is on the last BGC record, and the person sells the gun to someone without a BGC, who uses it in a crime thats not a good thing for the OP if he never reported it stolen.

(and people still dont believe there is a gun registry...)

 

[DirectDrive]

Am I missing something here? If the brother could not pass a BGC the rifle can not be his as the only way for the brother to own it at the time of purchase is through a 4473. OR if you are in Oregon as a gift from you. If you say you did not give the rifle to your brother then you did give a person known to you as not able to purchase a rifle a rifle.

It's not known why the BGC for the brother failed.
But we do know that this whole thing is a very tangled web.

 

[Yarome]

There are enough gray areas that I don't know if involving LE in any way, even filing a stolen report, is such a great idea. It would spur them into asking questions and you have no idea how they might choose to interpret the answers.

Another route that might be considered is just having an attorney send a letter, along with a copy of the 4473 showing proof of ownership, and giving the niece a couple options. Either return the rifle or pay the fair market value for it. Along with the potential threat of a civil lawsuit if she fails to comply. Sometimes an official letter from an attorney can spur a person into doing the right thing.

That doesn't mean you "have" to sue her if she doesn't comply. It might not make financial sense to actually do it, but she doesn't have to know that and the threat itself may be sufficient.

If nothing is done and she does end up doing something dumb with it, you can always cross that bridge later and state that it was gifted to the brother and hasn't not been under your control since (X date). They can't hook you into whatever she did with it without proof, simply because you were the original owner. Tons of firearms have had multiple owners and each is not responsible for the others actions.

 

[DirectDrive]

Keep in mind OSP doesn't give a reason for a denial. Its not a good sign, but it doesn't mean its a "legit" denial either.

Im more concerned why the FFL allowed the gun to transfer to a person that didnt order and "actually" pay for it. It could be because they are brothers but I don't see how that exception applies to the initial purchase. IIRC there is a case law of a father son convicted of straw purchasing this way.

Good point.
A "by the book" FFL would have sent the rifle back to the seller on the buyer's dime.
The web entangles yet another player.

 

[DirectDrive]

There are enough gray areas that I don't know if involving LE in any way, even filing a stolen report, is such a great idea. It would spur them into asking questions and you have no idea how they might choose to interpret the answers.

Yep, there's a number of things going on.

1) The botched purchase scenario
2) The FFL possibly making a mistake
3) The niece and her accomplice taking the deceased's firearms without legal transfers and across state lines

There's enough here for a CBS 48 Hours episode

 

[Koda]

Good point.
A "by the book" FFL would have sent the rifle back to the seller on the buyer's dime.
The web entangles yet another player.

There is something questionable about how the FFL let this rifle out the door, the whole story sounds like a straw purchase.
While there are many well respected FFLs people here use that do know the laws, that doesn't mean that all FFLs know the law.

This whole story is a mess and it all started with the FFL allowing the gun to go out the door to a different person than the one that ordered it.

 

[Yarome]

If the OP is on the last BGC record, and the person sells the gun to someone without a BGC, who uses it in a crime thats not a good thing for the OP if he never reported it stolen.

That may not always be true. LE still has to have proof the original owner was somehow connected to the crime. It's commonplace for firearms to have had multiple owners and 4473's aren't always required. Gifting to family for one, but from the sounds of it, the neice took it out of state. Whatever state she's in may not require private party FFL transfers(?)

They can't simply go back to whoever the first owner of record is and lock em up.

As far as gifting it, the original owner only has to believe that the person they are transferring it to is not a prohibited person. The law is that you cannot "knowingly" transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. Not... even if you didn't know it, they were a prohibited person and ignorance is no excuse.

Maybe the brother was prohibited, but for all we know... "his BGC didn't go through" might only mean that it was delayed and they decided to run it through under the OP's name because it became clear he was the one that would be the actual owner and his BGC went through right away(?) Maybe more info was requested and wasn't an actual denial(?)

 

[bpyycpyy]

Whatever state she's in may not require private party FFL transfers(?)

I may be incorrect here (and if so will likely be corrected) but believe any state-to-state resident transfer of firearms has to go through an FFL (federal law). Now if this law is adhered to is another matter...

 

[Koda]

LE still has to have proof the original owner was somehow connected to the crime.

When a gun turns up in a crime scene and the SN is traced back to the last person who lawfully purchased it, they are now connected to the crime.

 

[fredball]

If the 4473 is in your name for the Back Ground Check and you passed the BGC then the gun is legally yours what I would do if they are unwilling to do the right thing is report the gun stolen to the police and if he ever sells it legally you'll get a call from the poooolice

 

[Yarome]

I may be incorrect here (and if so will likely be corrected) but believe any state-to-state resident transfer of firearms has to go through an FFL (federal law). Now if this law is adhered to is another matter...

The OP didn't say, but is the niece an OR resident? She may have just been transporting it to her home state(?) She was an OR resident, but moved... and all it takes is for her to swap out her OR driver's license for the new home state's to legally transfer a firearm within that state.

You're right though. If she was a resident of another state at the time she took possession then the rifle should have been sent to an FFL in her home state. That's all on her though, not on the OP. From what I've read so far I'm assuming the OP and his brother were both OR residents... and any transfer that might have taken place would have been between them, not the niece.

From her fathers estate to her... that's completely separate from the OP and he bears no liability for that.

 

[Yarome]

When a gun turns up in a crime scene and the SN is traced back to the last person who lawfully purchased it, they are not connected to the crime.

Exactly what I was saying. It's just step one when attempting to trace the firearm to a possible suspect but doesn't implicate the last owner of record without proof.

It may have been lawfully transferred to another without requiring a 4473.