Then he is GTG, No worries, Not against the law for an individual 18 or over in GA to own/sell/trade a firearm ( Rifle, Shotgun, pistol) to another individual.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Breaking the law
- Thread starter aragorn1
- Start date
Then he is GTG, No worries, Not against the law for an individual 18 or over in GA to own/sell/trade a firearm ( Rifle, Shotgun, pistol) to another individual.
I was going to say this. Under 21 could mean any age. 18 to 20, he is good to own a pistol and to sell it, assuming he isn't elsewhere prohibited. Now if he was 17, things would be different.
code section 16-11-101.1 is about furnishing a handgun to a minor. Nothing in there about buying one from him.
Code section 16-11-132 is about the crime (or delinquent act) a person under 18 would be committing by acquiring possession of a handgun, without the circumstances of any of the several exceptions in the law.
Neither of these seem to apply to an adult buying a handgun from a minor.
Federal law, 18 U.S. Code, section 922 X, is where the handgun ban for minors is found. It only covers transfers TO the kid, not a sale that ends his possession of the handgun.
Code section 16-11-132 is about the crime (or delinquent act) a person under 18 would be committing by acquiring possession of a handgun, without the circumstances of any of the several exceptions in the law.
Neither of these seem to apply to an adult buying a handgun from a minor.
Federal law, 18 U.S. Code, section 922 X, is where the handgun ban for minors is found. It only covers transfers TO the kid, not a sale that ends his possession of the handgun.
I have been involved with several people who became "legally disqualified" from owning a firearm. As a footnote, that disqualification applies to anything gun related. One such "disqualification" was an LEO and well known firearms instructor.
In each case, they were allowed to dispose of the prohibited items in an orderly fashion usually through a sale. The physical transfer of the property had to be handled through a 3rd party, as the "disqualification" applied to physically possessing a firearm.
I can assure you that there was no prejudice to the purchaser, as in the aforementioned case of the LEO, the transfer was made to his attorney under the (theoretical) watchful eye of the BATF in partial satisfaction of his attorney fees.
I have some swag from another "disqualifed" person- no guns. I learned from his experience that the disqualification applied to gun related material. NOTE: before you go all ballistic, this is a limited disqualification applied to certain people in certain situations, and not a universal rule of law.
I think the real issue is if a person is "legally disqualifed" from owning a gun, how did they come into possession of it and when. If they came into possession of it legally, at a time when they could legally own it, then I don't think there is any legal issue with buying a gun, even if they were foolish enough to handle the transaction themselves.
Also remember that some of the conditions for purchasing a gun are transitory, the most common one that comes to mind are domestic relation orders (TPO).
Here's the gotcha in my opinion:
In Georgia (at least in most counties) you cannot get a divorce unless the original complaint contains a Mutual Restraining Order. Mutual Restraining Orders are NOT TPOs (TEMPORARY Restraining Orders.) Put bluntly, divorced people cannot legally own a weapon due to the Lautenberg Amendment.
Like the income tax, its usage will not come into play until some horrific and inexcusable act happens... then we will have a nation of criminals with no public sympathy. Bear in mind the feds hadn't used income tax evasion charge for a 20 or more years until Al Capone needed to be apprehended.
(1) I believe you have been misadvised on the "mutual restraining order." It is not a temporary domestic violence order or a family violence protective order. It serves to maintain the status quo as regards the marital assets and the children.
Technically, the complaint does not contain a mutual restraining order, it is imposed on ALL parties by the local rules of court.
(2) A restraining order in a civil case does not survive the final judgment, unless it has been converted into a permanent injunction, which in simple terms, requires a trial within a trial.
Therefore in the average divorce case, the parties emerge with no restraints from the court on their general behavior other than that they remain "peaceable toward each other at all times" or some such pablum.
The Lautenberg Amendment specifically DOES NOT apply to a TPO or a "mutual restraining order " as such is implemented in Georgia.
There certainly is no prohibition under Georgia or federal law on divorced persons owning firearms purely as a result of the divorce.
You could just confiscate it. " And don't let me catch you with another one..."
dont ask dont tell
its really not the govs ****ing business anyway
its really not the govs ****ing business anyway
You are correct.
I'm not advising anything. I'm stating facts. Under Georgia law the court will not entertain a complaint for divorce unless a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER is attached. Civil, criminal, makes little difference. It's not in the actual law. Here is the pertinent section:
"...is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury... "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
I see NOTHING in that federal statute that states a Mutual Restraining Order is temporary. So, I might be 100 percent wrong, but with so many liberals interpreting the laws in federal courts, I assume the worst.
