father in law moving to NYC from FL

[Tallday 10]

I know he has no options to have any firearms he in the city but was wondering what anyone has done is a slimier situation. My father in law is 75 and moving back up to the New York area to spend more time with the kids and grand kids. Do I have any options to transfer his collection  to me? I think all he has is NJ compliant.. revolvers and 1911's and a shotgun so nothing NJ considers crazy.

 

Thanks for any help or pointing me in some sort of direction to get this figured out in the current state of upside down gun laws...

[SJG 253]

Yes, subject to you getting permits for the handguns, and waivers regarding the number of handguns-OGAM, the firearms can be transferred to you via a FFL. He would not be considered an immediate family member, so he can't directly transfer long guns to you so  you would need an ffl for that also.  Of course you need FID and DL.

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

I would differ with your interpretation of "immediate family members."

2C:58-3 says:

  n.   For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means a spouse, domestic partner as defined in section 3 of P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-3), partner in a civil union couple as defined in section 2 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-29), parent, stepparent, grandparent, sibling, stepsibling, child, stepchild, and grandchild, as related by blood or by law.

 

That would make the transaction between father-in-law and son-in-law not subject to a NICS check, and for long guns, you could claim the "immediate family exemption" on the current SP-634 (Cert. of Eligibility) for long guns IF (and only IF) both parties are NJ residents.

[GRIZ 3,369]

5 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

I would differ with your interpretation of "immediate family members."

2C:58-3 says:

  n.   For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means a spouse, domestic partner as defined in section 3 of P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-3), partner in a civil union couple as defined in section 2 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-29), parent, stepparent, grandparent, sibling, stepsibling, child, stepchild, and grandchild, as related by blood or by law.

 

That would make the transaction between father-in-law and son-in-law not subject to a NICS check, and for long guns, you could claim the "immediate family exemption" on the current SP-634 (Cert. of Eligibility) for long guns IF (and only IF) both parties are NJ residents.

It says "parent" not "in law".

The transfer of everything needs to done at a FFL unless the father in law establishes a residence in NJ prior to moving to NY.

[weekend_junkie 129]

19 hours ago, GRIZ said:

It says "parent" not "in law".

The transfer of everything needs to done at a FFL unless the father in law establishes a residence in NJ prior to moving to NY.

I’m following this since I may be in the same boat one day. The only thing I’d add at the moment to @GRIZ is that I believe you to be narrowly reading the definition in part. @njJoniGuy is reading the definition in part and in whole. I see the “by blood or by law” clause to be an additional clarification to all of the aforementioned categories of what constitutes an immediate family relation. 

[SJG 253]

23 hours ago, njJoniGuy said:

I would differ with your interpretation of "immediate family members."

2C:58-3 says:

  n.   For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means a spouse, domestic partner as defined in section 3 of P.L.2003, c.246 (C.26:8A-3), partner in a civil union couple as defined in section 2 of P.L.2006, c.103 (C.37:1-29), parent, stepparent, grandparent, sibling, stepsibling, child, stepchild, and grandchild, as related by blood or by law.

 

That would make the transaction between father-in-law and son-in-law not subject to a NICS check, and for long guns, you could claim the "immediate family exemption" on the current SP-634 (Cert. of Eligibility) for long guns IF (and only IF) both parties are NJ residents.

Disagree, this interpretation omits the modifiers to "as related by blood or by law" Also, in laws are not related by blood or by law, even though they are referred to as in laws. Those persons related by law are those potential takers under the laws of both adoption and/or intestate succession

[weekend_junkie 129]

6 minutes ago, SJG said:

Disagree, this interpretation omits the modifiers to "as related by blood or by law" Also, in laws are not related by blood or by law, even though they are referred to as in laws. Those persons related by law are those potential takers under the laws of both adoption and/or intestate succession

Interesting. I’ll have to read the meaning of intestate succession but I understood you to say that “or by law” is meant to cover those mentioned relationships if they have been established through adoption and not relation through marriage. Is that about right?

[GRIZ 3,369]

@weekend_junkie I'm not "narrowly" reading the law.  I'm reading the law as it's written.

"By law" doesn't mean in laws.  See @SJG's  post above.  If it meant in laws that would include brother in law, sister in law, etc.  But it doesn't include them.

[EX Carnival man 223]

On 3/30/2019 at 3:56 PM, Tallday said:

I know he has no options to have any firearms he in the city but was wondering what anyone has done is a slimier situation. My father in law is 75 and moving back up to the New York area to spend more time with the kids and grand kids. Do I have any options to transfer his collection  to me? I think all he has is NJ compliant.. revolvers and 1911's and a shotgun so nothing NJ considers crazy.

 

Thanks for any help or pointing me in some sort of direction to get this figured out in the current state of upside down gun laws...

What a blessing to be at that part of his life when he can take the time with grand children.  I would just go the FFL route when dealing with NJ. If it were me moving I would find out what the kids want in the collection and sell the rest in Florida before I moved.