Magazines for family members who happen to be minors

[quondom fremd]

Is there a way I can declare the ownership of magazines to a family member who is a minor? In a decade I want my niece to able to have 30 rounders, and legally possess them at a public range, assuming this law goes into effect.

[Rooskibar03]

Interested as well. Although I don't think we will know until the law is passed and finalized.

[blacklabel]

I'm trying to figure out to do the same for my 2 year old son.

[newracer]

There is no restriction for minors owning magazines.

Instead of figuring out ways around the legislation put your efforts into changing it.

[Roger Ronas]

No age limits on mag owners. Give the mags as gifts to them. Nice gift for a 2 year old to receive mags that may be illegal later on. Nothing LEO's can do about it...yet.

roger

[MED]

I am going to draft an inventory in my son's name and have it notarized.

I am also going to get moving on my trust so he is the co-owner/beneficiary.

[MAP]

Just write a letter gifting the magazines. Having it notarized is a good idea.

"I am also going to get moving on my trust so he is the co-owner/beneficiary."

I like the trust idea. I don't know if a minor can be a trustee.

Mike

[MED]

"I am also going to get moving on my trust so he is the co-owner/beneficiary."

I like the trust idea. I don't know if a minor can be a trustee.

Mike

There needs to be an executor of a minor child trust.

[mtnrider]

No age limits on mag owners. Give the mags as gifts to them. Nice gift for a 2 year old to receive mags that may be illegal later on. Nothing LEO's can do about it...yet.

roger


I understand nothing has been finalized yet so this is just all hall talk and what if's etc.
I'm no lawyer but even though it is not specifically illegal for a 2 year old to possess a magazine I am not sure a 2 year old (a minor) can have ownership of anything? If you trust, gift, or deed it to them they cannot take possesion until they are "adults" (what ever the legal definition of that is).

It's going to be a very sticky situation and I would not want to risk having my child thrown in jail. This subject definiatly requires a lawyer's attention. My guess is unless you are of an age where you can legally "own" anything at the time the laws goes into effect you will not be able to take possesion.

This is part of there plan in my opinion. They realize they cannot get them out of our hands but if the buck stops when I croak they just have to wait for our generation to pass then they will be completly band across the board.

.

[Mountain Man]

I already gave my child 10, 30 round AR-mags. Its perfectly legal for them to possess and own. It fits in the letter of the law very well. As soon as my child may legally possess an AR one will be gifted to them as well.

We must take care of our children and their future.

[Clint45]

Once the law takes effect, will the mags will be deemed non-transferrable?

[mtnrider]

Once the law takes effect, will the mags will be deemed non-transferrable?

I'm pretty sure the answer will be yes.

.

[Kraven251]

You would have to serialize them in some fashion (stickers would work), but then put them in a trust. You cease to own the magazines, the trust owns them. Anyone listed on the trust also owns them, no matter when they are added to the trust.

You just need to form the trust before July 1st, and list the magazines as owned by the trust.

Break them up into 5 mag sets and then you could "transfer" them to another person by adding them to the trust, and then promoting them to the primary on the trust all of which you can do without a lawyer, you only need a notary.

[MarkCO]

A juvenile can own many things, but they can not own guns. I know several people who made their children members of trust which own guns...good way to invalidate a trust as well other legal mis-steps should a trust member be charged with domestic violence or a felony.

Both of my boys own several magazines.

[jerrymrc]

I posted this somewhere else but I am going to have a picture with the grandkids and all the mags. I will then have it notarized. Let the law figure out what belongs to whom.

[Great-Kazoo]

NM

[keylay31]

The fact that we are having these conversations is ridiculous...

[Justin]

Agree. It's utterly idiotic I'm now in the position of having to transfer magazines to an infant.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.

[MarkCO]

Agree. It's utterly idiotic I'm now in the position of having to transfer magazines to an infant.

Trade your kid one hi-capacity diaper for a standard capacity magazine. [pileoshit]

[Circuits]

There is no federal law which sets a minimum ownership age for a rifle or shotgun. Minors must have a parent or guardian's permission.

Handguns are a different matter, and there can be state laws regarding rifles.

[U81I812]

I'm not as nice as you guys, charged my son 10 cents a piece for mags. He had to break into the old piggy bank.

Bill of sales shows the date, sale price and # of mags.

[Busta Prima]

Lets not overthink it. Whomever is holding the mags, owns the mags. All mags were purchased legally. Never consent to any searches.

Notarys don't care what a document says, they only verify that you are who you say you are as you sign the document. If the notary dated the letter (or their log) it would prove the date it was signed, but so would mailing it to yourself, or simply signing it and putting it away. Few if any will enforce this and unless a notarized document is mentioned in the law, it only hurts everyone else if some have it and some don't. Same for adding your own serial number to the mags.

[mtnrider]

Lets not overthink it. Whomever is holding the mags, owns the mags. All mags were purchased legally. .


I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

[car-15]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.
thats when said liberal lawyer needs to meet "fat tony" and get a Ted Williams across the back of the knee as he gets into his car on the way to court. ( this is hypothetical of course )

[newracer]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.
No the prosecution has to prove he didn't.

[mtnrider]

No the prosecution has to prove he didn't.

And I think that would be pretty easy with a jury full of anti gun liberals.

[Mountain Man]

Thats why my kid gets a notarized statement with the mags. I will keep copies as well in case theirs is lost as an adult.

[Wildboarem]

I would look at a Trust like an NFA Trust. To my knowledge I don't think a Trust can be invalidated because a Trustee gets in trouble. Do we have any lawyers to weigh in on this?

[Great-Kazoo]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

It would be a prosecutor NOT a Lawyer. IF you hired a liberal to defend you, you deserve what you get.

What i own that does or does not have a serial number on it is immaterial. It is what we [household] have, which BTW, unless you put your shit out on the street. NO ONE will ever know or be the wiser what is or is not in your possession.

ONCE AGAIN all this panic, hand wringng over what if, is bull shit. SHUT UP , MAN UP And screw the .liberals.

[ChadAmberg]

The proposed law bans transfer of possession, not ownership from what I understand. Two very different legal concepts. Like how a felon can own a gun, but cannot possess it.
So all these plans on trusts, notorized receipts, etc... are most likely completely useless. Maybe if you take pictures of your baby in his crib holding the pmags, that would show the baby possesses it, but then you would not be able to take it back.

Yes, that's why this law is so totally f'd up and useless. How do you control possession of a piece of plastic, unless the whole idea was either to just be a feel good measure for idiotic dems, or to make every gun owner a criminal.

[osok-308]

No the prosecution has to prove he didn't.

Just take a picture of him with the mags right next to his legos. And bring those to court! If I had a kid at the moment that's exactly what I would do.

[20X11]

Yep...Magpul makes the coolest legos (building blocks)