Q: Please comment on correct practice on the following situation. A customer called and said that his father was going to ship two guns to him as a gift. When the guns arrived we advised the customer that they were ready for transfer paperwork to be completed. At that time the customer indicated that one of the guns was intended for him and one for his wife. The couple then came into the shop to do paperwork and said that the wife was going to have to do paperwork for both firearms as the husband “had something to take care of in a different state” and was unable to secure a Permit to Purchase per MN Law. We said that we could not transfer the firearms at that time due to differing stories from start to finish. At this point we received a call from the father, who shipped the guns, who indicated that his son was not currently eligible to possess a firearm and that he would like both of the firearms released to his daughter-in-law. We did not complete the transfer citing what appears to be a straw purchase. The family is requesting information concerning the law or statute under which we are refusing to transfer the firearms. We have suggested two options at this point and would appreciate comment. First is to return the guns to the original owner’s FFL. Second is to maintain possession until such a time as the son rectifies his past problems allowing him to complete the paperwork for the firearms. We have indicated that we will complete the return shipping should we be requested to do so. Please comment on the law statue allowing us to refuse transfer of the firearms. Please comment on best practice going forward in this matter.
View the answer to this and thousands of other questions in our client-only Support Center.View Answer