Do you think private gun sales should go through a FFL?

[340six]

One of the many reasons I'm glad to no longer be in California: whenever I wanted to buy private party, I had to meet the seller at the FFL, pay $47.19 to the state, do my background check, show a firearm safety certificate, then the FFL held the firearm for a 10-day waiting period, then I could go back and get it. Doesn't matter if it's a single shot, rimfire, it's your 200th gun, whatever-- 10 day waiting period, no exceptions, unless you're a cop.

Damm so the cops get guns on demand asap, dark tinted windows and free doughnuts.
You would think the line too be one would be wrapped around the building to join up.

 

[jcm629]

Damm so the cops get guns on demand asap, dark tinted windows and free doughnuts.

And standard capacity magazines, and handguns that aren't on the approved roster...for me but not for thee

 

[Mitch Dufour]

..... I believe many people have become somewhat brainwashed by all the suggestion going on nowadays...

I have no doubt that is one reason we have lost so much ground over the years. No one wants to rock the boat on "common sense" suggestions. Look how quickly so many jumped onto the red flag bandwagon. How many cheered when our fearless leader declared : "Take the guns first, go through due process second." ?

 

[thperez1972]

I mean, the point is valid, and legal. There is good reason that private sales require no legal documentation.

It doesn't have to be mandated by law to be a good idea. Is it a good idea to go to the range to make yourself a better shooter and, therefore, put yourself in a position to better protect yourself? It's not a legal requirement so it must be a bad idea, right?

 

[hotbiggun]

Had this same online conversation in Washington with the local gun forum. Went about like this one. Then it happened, they got it on the ballot. Private gun sales ended in Washington that year passed by a huge majority. Gun owners are our worst enemies at times.
After that they passed gun safety courses. Of course everyone thought it makes sense that you should be trained. Now semi autos are banned. Makes sense.

I made this thread and so far i am a Democrat, ATF agent and a liberal writer. Power of the press.

 

[thperez1972]

Had this same online conversation in Washington with the local gun forum. Went about like this one. Then it happened, they got it on the ballot. Private gun sales ended in Washington that year passed by a huge majority. Gun owners are our worst enemies at times.
After that they passed gun safety courses. Of course everyone thought it makes sense that you should be trained. Now semi autos are banned. Makes sense.

I made this thread and so far i am a Democrat, ATF agent and a liberal writer. Power of the press.

Welcome back. Would you like to clear up a few loose ends?

Me: It seems as a seller, you do not want to ask for any documentation. How are you able to verify the buyer is of age and a citizen of the state without any documentation?
You: If the buyer looks too young i would ask to see their ID otherwise its on them to follow the law. Im not a LEO.
Me: You failed to address verifying the state of residence.
You: <insert missing reply here>

Me: Let's look at this from another angle. What harm, either legally or civilly, can come from the buyer and seller having a bill of sale?
You: <insert missing answer here>

To address the concern you have in the quoted post. If bad laws are being passed because you are having this conversation in gun forums, stop starting the conversations in gun forums. And I do not recall anyone here suggesting that any new laws be passed to mandate a bos. From what I remember, people have only explained why it's a good idea and how it can help. But if I'm wrong and someone suggested it should be a law, please point out that post so I can recognize my error.

 

[RT8]

No

 

[La26]

Damm so the cops get guns on demand asap, dark tinted windows and free doughnuts.

Hey, that's what got me to sign up. 51 years later I'm still wearing a badge. It's not for everyone, but I'll be here a while longer (hopefully).

 

[Magdump]

It doesn't have to be mandated by law to be a good idea. Is it a good idea to go to the range to make yourself a better shooter and, therefore, put yourself in a position to better protect yourself? It's not a legal requirement so it must be a bad idea, right?

Except that the simple act of going to a range doesn’t require going through a government entity (in the FFL version) or signing a statement that provides a record of the sale of a firearm (BOS version), thereby creating a paper trail. Prolly not a good comparison.

As far as ensuring someone is not committing a crime by purchasing a gun from me, I’m not legally obligated to actually do very much at all in the way of ensuring that except to take their word for it. The law says I’m not supposed to “knowingly” sell to a person under age, out of state, or unable to legally purchase, as well as someone attempting a straw purchase. In that case, the burden of proof would be on the state. I believe using a little common sense can make a lot of difference here. I only sell a firearm to a person with a good record of transactions here on BS or someone already known to me. I may ask questions about residency or other subjects if I have any doubts. I may also walk away from a sale or call and explain that I’ve changed my mind if I have any doubts.
I have refused to buy a firearm from a member here who wanted to go through a FFL. He offered to pay the fee and explained the why. I told him I completely understood and simply did not agree, no hard feelings and wished him well.
Again, I don’t at all mind signing a bill of sale, but only a simple one with the gun info and my name and DL number and only if provided by the other party.

 

[Steve-0]

Odds of selling to a mass killer is half a billiin to one or something like that. I know whatching the news you would think its more common. Has anyone ever been succesfully prosecuted for selling a gun to a mass murderer?

There is a guy serving time right now for selling armor piercing (illegal) rounds to the mass shooter in las vegas at a gun show, found him by his fingerprints on some unused ammo in the room after the shooter blew his brains out.

 

[GunRelated]

It doesn't have to be mandated by law to be a good idea. Is it a good idea to go to the range to make yourself a better shooter and, therefore, put yourself in a position to better protect yourself? It's not a legal requirement so it must be a bad idea, right?

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a bad idea. However, as the op stated earlier, I also feel like the more it is used and accepted as a good idea as a requirement of sale, the closer we are to it being an actual, legal, requirement of sale.

These days, if you sell something on the Internet, there are digital receipts, multiple of them most times, without the need for the exchange of personal information, that I am 99% certain would provide the same legal relief. This may or may not give direct leads to identify the buyer or seller but it will certainly give evidence that a transaction or transfer likely happened.

 

[Bigchillin83]

after the shooter blew his brains out

Right thats what happened he killed himself lol.... and Epstein hung his self in a maximum security prison under solitary confinement with 24/7 cell video surveillance, that lost some of its footage

 

[GunRelated]

There is a guy serving time right now for selling armor piercing (illegal) rounds to the mass shooter in las vegas at a gun show, found him by his fingerprints on some unused ammo in the room after the shooter blew his brains out.

Next time you want to further the cause of gun laws or possible future gun laws, it'd behoove you to not use an instance that is highly suspect of government involvement. Otherwise, it just makes you look like you're on their team.

 

[thperez1972]

Except that the simple act of going to a range doesn’t require going through a government entity (in the FFL version) or signing a statement that provides a record of the sale of a firearm (BOS version), thereby creating a paper trail. Prolly not a good comparison.

It's a fine comparison. They are both good ideas that do not need to become legally mandated. The comparison was to explain the flaw in the post I replied to that suggested if it's not in the law then it's not a good idea. The fact that one uses a weapon and ammo and the other uses a pen and paper does not render the comparison invalid.

As far as ensuring someone is not committing a crime by purchasing a gun from me, I’m not legally obligated to actually do very much at all in the way of ensuring that except to take their word for it. The law says I’m not supposed to “knowingly” sell to a person under age, out of state, or unable to legally purchase, as well as someone attempting a straw purchase. In that case, the burden of proof would be on the state. I believe using a little common sense can make a lot of difference here. I only sell a firearm to a person with a good record of transactions here on BS or someone already known to me. I may ask questions about residency or other subjects if I have any doubts. I may also walk away from a sale or call and explain that I’ve changed my mind if I have any doubts.
I have refused to buy a firearm from a member here who wanted to go through a FFL. He offered to pay the fee and explained the why. I told him I completely understood and simply did not agree, no hard feelings and wished him well.

And that was my point to the people who say they do not ask for any documentation. A dl/id will tell you the first two things. If you require a bos, I would bet you are likely to deter most people who are unable to legally purchase. Unless the buyer utters something like "this is just what my buddy wanted," the 4th one would be tough.

Again, I don’t at all mind signing a bill of sale, but only a simple one with the gun info and my name and DL number and only if provided by the other party.

That's fine. I personally don't think there needs to be anything more than that.

 

[thperez1972]

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's a bad idea. However, as the op stated earlier, I also feel like the more it is used and accepted as a good idea as a requirement of sale, the closer we are to it being an actual, legal, requirement of sale.

I understand your perspective with this but I do not agree. The purpose of regulating private transfers is to create a record the government has access to. Requiring you to have a bos does not allow the government access to the information so the requirement would add little to nothing of value to the government.

These days, if you sell something on the Internet, there are digital receipts, multiple of them most times, without the need for the exchange of personal information, that I am 99% certain would provide the same legal relief. This may or may not give direct leads to identify the buyer or seller but it will certainly give evidence that a transaction or transfer likely happened.

"Likely happened" is the key phrase. You could come to me and say "I see you were talking to John about buying his rifle." A simple "yes but I changed my mind" would call the suspected transaction into question. I am 99% certain that the digital receipts regarding the supposed transaction will not bring you the same legal relief as having a bill of sale with a name, dl/id number, and signature of the buyer.

Let's say I am running a trace on a weapon found at a crime scene and it comes back to you as the buyer. I knock on your door and explain why I am there. Ignoring any "go away and come back with a warrant" or "direct any questions to my attorney," which course of action do you think will provide the most legal relief?

A. I sold that weapon about 6 months ago. I'll make you a copy of the bos with the buyer's name, dl/id number, and signature on it.

B. I sold that weapon about 6 months ago. The buyer was a guy name Dagmump on a local message board. We only communicated through the site but here are copies of the conversation. With no real information of the buyer, I would file a subpoena duces tecum to the website asking for information on the guy. If the site can provide enough info to identify the person, great. If not, I need to file a subpoena duces tecum to the entity through whom he got his email address. Hopefully the guy didn't make up information with them and they are able to provide something useful. Even a phone number for the person requires sending a subpoena duces tecum to their wireless company's legal department. And while I'm trying to track down this supposed buyer, I'm not ignoring the fact the trail, so far, has stopped with you. With nowhere else to look yet, I may ask a judge for a search warrant. Even if I am able to track this other guy down, there's no proof any transaction actually took place. I may still have enough for a search warrant. You sold the weapon so I likely wouldn't find anything relative to the crime being investigated.

Again, the likelihood of either one happening is pretty slim. But if it did, which course of action would be preferred? And I'll ask again, what problems, either legal or civil, can come from having the bos? If there's no negatives and only a positive in a select set of circumstances, the net effect is positive. I still don't understand why someone wouldn't want a bos to protect themselves.

 

[GunRelated]

I understand your perspective with this but I do not agree. The purpose of regulating private transfers is to create a record the government has access to. Requiring you to have a bos does not allow the government access to the information so the requirement would add little to nothing of value to the government.



"Likely happened" is the key phrase. You could come to me and say "I see you were talking to John about buying his rifle." A simple "yes but I changed my mind" would call the suspected transaction into question. I am 99% certain that the digital receipts regarding the supposed transaction will not bring you the same legal relief as having a bill of sale with a name, dl/id number, and signature of the buyer.

Let's say I am running a trace on a weapon found at a crime scene and it comes back to you as the buyer. I knock on your door and explain why I am there. Ignoring any "go away and come back with a warrant" or "direct any questions to my attorney," which course of action do you think will provide the most legal relief?

A. I sold that weapon about 6 months ago. I'll make you a copy of the bos with the buyer's name, dl/id number, and signature on it.

B. I sold that weapon about 6 months ago. The buyer was a guy name Dagmump on a local message board. We only communicated through the site but here are copies of the conversation. With no real information of the buyer, I would file a subpoena duces tecum to the website asking for information on the guy. If the site can provide enough info to identify the person, great. If not, I need to file a subpoena duces tecum to the entity through whom he got his email address. Hopefully the guy didn't make up information with them and they are able to provide something useful. Even a phone number for the person requires sending a subpoena duces tecum to their wireless company's legal department. And while I'm trying to track down this supposed buyer, I'm not ignoring the fact the trail, so far, has stopped with you. With nowhere else to look yet, I may ask a judge for a search warrant. Even if I am able to track this other guy down, there's no proof any transaction actually took place. I may still have enough for a search warrant. You sold the weapon so I likely wouldn't find anything relative to the crime being investigated.

Again, the likelihood of either one happening is pretty slim. But if it did, which course of action would be preferred? And I'll ask again, what problems, either legal or civil, can come from having the bos? If there's no negatives and only a positive in a select set of circumstances, the net effect is positive. I still don't understand why someone wouldn't want a bos to protect themselves.

Can't really say I disagree, but, requiring records for a firearm transaction makes me feel like I'm working for the man. I have done bill of sale in the distant past; these days I like to live, legally, more like a rebel.
Next time I'm going to mix it up. I'm going to require a bill of sale, then I'm going to rip it up in front of the buyer/seller just to see their reaction. Frustration = tyrannical fanboy, smiles = a friend you can trust.

On a more serious note, as has been said before, just don't deal with shady people and you will be just fine, bill of sale or no bill of sale.

 

[machinedrummer]

All this BOS etc makes me think of the old days....my family had a few camps and just about everything that wasn't tied down or permanent had my dads SS number on it. That's sorta how I look at a bill of sale. Just in case the person I sell to does something stupid I can point out the fact I'm no longer in possession. Shouldn't be required. Just for CYA purposes

 

[Kraut]

Other LEOs on the page/thread, and licensed dealers as well, will know what an ATF trace form is, it's filled out when you submit a firearm into evidence, and the ATF later returns a list of all known transactions involving that firearm to include initial retail purchaser's info. Never had one returned saying "Billy Bob Joe Jack sold said firearm to Junior Dewayne, Sr. on BOS." Did have one return with a "Time to Crime" notation of 4 days from purchase to seizure, but not in possession of listed purchaser, most assuredly a straw purchase, not specifically relevant to this thread, but just shows criminals get guns no matter what because they are, and they know other, criminals.

I've bought/sold both ways, to/from people I knew, and complete strangers. Only sold two guns in 31 years, once to a friend and once to a guy whose name I never got at a gun show who looked like he just stepped out from behind the sign-in table at Honey Island (older, khakis, polo, "photographer's vest") and never asked for a BOS, but I've always been willing to sign one if asked.

 

[dantheman]

I keep it simple . If I know you personally or from Bayou Shooter then no bill of sale unless the other party requests one . If I don't know you then I may ask for one and I will ask to verify your state of residence .Just flash me your CHP or DL and it's all good .

 

[Bigchillin83]

i have no prob filling one out if its requested, as i have maybe done one 2-3 times... as you can see with my 83 feedback thats not a high % and im prob lacking 30+ feedbacks from other deals that never left feedback... the main thing i ask is