The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 3, 2012, 08:47 PM   #26
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
Dogtown, i appreciate your response. I had not considered that the seller was basically paying the FFL to take the seller's place in line should the police start looking for a firearm thief. That seems like a short-sighted plan for an actual thieving seller, as the FFL would have a record of who sold him the firearm in question, should the police inquire. A professional thief would surely know to use an actual "fence" for better insulation from the authorities.

I'm sure the mirage of safety/legal status given to a firearm by passing it through a FFL is well worth a reasonable fee to many buyers.

Last edited by orangello; April 3, 2012 at 08:53 PM.
orangello is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 08:59 PM   #27
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,524
Quote:
orangello Dogtown, i appreciate your response. I had not considered that the seller was basically paying the FFL to take the seller's place in line should the police start looking for a firearm thief. That seems like a short-sighted plan for an actual thieving seller, as the FFL would have a record of who sold him the firearm in question, should the police inquire.

I'm sure the mirage of safety/legal status given to a firearm by passing it through a FFL is well worth a reasonable fee to many buyers.
I think you misinterpret my response.

Using a dealer to transfer the firearm insulates the seller from a buyer who may be a prohibited person.....it does not insulate a "thieving seller" from the police. I doubt any seller who knows a gun is stolen is going anywhere near a licensed gun dealer.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 09:01 PM   #28
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
That does make more sense, thanks.
orangello is offline  
Old April 4, 2012, 12:46 AM   #29
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I don't know of any firearm that I would want bad enough to withstand the insult of insisting on using an FFL for what could be a FTF transaction.

I am a collector, and I have paid new for used for a firearm that is unique for some particular reason (that one actually was from an FFL)...that part I don't have a problem with. what I have a problem with is normal human trust...If you tell me you are not a prohibited person, I will believe you, not becasue I am stupid, but because I am honest, and I assume you are also.

Off topic example: I owned my own small business and I never checked anything when I accepted a personal check...I just put them in the bank. Guess what in over 15 years (I'm retired now) I had 2 checks bounce, and one was a bank error. That with thousands of checks...

The one check that never was paid, I expect those people needed the money more than I did and forgave them.
hermannr is offline  
Old April 4, 2012, 02:15 AM   #30
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
While I can not say how other FFL holders deal with used, or pre-owned firearms. I can say to how I, in the past as an FFL holder dealt with them. Any firearm for which I did not order "new" from a dist, or a wholesaler, was checked by the sheriffs office. I did have an agreement with the local sheriff's office that when I asked them to check the status of a firearm, that it was not only in my possession as an FFL, but also available to be surrendered to them if it came back stolen. While I do not have my records in front of me, I can not remember a time when a firearm came back stolen.

Depending on the local jurisdiction, and how the FFL and the locals work together, it can be iffy at best, or it can be as I said above. How many folks have we had on here who were a victim, and wanted to recover their property (firearm) but yet, as firearm owners know it may go through one or two, or maybe more hands before it is even checked. I can not see how this is an infringement on our rights, except to maybe exclude a person victimized, and who reported it stolen, but yet has been unable to have their property (firearm) returned to them.

I would hope that we, as responsible firearm owners, and also potential buyers, or sellers, would like to ensure the right thing is done. If property(firearm(s) are stolen, I hope you would like them returned if possible. Otherwise, who would know?

Perhaps I am wrong. It wont be the first time.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; April 4, 2012 at 08:54 AM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old April 4, 2012, 05:09 AM   #31
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,160
Quote:
Ok, so my buddy called the potential buyer yesterday and discussed the possibility of doing a formal transfer through a FFL holder. The guy said that although he understood the motivation he would prefer not to go through a formal transfer process and declined to buy the gun.
To the OP: You did the right thing.

ANY gun buyer should have no problem doing any type of legal transfer. Yes, I know the law can be overbearing and problematic. But until it is changed, it IS the law.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07888 seconds with 9 queries