The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 24, 2013, 05:45 PM   #26
kkb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2004
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 380
I hope you'll forgive an aside here.

It seems those buyback programs are having a problem complying with this law! The troubles they are running into is the cost of transfers and getting the
equipment set up at a convenient locations.

http://www.denverpost.com/colorado/c...orado-gun-laws
kkb is offline  
Old July 24, 2013, 05:53 PM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
It seems like this situation would be easier for all concerned if there were a way for a seller to run a background check on a buyer through an online service
Unfortunately, making any of the process easy is counter to the point of laws like this. Ever since the NFA, the antis have realized that encumbrances like permitting and taxes can have nearly as much of a chilling effect on gun ownership as outright bans.

Quote:
The troubles they are running into is the cost of transfers and getting the equipment set up at a convenient locations.
That's what we call unintended consequences.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2013, 12:04 AM   #28
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
the law of unintended consequences..or the unintended consequences of the law?

And, are they so unintended?

As I read it, While I found requirements for the seller to obtain a back ground check, on the buyer, through an FFL, I find no requirement for the FFL to DO the background check.

If they do "obtain a background check", the FFL has to provide a copy of it to both seller and buyer AND can only charge $10 for this service.

SO, we have a govt mandated fixed price, and a requirement for the seller to have it done before they can transfer the gun, BUT no requirement for the dealer to do it for a private sale.

Dealers must, by law, lose money on the check, leaving completely aside liability issues, that alone is enough to stop dealers from doing the checks if they are not required by law to do them.

Net result, no legal way for private sale of guns. Perhaps it was not so unintended after all?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 26, 2013, 07:06 AM   #29
LewSchiller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2013
Location: Metro Denver Colorado
Posts: 227
Bingo!
But it is entirely possible that the people who wrote this crap didn't foresee a problem. We are talking about people on par with our beloved Congresswoman Diana DeGette who said, regarding magazines,

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."


These are the same people who passed a law banning High Capacity magazines. That law also banned virtually all magazines because they equated a removable base plate with the ability to expand the capacity of the magazine. That was just recently addressed by the state AG.

They've - by and large - never operated in the real world. It's not a stretch to say that they believed they were being accommodating by pegging the fee at $10. Heck - all the dealer has to do is enter the data and wait for an answer. Besides it will bring people into their store. It's a win-win...in their eyes.

No clue. It's like having your state and therefore your life run by a cabal of third grade teachers and strident 17 year old girls.

But then we must remember that Bloomberg threw a bunch of money at Magpul's lobbyist firm and hired them away just when Magpul needed them the most. So there were nefarious forces at work as well.



No matter where you live be vigilant. The people behind these laws are heading your way.
__________________
"When the Going gets Weird the Weird Turn Pro"
Hunter S. Thompson

Last edited by LewSchiller; July 26, 2013 at 07:58 AM.
LewSchiller is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 12:58 PM   #30
0351A
Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 21
Well, doing a simple background check is easy. Just type "cbi background check" in Google. The first result is the website. It costs almost seven bucks and is done pretty quickly. The question of course is whether that qualifies for weapons sales. That is what I have used for several jobs, and it apparently lists arrest records, though I don't have one so I haven't seen it listed.
0351A is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 01:51 PM   #31
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,845
Having a website that does "background checks" would be useful for an employer (assuming its accuracy is unquestionable), but might not qualify for firearms transfers.

Lists of arrests (or even just one) might give you an indication of the person's character, or temperament, BUT is it CONVICTIONS that matter in determining if someone is a prohibited person.

Are those on the website?

you or I might decline to sell to someone with an arrest history, its our choice. We are required to refuse a sale to a prohibited person, and it is conviction of a crime in the listed category(s) that determine that, NOT arrests.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 02:03 PM   #32
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Well, doing a simple background check is easy. Just type "cbi background check" in Google. The first result is the website. It costs almost seven bucks and is done pretty quickly. The question of course is whether that qualifies for weapons sales.
There's no question; it doesn't qualify.

The CO statute plainly requires a licensed gun dealer transfer including the standard NICS/CBI background check as prescribed by state law.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 31, 2013, 02:58 PM   #33
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,144
I think it's plain that the standard 4473 NICS checks aren't happening, and it's also plain what the real intent is. The real question is what can be done about this nasty state of affairs. How do you get this thing rectified, if no one in government cares to listen?
Strafer Gott is online now  
Old August 29, 2013, 10:34 PM   #34
AF FAL
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2005
Posts: 3
Stumbled on this post looking for dealers that are actually sticking to the $10 rule. You see, these laws only affect those inclined to follow the law. While I don't agree with the law, I am inclined to follow the law, and this one I am following just to prove in my own mind how much of a miserable failure it really is.

That said, I have done a FTF sale with the required BGC since the law went into effect. It is near impossible to find a dealer that will touch these transfers, let alone stick to the $10(transfer fee) + $10(BGC) pricing set forth in the law. I did manage to find one, they tried saying it was $25 over the phone, however when I pointed out their website stating it was $10 they accepted the $10, then immediately changed the website to say $25, thus violating the law anyway.

I also contacted the CBI on how exactly this is supposed to happen, as I was concerned about having to pay another BGC fee if the buyer was denied. The CBI officer said the FFL does not enter the firearm in their book until they have received an approval for the transfer, so the firearm never really leaves your possession until the BGC is approved and the FFL must enter it in their log. The dealer I used for my transaction seemed to understand this process just fine, and had independently verified it with CBI. Yes, the dealer must still include the serial # of the intended transfer on the 4473 during the paperwork process, but this does not constitute a transfer according the the AG.

Having worked for more than one FFL and done entries in the log, and conducted multiple BGC I find it odd that any FFL would say it isn't worth their time. Heck, before the law went into effect I was getting $10 transfers anyway from a few dealers, now it isn't worth their time? The whole process on the part of the FFL takes roughly 3 or 4 minutes of ACTUAL work. Extrapolated out, that is still $150 an hour at the $10 mandated fee cap.

Now is a time when we need MORE gun owners in our ranks. And no matter what the anti's do to try to impede that from happening, we as the gun community need to do whatever it takes to make our numbers grow. Sure the law is stupid, couldn't agree more that it will serve no purpose other than to hamper the law abiding while falling flat on it's "advertised" purpose of affecting criminals in any way. But how many would be first time lawful gun owners trying to go about this the legal way will miss out because we as the gun community succumbed to the anti's tactics, and whine "it isn't worth our time"? Maybe we need to think of the big picture rather than whine about the brush strokes until we can get the law repealed.

Just my $.02 worth

Last edited by Tom Servo; August 30, 2013 at 12:45 AM. Reason: Language issues
AF FAL is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 01:15 AM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraiam
All of the gun shops I frequent have adopted similar policies. I am unaware of any way for 2 citizens to do a CBI BGC without an FFL holder.

Our brilliant Colorado legislators have written and enacted some of the most poorly thought out and worded laws ever conceived.
If their intent was to reduce the number of face-to-face transfers, it would seem to be working rather splendidly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iraiam
I need to look into this as well, as my father informed me that his firearms will be willed to me, we were discussing how to make that work under these terrible laws.
You're already out of the woods. Firearms that are inherited as a bequest are exempt from federal laws regarding transfers through FFLs. The executor can just hand 'em over. It appears the new CO law follows that philosophy:

Quote:
(6) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO:
(a) A TRANSFER OF AN ANTIQUE FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 921(a) (16), AS AMENDED, OR A CURIO OR RELIC, AS DEFINED IN 27CFR
478.11, AS AMENDED;
(b) A TRANSFER THAT IS A BONA FIDE GIFT OR LOAN BETWEEN
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS,
CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS, GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS,
FIRST COUSINS, AUNTS, AND UNCLES;
(c) A TRANSFER THAT OCCURS BY OPERATION OF LAW OR BECAUSE
OF THE DEATH OF A PERSON FOR WHOM THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEROR
IS AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ESTATE
OR A TRUSTEE OF A TRUST
CREATED IN A WILL;
(d) A TRANSFER THAT IS TEMPORARY AND OCCURS WHILE IN THE HOME OF THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IF: ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 07:19 AM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
If their intent was to reduce the number of face-to-face transfers, it would seem to be working rather splendidly.
Honestly, I don't think it was the intent, but it's certainly an unintended consequence.

This is what happens when people pass legislation in the heat of the moment because they feel compelled to "do something." When people pull the guilt & shame card on us for defeating the post-Sandy Hook federal proposals, this situation is a good example to give them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 10:01 AM   #37
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by iraiam
I need to look into this as well, as my father informed me that his firearms will be willed to me, we were discussing how to make that work under these terrible laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Firearms that are inherited as a bequest are exempt from federal laws regarding transfers through FFLs.
While I believe that Aguila is 100% correct regarding transfers of firearms, be aware that the new law (HB 13-1224) regarding large-capacity magazines (LCM's) does NOT contain such language.

As I read the new law, a person receiving one or more LCM's after the effective date is instantaneously guilty of a misdemeanor under 18-12-302(1) CRS, regardless of how he or she got the LCM(s). IMHO the law plainly allows him or her to transfer the magazine(s) to one of the entities allowed to possess them in 18-12-302(3)- in short, FFL's, LE, military, and gov't agencies- but this does not help the person before the transfer occurs.

Hopefully the CO legislature or the courts will address the issue fairly, and soon. Until that point, my not-so-legal IANAL advice to persons inheriting LCM's is "Call An Attorney". [EDIT TO ADD: I imagine there must be CO case law addressing instances where people inherited contraband without foreknowledge, but I don't know anything about this topic.]
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 30, 2013 at 10:10 AM. Reason: minor edit...
carguychris is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 12:24 PM   #38
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,353
Personally, I've not sold anything locally since. And when I sell online, I specify no sales to california nor colorado nor ny. As much as I might want to sell something, I refuse to have my buyer donate an extra $10 to stupidity. Plus there's the additional bs for me if the buyer is rejected by the BGC.

If anyone wants to know, I feel safer....
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 03:53 PM   #39
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by doofus47
Personally, I've not sold anything locally since. And when I sell online, I specify no sales to california nor colorado nor ny.
doofus47, are you a CO resident?

I don't believe that the law affects transfers that occur from an out-of-state FFL, to a CO FFL, and thence to a CO resident, provided that everything is conducted as prescribed by federal law.* As I read it, the law applies only to "...any person who is not a licensed gun dealer... [18-12-112(1)(a) and 18-12-112(2)(a) CRS, emphasis mine].

IOW if a CO resident buys a gun on GB, and the out-of-state seller ships via his/her FFL to a CO FFL (which is usually the cheapest and easiest way to lawfully ship a handgun anyway), no laws are broken* and the $10 nonsense doesn't apply. Hence, I see no good reason for an out-of-state seller to refuse to sell to CO.*

In fact, it's been my prediction since the law was passed that it's ironically going to cause an increase in GB and Armslist traffic to and from CO, as the law greatly limits the lawful venues for in-state sales of used guns. CO buyers may have to go out-of-state to find that scarce used gun they want, and many CO sellers will likely choose to sell out-of-state to access a larger pool of potential buyers. These factors may be exacerbated by CO FFL's who are now likely charge more for used guns and give less on trade-ins due to lessened price competition.

Additionally, I don't believe that this law affects long gun transfers to and from CO residents conducted at an out-of-state FFL. I cannot find anything in CO law prohibiting CO residents from accepting long guns from an out-of-state FFL; CO experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.

*DISCLAIMER: These statements assume that no LCM's are involved...
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 30, 2013 at 03:58 PM. Reason: minor edit...
carguychris is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 10:41 AM   #40
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 1,353
carguychris
Quote:
IOW if a CO resident buys a gun on GB, and the out-of-state seller ships via his/her FFL to a CO FFL (which is usually the cheapest and easiest way to lawfully ship a handgun anyway), no laws are broken* and the $10 nonsense doesn't apply.
Yes, I"m in the conflicted state of Colorado. I've bought two handguns off of GB since July. I've used two local FFLs. Both charged me an additional $10. Unfortunately, local FFLs seem to think the rule applies.

I was just pointing out (in a poorly written way) that as with "no sales to Cali/NY", I won't sell locally either via GB or Armslist, since I don't believe in the new system.

It might increase sales from out of state, simply because the old system of trading with your buddies on a whim or buying from friends or cousins at the range or family reunion is now verboten.

....or maybe there's no good way to measure how many transactions are happening on a tailgate. Which was the point that I made as I wrote to my (and other) Colorado legislators: "if this often-quoted '40% of transactions are 'off book' sales between private citizens' is true, then we (coloradans) do about 140K of private transactions a year. If the number of felonious firearm use is as low as it is in colorado [here I would quote a figure that I don't remember off the top of my head at this moment], then we don't have a problem that requires a universal background check law."

I haven't found anyone in the legislature who likes it when you point out they're solving a problem that doesn't exist.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time.
doofus47 is offline  
Old September 3, 2013, 11:11 AM   #41
TDL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2013
Posts: 179
Quote:
How is the law poorly constructed to make LGS uncomfortable?

It seems that they do BGCs all the time and most that I know have run BGCs on purchases shipped across state lines. What is new in this law that is different?
Quote:
There is no such thing as "fail" on the background check - the sale/transfer is either approved or it isn't. Unless the dealer has entered the firearm into his/her bound book, has no reason to do anything other than return the firearm to the seller.
Are you saying the law provides for complete immunity to the LGS/FFL from civil liability if it is returned to an unqualified seller and is then used in an incident with civil consequences?

Less large but also present liability include damage to or loss of the firearm if it needs to be stored no?
TDL is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 07:06 PM   #42
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 875
Quote:
How is the law poorly constructed to make LGS uncomfortable?

It seems that they do BGCs all the time and most that I know have run BGCs on purchases shipped across state lines. What is new in this law that is different?
At least one sticking point is the wording that the transfer must occur "as if" it's being transferred from the FFL holders stock, which it is NOT. And yes they actually passed a law that has "as if" in it.

Show me any other law where you have to pretend to be doing something to be in compliance, and I'll show you one that was written by morons.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old September 5, 2013, 08:27 AM   #43
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,668
Quote:
At least one sticking point is the wording that the transfer must occur "as if" it's being transferred from the FFL holders stock, which it is NOT.
+1, and I'd argue that this is the main sticking point, for three reasons.
  • The dealer has to log the firearm into and out of his/her bound book, which is a time-consuming process compared to making a simple phone call, and may be hard to justify for a fee of only $10.
  • Since the law says that the dealer can only charge $10 per transaction, deals involving multiple firearms potentially have to be broken down into separate transactions with individual and discrete NICS phone calls if the dealer wants to make more than $10 on the entire lot. This actually makes a multiple-gun non-FFL sale a good deal more complex and time-consuming than a standard multiple-gun retail dealer sale, which can usually be done with a single collective NICS check. (This was discussed in another recent thread.)
  • Since the law requires the dealer to take the firearm into inventory, the dealer may wind up having to keep the firearm if the buyer fails the NICS check and the seller subsequently fails as well. This is not uncharted territory for many dealers- consignments and pawned firearms can be non-returnable- but it's a hassle, particularly for so-called "kitchen table" home-based FFL's who rely primarily on transfer fees, and don't have a good venue to resell non-returnable firearms at retail like a brick-and-mortar store. (Discussed earlier in the thread.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; September 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM. Reason: minor reword...
carguychris 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 05:16 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 0.12906 seconds with 9 queries