So what are people in Colorado doing about FTF Background checks

[LewSchiller]

Now we're obliged to do BGC's on person to person sales ... so how's that working out?

I was at Green Mountain Guns yesterday - just browsing . They won't do FTF BGC's. We chatted about it a bit and it seems they just aren't sufficiently comfortable about the law and its ramifications - nor is their legal counsel.

I suppose the parties involved could both go to a gun show and run it there. Can private parties now run a CBI?

Just want to be fully compliant dontcha' know

By the way - this isn't just a Colorado Topic. Know that these laws are heading your way wherever you live.

[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.

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.

[higgscharger]

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?

[LewSchiller]

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?

I don't know. It was a brief conversation but that was the gist of it. I certainly can't speak for all shops but this one is well run by good people. I can't imagine they aren't doing FTF BGC's just to be obstinate. Possible - but hard to imagine.
I should add - finding a dealer who will do transfers for out of state purchases has become a lot more difficult. The sources I've used in the past are no longer doing them except for one that now charges $75.

Iraiam - You could do a Gun Trust and avoid all the fun. Just search Colorado Gun Trust, or go to the Tanner Gun Show where you'll find a few people offering services.

[iraiam]

Thanks for the tip on the Gun Trust, I'll look it up. I also see that the gun trust is specifically exempted from the new "universal BGC" law.

I know one sticking point is, what happens when the person for some reason fails the background check, It's not their (the FFL holders) transfer so they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Another LGS is now requiring customers to submit to a BGC (free of charge) just to put a firearm on consignment at their store, they specifically stated that this was the advice of their attorney due to the very poor wording of the law, this screams of CYA.

Some of the LGS I frequent say that the fee is capped at $10 for a private transfer, they won't do it because they figure it's not worth their time.
They usually get $35 for a transfer fee, (FFL to FFL).

Those are 3 specific issues with the law that I have heard.

[Tom Servo]

I know one sticking point is, what happens when the person for some reason fails the background check, It's not their (the FFL holders) transfer so they won't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Unless I'm missing something, the dealer can just return it to the seller if the buyer fails the check.

[DenverGP]

The problem is, the gun is in the dealers possession, so they need to do a background check on the seller to be able to transfer it back to them.

What if, for some screwy reason, the seller also fails the check?

[csmsss]

The problem is, the gun is in the dealers possession, so they need to do a background check on the seller to be able to transfer it back to them.

What if, for some screwy reason, the seller also fails the check?

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.

[Tom Servo]

The problem is, the gun is in the dealers possession, so they need to do a background check on the seller to be able to transfer it back to them.

Unless there's a wrinkle in the Colorado law requiring dealers to do so, the gun is not in the dealer's possession until he logs it into his books. As such, if the buyer fails the check, it's an annoying waste of time, but that's it.

Now, if the dealer has to keep the gun overnight, then it has to go on the books. A 4473 and background check are generally required to log it back out (to either party), which can be a problem if the original owner can't pass the check.

[LewSchiller]

I dunno.
At gun shows you and your buyer go to an FFL who runs a check on the buyer. You give the gun to the FFL - then he runs the check. He holds it until the check is complete. If pass then the buyer pays you. You - or the buyer - pay the FFL for the BGC and the deal is done.
I've never been involved in one wherein the buyer fails - but I'm sure its happened. Prior to July 1st I presume the FFL would just return the firearm to you as seller. Now it's entirely possible they'd have to run a BGC on you first.

If you pawn a firearm they have to run a BGC before returning it to you. If you pawned a firearm with a magazine in excess of 15 rounds - as I understand it now - they can't return that magazine to you as they have taken possession of the firearm for the duration of the pawn. There is a "continuous possession" provision in the law.

[iraiam]

A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK
ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 12-26-102,C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 12-26-103,C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A
SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL.THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18 U.S.C. SEC.
922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER
INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.

Above is a copy/paste from the language of the bill that was signed into law.

I bet most anyone can pick out the language that is the point of contention, have to do do it in "the same manner as retail", is very vague. I suspect it was made that vague on purpose in an attempt to snare dealers into violations.

[LewSchiller]

The entirety of HB 1229 is here

Guidance to FFL's provided by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation is as follows -

(Note that while many think that you can buy a Curio / Relic without a BGC - that's only true if the buyer holds a C&R permit. I've had sellers at Gun Shows tell me that there wouldn't be a check because it's a C/R.)


If an FFL has received a denial on a background check requested pursuant to CRS 12-26.1-101 (i.e. on a transfer involving a firearm owned by a non-licensee), does the FFL have to request a background check on the owner of the firearm prior to returning it


Although Colorado law does not require it, the FBI and BATF attorneys agree that federal law requires it.


What if the prospective buyer and the non-licensed owner of the firearm are both denied?


This is a situation that is occasionally encountered by FFL's in consignment situations. Attorneys for the BATF have recommended that you treat this situation as you would with a consignment. (Comment: Which is what?)

Should an FFL collect a fee and conduct a check involving a non -licensed gun show vendor (seller) and a prospective buyer when the firearm is considered a curio or relic?


Although Colorado law allows a non-licensed gun show vendor to transfer a curio or relic without a background check, federal law requires an FFL to conduct such a check if the transferee is not a licensed collector

[LewSchiller]

I bet most anyone can pick out the language that is the point of contention, have to do do it in "the same manner as retail", is very vague. I suspect it was made that vague on purpose in an attempt to snare dealers into violations.

If I were a dealer that's how I'd see it.

[iraiam]

"AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER
INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE."

AS IF?

I Can't cay I would blame any LGS for opting out of this fiasco of a law.

[Tom Servo]

This is a situation that is occasionally encountered by FFL's in consignment situations. Attorneys for the BATF have recommended that you treat this situation as you would with a consignment.

I've had situations in which a consignor wants to take his gun home and fails the check. We're generally stuck buying it from him, and that becomes a whole finger-pointing rigmarole.

I hate to sound like a jerk, but if I were in business in Colorado, I simply wouldn't do these checks at all.

[LewSchiller]

You don't sound like a jerk - you sound like a business owner making a rational decision.
There must be different issues in play than those at gun shows. We've had universal gun show BGC's for as long as I've been here and that system seems to work.
Somebody must be doing P to P BGC's as CBI claims 171 or so have been done since the law went into effect 7/1/2013.

[csmsss]

I hate to sound like a jerk, but if I were in business in Colorado, I simply wouldn't do these checks at all.

I'd require the seller to buy a gun from me first! If he passed that BGC, then he'd pass the subsequent BGC on the transfer to the other party.

Seriously - there's little reason for an FFL to perform these services if they bear any risk from the outcome.

[Tom Servo]

You don't sound like a jerk - you sound like a business owner making a rational decision.

Yeah, but I'm not in Colorado. I imagine most dealers are going to refuse to do this, and that leaves the options for legal transfers few and far between. I could definitely understand customers getting frustrated.

Ten bucks just doesn't cover the overhead and potential liability.

[csmsss]

Yeah, but I'm not in Colorado. I imagine most dealers are going to refuse to do this, and that leaves the options for legal transfers few and far between. I could definitely understand customers getting frustrated.

Ten bucks just doesn't cover the overhead and potential liability.

I daresay this was one of the desired (if unexpressed) consequences of this law - to reduce if not eliminate FTF transactions by making them completely unattractive to FFL's.

[LewSchiller]

I'll bet FtF transactions will take place between trusted individuals without a BGC just as they've always been done between criminals.
A simple system such as an online service by CBI in which you enter name address and drivers license number in order to get a go/no-go result would take care of all of this. Advertising that "I Check" would drive criminals away.
But that's too easy.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sounds like the dealers needs an agreement that all parties sign that says something like:

Dealer agrees to conduct NICS check on Purchaser B for sale of Firearm X from Seller A. Purchaser B understands that a denial from NICS will result in Dealer's inability to transfer the Firearm X to Purchaser B. Seller A understands that should Purchaser B be denied by NICS, Dealer will be required to conduct a NICS check on Seller A in order to transfer the Firearm X back to Seller A. Seller A agrees that should Seller A also be denied by NICS, Dealer will purchase Firearm X from Seller A for $Y

The dealer should basically set the sale price at about 50% of the retail value. He gets good deals, in the rare event of a double denial, and he discourages sellers who know they would be denied from coming to him.

[LewSchiller]

That's one way - but he'd have to draft that...have it gone over by his legal counsel...have it signed...keep it on file forever and then run the BGC with all of its paperwork all... for $10.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

The dealer should basically set the sale price at about 50% of the retail value.

Originally Posted by LewSchiller

That's one way - but he'd have to draft that...have it gone over by his legal counsel...have it signed...keep it on file forever and then run the BGC with all of its paperwork all... for $10.

In addition to what Lew said, what happens when Johnny the Denied Seller decides that Joe Ed's Gun & Junk Shop has ripped him off with this arrangement, and convinces his sister, the headline-grabbing DA of Podunk County, to bring Joe Ed up on charges that he violated CRS 18-12-112(2)(d) on the grounds that the other 50% of the retail value constitutes a "fee... exceed[ing] ten dollars"?

Remember... Joe Ed may be prohibited from possessing a firearm for up to 2 years after violating CRS 18-12-112, effectively putting him out of the gun business.

Speaking of being put out of the gun business, what if the gun is a Krieghoff Luger, and Joe Ed cleaned out his entire piggy bank paying the first half?

I agree with Lew; if I were a CO FFL, I would find the CBI website statement regarding consignments to be cold comfort, as the CO Revised Statutes (presumably) don't address non-returnable consignments.

If I were a CO FFL, I also wouldn't touch these transfers with the proverbial 3.05m pole. The risk-benefit analysis just doesn't stack up.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't see that happening. The negotiation for the price of the gun is completely separate. It's not like the dealer would say "Because this is a private sale and I can only charge you $10, I'm only going to pay you 50% of the fair price to make up for it." He's going to negotiate the price he's willing to pay for the gun, just like he negotiates the price of every other gun that he buys from a private party... which is probably little more than 50% of retail.

[orangello]

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, perhaps even an app on a mobile device. Of course, following this line of thought, I would have to wonder why the ATF won't allow public access to their records of stolen firearms to reduce the number of stolen firearms being sold on the secondary market.

Because the boss likes holding all the cards, that's why.