PA person to person gun sale laws

[danp]

Just a quick question: does the term "long arm" include shotguns?

Yes, long guns are rifles or shotguns. Only Handguns need to be transferred via an FFL if both people are PA residents.

[silverspoon220]

yes but the 21 or older apply's for handguns not long guns.

[Rule10b5]

Just as a vaguely unrelated aside, I don't do the whole "bill of sale" when buying/selling a long arm from/to someone with whom I'm personally acquainted. I'm not talking some random person I met over the internet (no offense) -- I mean someone I know in real life. I'm not going to sell a long gun to anyone who I have even the slightest reason to suspect might not be legally allowed to own or possess a long gun.

I just don't like the idea of what it stands for -- it somehow seems to be conceding that a long gun is somehow different than any other good. Sure, the immediate response is that guns are "deadly" and that you should make sure you have a record of selling it or whatever, in case it turns up in a crime, but really, why? You're not going to be tried if the long gun is ever traced back to you. If someone shows up asking questions, tell them you sold it. If they press, say the conversation is over, and that you're not going to talk without counsel. Or just tell them to piss off. That's the end of it.

And would you draw up a bill of sale for a sledgehammer? Or a butcher knife? Or a bow?

Just my "let's not make life easy for the ATF" position on the issue. Plus, the less paperwork there is, the harder it is to round up the guns in the event of a ban. Not that I'd suggest you break the law, of course.

[danp]

I just don't like the idea of what it stands for -- it somehow seems to be conceding that a long gun is somehow different than any other good.

It's not a crime to transfer most goods to a felon. I've always thought that was the main point of a bill of sale, having something saying that the person you don't know (and can't) isn't a felon at least signing something claiming they aren't.

All in all I think it's just a CYA thing.

[Rule10b5]

It's not a crime to transfer most goods to a felon. I've always thought that was the main point of a bill of sale, having something saying that the person you don't know (and can't) isn't a felon at least signing something claiming they aren't.

All in all I think it's just a CYA thing.

Yes and no. Having someone sign a bill of sale stating that they aren't a person prohibited from owning or possessing a long gun isn't going to get you off the hook if they are a prohibited person and you knew or should have know they were a prohibited person.

The actual text of 18 U.S.C. 922 is pretty clear. It states that it is "unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person" is a prohibited person.

All a bill of sale says is that "He said he wasn't a prohibited person." It doesn't really do anything in terms of your duty under Section 922. If you don't know (and have no reason to know) he's a prohibited person, then you don't need him to tell you as much. If you know (or have reason to know) he is a prohibited person, then no bill of sale is going to get you off the hook if you sell it to him.

This is kind of my point -- a bill of sale doesn't CYA for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922, so why do it, other than to have a record of to whom you sold (or from whom you bought)? As the crime use point is covered in my first post, I, personally, don't see a point.

Just me, though. If you like the idea of a bill of sale, by all means, do it. Just don't assume it gets you off the hook if you're already on it

[GunLawyer001]

All a bill of sale says is that "He said he wasn't a prohibited person." It doesn't really do anything in terms of your duty under Section 922. If you don't know (and have no reason to know) he's a prohibited person, then you don't need him to tell you as much. If you know (or have reason to know) he is a prohibited person, then no bill of sale is going to get you off the hook if you sell it to him.

This is kind of my point -- a bill of sale doesn't CYA for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 922, so why do it, other than to have a record of to whom you sold (or from whom you bought)? As the crime use point is covered in my first post, I, personally, don't see a point.

Having read a recent case which was based on the purchaser actually telling the seller that he had some felony convictions, I can't say that the purchaser's representations are without value. If all you know about the man standing in front of you is that (a) he has cash, (b) he wants to buy your long gun, and (c) he SAYS that he has no prohibitors, I think that you've done more in the way of due diligance than if you only knew (a) and (b).

The only time I made a private sale of a shotgun, I wrote down info from his driver's license, which at least told me that he had a current license and he was a PA resident. I can't access NICS or PICS, and a written inquiry to the PA State Police takes a month, so that's about it unless I want to go through an FFL or the sheriff.

Requiring the purchaser to affirmatively tell you his criminal conviction status at least will negate the "willful ignorance" aspect, and should actually make any prosecution harder.

[bloomautomatic]

Long arms includes shotguns.

Pistols have to go through a dealer.

If you're a c&r holder, you can transfer any c&r gun (including) pistols to another PA resident without going through a dealer. C&R handguns are exempt from the NICS check and such, at least that's what ATF told me.

Vince

[Rule10b5]

Having read a recent case which was based on the purchaser actually telling the seller that he had some felony convictions, I can't say that the purchaser's representations are without value. If all you know about the man standing in front of you is that (a) he has cash, (b) he wants to buy your long gun, and (c) he SAYS that he has no prohibitors, I think that you've done more in the way of due diligance than if you only knew (a) and (b).

The only time I made a private sale of a shotgun, I wrote down info from his driver's license, which at least told me that he had a current license and he was a PA resident. I can't access NICS or PICS, and a written inquiry to the PA State Police takes a month, so that's about it unless I want to go through an FFL or the sheriff.

Requiring the purchaser to affirmatively tell you his criminal conviction status at least will negate the "willful ignorance" aspect, and should actually make any prosecution harder.

Willful isn't a predicate for liability under 922.

My point is that he saying that he has no prohibitors doesn't do anything but show that you asked -- it certainly doesn't immunize your conduct if you had "reasonable cause" to suspect prohibitors.

Due diligence isn't even required by the statute -- it's simply a question of reasonable cause to suspect. The only way I can see due diligence coming in to play is if you have reason to suspect prohibitors and then you engage in an inquiry as to whether your reason to suspect is valid. Then the question is "Having reason to suspect, and having conducted an inquiry in response, was that inquiry an exercise of reasonable and due diligence?"

And, in any case, due diligence doesn't arise simply from asking a question -- it involves some additional independent inquiry. You're suggesting nothing more than a "But she said she was 18" defense. I know it's an extreme example (given the SR standard) but I think it's still valid.

[GunLawyer001]

My argument is that "willful ignorance" doesn't excuse a lack of knowledge that the buyer is prohibited, so the act of asking the buyer if he's prohibited will at least negate the prosecutor's argument that you didn't want to know the buyer's status.

Asking someone about their own history is the first and most obvious way to find out if they are prohibited. A lot of people are actually unaware of the law, and will tell you "yes, I had a conviction, but I never served a day in jail, so I'm not prohibited." Since we are legal mavens, we know that the sentencing means nothing, and his answer puts us on notice that he might be prohibited.

I'll argue that asking the buyer the question has real value. You're right that it's not foolproof, but I'll bet you that it would make the difference in a lot of potential prosecutions. There are very few practical ways for civilians to check the status of the buyer in a private sale. Failure to even ask the buyer if he's prohibited looks a lot like "willful ignorance".

Of course if the buyer has a current Pa License to Carry Firearms, you're bulletproof, since it would be yanked for nearly everything that would make him prohibited for purchase. If he has his License, copy the number onto the bill of sale.

[Rule10b5]

My argument is that "willful ignorance" doesn't excuse a lack of knowledge that the buyer is prohibited, so the act of asking the buyer if he's prohibited will at least negate the prosecutor's argument that you didn't want to know the buyer's status.

Asking someone about their own history is the first and most obvious way to find out if they are prohibited. A lot of people are actually unaware of the law, and will tell you "yes, I had a conviction, but I never served a day in jail, so I'm not prohibited." Since we are legal mavens, we know that the sentencing means nothing, and his answer puts us on notice that he might be prohibited.

I'll argue that asking the buyer the question has real value. You're right that it's not foolproof, but I'll bet you that it would make the difference in a lot of potential prosecutions. There are very few practical ways for civilians to check the status of the buyer in a private sale. Failure to even ask the buyer if he's prohibited looks a lot like "willful ignorance".

Of course if the buyer has a current Pa License to Carry Firearms, you're bulletproof, since it would be yanked for nearly everything that would make him prohibited for purchase. If he has his License, copy the number onto the bill of sale.

Good points.

On an unrelated note, we need to get a beer or three at some point.