FFL transfer

[Rosco the Iroc]

No YOU will think I am I have been selling guns for over 15 yrs and ALL ALL ALL my sold weapons are put through the books. WHY????? I have been called three times by ATF for stolen weapons or a problem by on the CLIENT that DID NOT SHOW UP UNTIL LATER, they would pull MY LICENSE. Again, to be honest and to PROTECT THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED it is MUCH SAFER AND BETTER OVER ALL TO RUN THE SALE THROUGH THE BOOKS. and, I did not call ANYONE A SLEEZEBALL, YOU THOUGHT THAT. READ THIS TWICE AND YOU MIGHT GET WHAT I AM SAYING. 3rd, The isn't a snowball in hells chance that you are going to be hunted down by the government and your long gun taken away, the gov is about three centuries back on any bookwork or records that they have, it is just a sheer accident that they catch up with most of these sleezeballs Lastly, this is, I hope, an open forum for opinions, sounds like YOU should be looking for another place to be a wise guy, RIGHT???

OK OK calm down Elmer.

1- I'm an FFL so you want to do that, I'll take your money.
2- on here the unwritten rule is you want unnecessary BGC you pick up the tab.
3- not req by law #2 applies
4- 3 times you were traced? You really need to get a new place to get guns or better people.
5- never under for any reason get on AR-15.com.

[crffl]

OK OK calm down Elmer.

1- I'm an FFL so you want to do that, I'll take your money.
2- on here the unwritten rule is you want unnecessary BGC you pick up the tab.
3- not req by law #2 applies
4- 3 times you were traced? You really need to get a new place to get guns or better people.
5- never under for any reason get on AR-15.com.

Interesting, I've never come across that 'unwritten rule' of requiring the seller to do something that concerns their property?

I guess that never occurred to me since my #1 rule is 'my stuff my rules'

I find it fascinating that there exists the (more common than I thought) belief that buyers have the right to DICTATE how a seller does business? I would absolutely agree it can be a point of negotiation, but in no way would I consider that a 'right' of the buyer. Seems like an awful lot of contradiction (dare I say hypocrisy) of principle on this topic. Reminds me of the debates that occurred when that bakery wouldn't provide the wedding cake to the gay couple that were getting married.

To be clear I've run into both scenarios over the years where someone wasn't comfortable with a FTF and wanted to go through a FFL.

If I wanted something enough that I didn't mind paying the extra I'd do it. If it wasn't worth the additional expense then I didn't. Don't think I ever asked the seller to cover the cost although its certainly a reasonable request, everything is negotiable.

Regardless there are choices on either side of the buyer/seller relationship, just different choices to be made. Nothing is a 'requirement'


Last thought.... I think the correct phrase that applies here is 'Lighten up, Francis' (can anyone name that movie?)

.

[GunLawyer001]

Interesting, I've never come across that 'unwritten rule' of requiring the seller to do something that concerns their property?

I guess that never occurred to me since my #1 rule is 'my stuff my rules'

I find it fascinating that there exists the (more common than I thought) belief that buyers have the right to DICTATE how a seller does business? I would absolutely agree it can be a point of negotiation, but in no way would I consider that a 'right' of the buyer. Seems like an awful lot of contradiction (dare I say hypocrisy) of principle on this topic. Reminds me of the debates that occurred when that bakery wouldn't provide the wedding cake to the gay couple that were getting married.

To be clear I've run into both scenarios over the years where someone wasn't comfortable with a FTF and wanted to go through a FFL.

If I wanted something enough that I didn't mind paying the extra I'd do it. If it wasn't worth the additional expense then I didn't. Don't think I ever asked the seller to cover the cost although its certainly a reasonable request, everything is negotiable.

Regardless there are choices on either side of the buyer/seller relationship, just different choices to be made. Nothing is a 'requirement'


Last thought.... I think the correct phrase that applies here is 'Lighten up, Francis' (can anyone name that movie?)

.

The movie was "Stripes".

Whatever a buyer and seller agree on is "right".

It's not irrational to want to preclude being prosecuted or sued over the sale of a few hundred dollars worth of rifle. Nor is it irrational to skip the FFL when not legally required. These are choices. You don't like the choice the other guy made, move on to the next guy.

[Sgt.K]

Last thought.... I think the correct phrase that applies here is 'Lighten up, Francis' (can anyone name that movie?)

.

[knight0334]

The movie was "Stripes".

Whatever a buyer and seller agree on is "right".

It's not irrational to want to preclude being prosecuted or sued over the sale of a few hundred dollars worth of rifle. Nor is it irrational to skip the FFL when not legally required. These are choices. You don't like the choice the other guy made, move on to the next guy.

^^^
Spot on 100%!


Some people cant get over such things.

Just like a price, if you don't like the seller requiring an official transfer - move on.

I don't fault anyone for wanting to cover their ass as much as possible these days. Civil lawsuits will ruin your life just as much as jail time, if not more so. At least with jail, life if relatively normal after time served and fines paid. Civil lawsuits can have almost all your money being garnished for the rest of your life and having your great great great great grandkids owing to the debt long after you are a skeleton. So if you're living paycheck to paycheck now, you cant afford even a civil suit that you win, let alone one you lose.

[McSull]

The seller has every right to ask for a ffl transfer is he/ she wants one. If you dont like it, tough shit. Dont buy it. Nothing wrong with covering your ass. Also nothing wrong with intrastate ftf transfers of long guns without ffl. Done hoth, never bitched either way.

[maksim]

So two things...

1. Can't you go down and have the transfer done for free or at cost at local PD?

2. Seller can request what they want... You don't need to buy it.

As to why... I can certainly understand more cautious gun owners who have A LOT to lose want to go through FFL... And while 90% of my transactions have been with upstanding people... if you do not currently know them from the board and in real life, how comfortable are you meeting someone?

Some are, some are not. $25 is not a big deal and could be far worse, like in Jersey where NICS is $15 and dealers will charge quite a bit more on top.

But most of all, was the "must go through FFL" disclosed when you made the offer?

[Bow2no1]

I believe the problem was that the seller wouldn't budge on the price and insisted the buyer pay the full transfer fee. That would bug me as well since it's not legally required and it's purely to calm the concerns of the seller. A show of good faith would be to split the costs

I offered to do the transfer at a police station on camera.
I sent him here for the bill of sale form.
He said this is his first gun sale and wants everything right. I understand, but a transfer is unnecessary.
I'm a legal resident and cc holder. I have no problem showing him my information. I work for a large reputable company in the area that makes the news frequently. I simply can't work for them with a felony. We go in to ports, military bases and nuclear power plants. I was just inside of Electric boat in Groton CT. That was pretty cool. The guards take all electronics. Unfortunately no pictures allowed.

[:-)]

I offered to do the transfer at a police station on camera.
I sent him here for the bill of sale form.
He said this is his first gun sale and wants everything right. I understand, but a transfer is unnecessary.
I'm a legal resident and cc holder. I have no problem showing him my information. I work for a large reputable company in the area that makes the news frequently. I simply can't work for them with a felony. We go in to ports, military bases and nuclear power plants. I was just inside of Electric boat in Groton CT. That was pretty cool. The guards take all electronics. Unfortunately no pictures allowed.

Why would you go through all that? Are you also going to ask the police for a copy of the video?
I would have payed for the transfer and the gun would be in my safe right now...

The seller will keep having the same problem with people selling it privately or online. People think you should just hand over your AK, a stack of mags and a 1000 round case of ammo to a stranger just because other people do it. Where there are no helmet laws, some people ride without a helmet but some people do...

Through consignment I have, No headaches, No haggling, No no shows and No more dealing with "I don't need a background check" crap and having to say "It's my rifle and I'm not selling it without a background check." over and over again.

On consignment, I get a store that attracts people that are looking to buy guns, a sales guy showing my gun to people that have money in their pockets and can even pay for the gun with a credit card if they don't have the cash right now. The best part is, I don't even lose any money because I just tack on the gun store's consignment fee to my bottom line... The store does all the paperwork and keeps the records and I'm done with all the hassle.

Drop off gun, pick up check.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . I work for a large reputable company in the area that makes the news frequently. I simply can't work for them with a felony. We go in to ports, military bases and nuclear power plants. . . .

That says good things about you, but it doesn't say that you can pass PICS. There are active police officers who can't pass PICS. People with security clearances who can't pass PICS.

It's understandable to think that "I passed my employer's background check, I must be OK." But the way laws work is that Pennsylvania and the Feds each have their own lists of prohibitors, and neither is the list of things that make you a bad security risk. It's all political. You're not a security risk just because, for example, your mom took you in for a psych evaluation when you were 15. But you can't have a gun now. You're not going to sink our nuclear subs because you had a bad divorce and she accused you of shoving her, and you ended up pleading to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge because they agreed to no jail time and no fine. But you can't have a gun now.

If it's surprising to many people that they themselves are prohibited persons, how exactly is some stranger going to know, based on what? Your car? Your clothing? The lack of a kafiyah or ISIS flag pin? The fact that you have a nice car that isn't a low-rider with "PIMPS DON'T CRY" emblazoned on the side, that you aren't wearing an orange jump suit....doesn't mean that you're going to clear a PICS check.