Question About Buying A Long Gun In PA

[gghbi]

No insult intended. Not like what I've seen here in this thread.

Battered Gun Owner Syndrome

Used to describe gun owners who have been beaten by the Left's rhetoric into going against popular Conservative beliefs, only for political correctness reasons.

That removes this as a reason... Not a PC bone in my body, but prudence is a virtue to me.

Okay, but it's possible isn't it? If it's a possible lawsuit or prosecution you're worried about, how does the buyer's LTCF status come into play?

It shows that I made an effort to insure the buyer was not a prohibited person, not that it is an absolute guarantee, but it is step above nothing.

[McSull]

Okay, but it's possible isn't it? If it's a possible lawsuit or prosecution you're worried about, how does the buyer's LTCF status come into play?

Significantly reduces the possibility of liability

[McSull]

That's more than fair. You do recognize that some PA residents will not have a LTCF and you are accommodating. My original question had to do with sellers demanding a LTCF in order to do a FTF transfer.

It's my gun, if you dont like it, dont buy it.

[Hodgie]

Sure, there's varying ways one can protect themselves. I think PA people find it easier to use something someone already has for the most part. Note, I don't necessarily require a LTCF, I recognize that someone may not have one. Here's some of the ways I've made deals in the past;

- Required nothing.
- Asked for LTCF.
- Asked for LTCF with bill of sale.
- Asked for DL if no LTCF, with bill of sale.
- Asked for transfer via FLL if really unsure.


Each individual buyer/seller has to decide for themselves what criteria they want or are willing to meet (buyer). Every situation is different (for me).

One of these two ways is how I have conducted transactions in the past and the same way other sellers have done with me. I don't see it as being an unreasonable request and it's apart of the deal no different then the price negotiated and the meeting place.

[j_h_smith]

That removes this as a reason... Not a PC bone in my body, but prudence is a virtue to me.


It shows that I made an effort to insure the buyer was not a prohibited person, not that it is an absolute guarantee, but it is step above nothing.

How does this prove that you asked to see the buyer's LTCF?

I have a few questions for everyone here who asks to see the buyer's LTCF at the time of the transfer. At trial, where is your proof that you paid your due diligence? Where is your proof that you made sure the buyer wasn't prohibited? Sure, you say you asked to see the LTCF, but just because you said you saw it, are you really in the clear? Do you have any proof that you didn't participate in an illegal gun transfer?

Secondly, let say you bought your rifle from ABC Guns, a storefront business. You then sell your rifle to a buyer who shows you his LTCF. That person then sells that rifle to someone in NJ. Since you are the only person on record as to the firearm's ownership, are you still on the hook for an illegal transfer? Can you prove that you didn't sell the rifle to the guy in NJ?

I present to you that you have no more protection when you require to see an LTCF than if you just walked down the street and sold your rifle to the first person who gave you money for it. I also feel that you are living in a world of pretend and fairy tales, if you think that just by looking at the buyer's LTCF that it will absolve you of a lawsuit or prosecution.

[j_h_smith]

Significantly reduces the possibility of liability

How is that? How can a seller prove who he sold that rifle to if all the proof you have is that you SAW the buyer's LTCF? No Bill of Sale, no record of transfer. The LTCF is no different than a DL or a Library Card. Just because you say your saw his LTCF will fall flat in court. If you're worried about liability, selling to someone with just a quick glance at a card, probably isn't going to keep you safe anyway.

[Emptymag]

It's my gun, if you dont like it, dont buy it.

I keep seeing this comment, but it has nothing to do with the point the OP is attempting to make.


I also don't think the OP is correct in his assumption that it's an "unwritten rule" to require to see a LTCF.
It's common, yes, but not a "rule". The reason it's so common is because the LTCF is so commonly had by gun owners, and asking to see it isn't the same level of "government intrusion" and requiring them to do the transfer at an FFL.

I'm pretty sure that even the people arguing with the OP can see the point he is making - I can see it. Maybe because I'm also in the camp of "the less info the gov has the better"?
That said, the "LTCF requirement" is a means of accomplishing at least 2 things with no gov involvement.


Like Justin, over the years, I've bought and sold many long guns, both FTF (literally), and even "FTF" via the US postal service. (gasp!)

Same deal - some purchases/sales went totally without either party asking for "anything". Sometimes a bill of sale was completed with both parties including their address on the signed form, and sometimes with just a signature alone.

I've responded to ads REQUIRING a transfer be done at an FFL, by saying "Hey, I know you said "FFL only", but if you change your mind, I'm willing to provide a copy of my DL and my LTCF and I'll buy it" - some have said "No thanks" and others have said, "Sure, no problem". I doubt I would have been able to buy those rifles though if I had said "Hey, I know you want to use an FFL, but we both know that's not required, so I'll give you the money, and you give me the rifle, OK?"

I've made verbal agreements to exchange (view) documents at the time of sale, and when it came time to exchange monies, it was either forgotten, or the "credentials" were deemed unnecessary, and we went on our way.

I just don't see asking to see a LTCF as the same as requiring a FFL background check.
I understand the point being made - I just don't think it's "the same".

[Gun]

You don't need to be in a cohesive, cognitive discussion with those kind or responses.

You can't have a response as such and still be a troll. It's an oxymoron.

By your reasoning, one shouldn't be allowed firearms, because one could commit a crime. This is leftist thinking, which now becomes apparent on which side of the fence you prefer, or you are a troll.

[Big Kahuna 19547]

We have carry permits in Md and they're not as difficult to get as people believe. I have one and it's unrestricted.

I have to call bullshit on this. I am using 2017 statistics, since that is the latest I have access to. Maryland had 17,414 licenses issued, which is a whopping .37 % of the population. That's right a whopping less than 1% of the population. Maryland is 43 in licenses issued and you beat those bastions of liberty such as Washington DC, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, New York, and Rhode Island. (Pennsylvania is #2 behind Florida) While I do not doubt that you have an unrestricted license, I should ask how many years you worked as a law enforcement official. And if you weren't a peace officer, then your political connections run very deep. If Maryland was still of nobility, you would undoubtedly be part of royalty in some fashion. Maryland State Police are not that gregarious in the issuance's of those priceless licenses. Finally, while I understand your position and the question that you are asking, I can't help thinking of the comparison that before you throw stones at us, maybe you should direct that energy towards making Maryland a better state. Lecturing people in a less restrictive state and telling them that they are wrong, while living in a highly restrictive state that borders on totalitarian, is like having a Chinese citizen lecturing us on human rights and freedom. Like I said in my previous post, move closer to your kids, the true actual freedom will be liberating... and you'll still be covered by LEOSA..

[gghbi]

How is that? How can a seller prove who he sold that rifle to if all the proof you have is that you SAW the buyer's LTCF? No Bill of Sale, no record of transfer. The LTCF is no different than a DL or a Library Card. Just because you say your saw his LTCF will fall flat in court. If you're worried about liability, selling to someone with just a quick glance at a card, probably isn't going to keep you safe anyway.

So you are suggesting we should require all transfers go thru a FFL so they are fully documented?