User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 3:27:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just an aside, if I receive a firearm for transfer and it is not claimed within 5 years, it is considered abandoned by Virginia law. Then I put it on Gunbroker.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If an FFL owns a firearm, he is free to dispose of it as he wishes. Just like you can dispose of the firearms you own. Just an aside, if I receive a firearm for transfer and it is not claimed within 5 years, it is considered abandoned by Virginia law. Then I put it on Gunbroker. But how often does that actually happen? And ever with NFA items? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 3:52:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But how often does that actually happen? And ever with NFA items? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If an FFL owns a firearm, he is free to dispose of it as he wishes. Just like you can dispose of the firearms you own. Just an aside, if I receive a firearm for transfer and it is not claimed within 5 years, it is considered abandoned by Virginia law. Then I put it on Gunbroker. But how often does that actually happen? And ever with NFA items? Never had it happen with NFA. I did have one guy go 28 months on a stripped receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 3:53:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right, I don't actually know (and I'm not taking offense, just trying to learn), but I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. That is not true either. Gun laws are needlessly complicated. It should be simple, but it is not. ATF makes errors too, and people do not know it, and accept those errors as fact. Words have meaning. You throw around terms like firearm, rifle, shotgun as if they are interchangeable, they are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 3:55:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But how often does that actually happen? And ever with NFA items? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If an FFL owns a firearm, he is free to dispose of it as he wishes. Just like you can dispose of the firearms you own. Just an aside, if I receive a firearm for transfer and it is not claimed within 5 years, it is considered abandoned by Virginia law. Then I put it on Gunbroker. But how often does that actually happen? And ever with NFA items? I have an NFA item with approved F4 in safe 6 years or more now. Guy dropped off face of Earth. Sadly it is just a .22 silencer and not a transferable MiniGun. I have no intention of selling it on him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 3:58:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is not true either. Gun laws are needlessly complicated. It should be simple, but it is not. ATF makes errors too, and people do not know it, and accept those errors as fact. Words have meaning. You throw around terms like firearm, rifle, shotgun as if they are interchangeable, they are not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're right, I don't actually know (and I'm not taking offense, just trying to learn), but I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. That is not true either. Gun laws are needlessly complicated. It should be simple, but it is not. ATF makes errors too, and people do not know it, and accept those errors as fact. Words have meaning. You throw around terms like firearm, rifle, shotgun as if they are interchangeable, they are not. Yes, there are exceptions. A dealer can sell a firearm to someone other than face-to-face. It's called a non-over-the-counter sale. ATF Proc. 2013-2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 4:26:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're right, I don't actually know (and I'm not taking offense, just trying to learn), but I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. That is not true either. Can you cite something that is not true? I read it directly from the USC, but paraphrased before. Here is the full text: "(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver— (3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;" From what I pasted above and read there, here are the important parts: It shall be unlawful for any licensed dealer to sell any firearm to any person the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the state in which the licensee's business is located, except that this paragraph shall not apply to the sale of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a state other than a state in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor. Another phrasing: A dealer can only sell a shotgun or a rifle to a resident of another state if in a face to face transaction. Quoted:
Gun laws are needlessly complicated. It should be simple, but it is not. ATF makes errors too, and people do not know it, and accept those errors as fact. This I absolutely 1000% agree with. Quoted:
Words have meaning. You throw around terms like firearm, rifle, shotgun as if they are interchangeable, they are not. That is true, they are not. But I haven't misused any of the terms here. Rifles, shotguns (long guns), pistols, revolvers (handguns), frames, receivers, and some 'other' items (pistol grip only firearms that are at least 26" OAL and fire a shotgun shell) are all firearms. But the only things exempted in the USC quoted above are rifles and shotguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 4:26:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Yes, there are exceptions. A dealer can sell a firearm to someone other than face-to-face. It's called a non-over-the-counter sale. ATF Proc. 2013-2 But they can't do that with a person that doesn't reside in the same state. From your linked PDF: "Recordkeeping procedure for non-over-the-counter firearm sales by licensees to unlicensed in-state residents that are NICS exempt" I've been specifically talking about unlicensed out of state residents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 5:06:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But they can't do that with a person that doesn't reside in the same state. From your linked PDF: "Recordkeeping procedure for non-over-the-counter firearm sales by licensees to unlicensed in-state residents that are NICS exempt" I've been specifically talking about unlicensed out of state residents. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, there are exceptions. A dealer can sell a firearm to someone other than face-to-face. It's called a non-over-the-counter sale. ATF Proc. 2013-2 But they can't do that with a person that doesn't reside in the same state. From your linked PDF: "Recordkeeping procedure for non-over-the-counter firearm sales by licensees to unlicensed in-state residents that are NICS exempt" I've been specifically talking about unlicensed out of state residents. Correct. Unlicensed non-residents can only purchase rifles and shotguns at the store as long as the laws of their home state are met. As a dealer, I can't sell receivers, handguns, pistol-grip shotguns or NFA items directly to non-residents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 6:13:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you cite something that is not true? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're right, I don't actually know (and I'm not taking offense, just trying to learn), but I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. That is not true either. Can you cite something that is not true? Well go back through this thread and everything I said that was not true was not true. Some examples: 1) In state FFL (transferred to) owns the firearm. 2) I believe because the law states that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3) I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. All of these are not true. I think you have admitted 1 is not true, 2 is not true as an FFL has always been able to sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3 is not true as Mr Hansohn pointed as you can do a non-over the counter transaction. There are more, but these examples suffice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 6:43:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well go back through this thread and everything I said that was not true was not true. Some examples: 1) In state FFL (transferred to) owns the firearm. 2) I believe because the law states that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3) I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. All of these are not true. I think you have admitted 1 is not true, 2 is not true as an FFL has always been able to sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3 is not true as Mr Hansohn pointed as you can do a non-over the counter transaction. There are more, but these examples suffice. You still haven't refuted anything I said with any sort of citation. You are quoting things out of context. In this specific instance the firearm in question is not a rifle or shotgun, so it is not exempt (which I have mentioned the exemption for rifles and shotguns multiple times). Number 1 is a legal theory based on the out of state selling FFL not dealing face to face with the out of state buyer at all, which face to face would only be applicable with a shotgun or rifle (which the firearm in question is not). Number 2 only makes exception for rifle and shotgun, which I have mentioned, but is not relevant in this case. Number 3 is in no way incorrect the way I stated it. Non over the counter transaction cannot be performed when the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 7:25:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You still haven't refuted anything I said with any sort of citation. You are quoting things out of context. In this specific instance the firearm in question is not a rifle or shotgun, so it is not exempt (which I have mentioned the exemption for rifles and shotguns multiple times). Number 1 is a legal theory based on the out of state selling FFL not dealing face to face with the out of state buyer at all, which face to face would only be applicable with a shotgun or rifle (which the firearm in question is not). Number 2 only makes exception for rifle and shotgun, which I have mentioned, but is not relevant in this case. Number 3 is in no way incorrect the way I stated it. Non over the counter transaction cannot be performed when the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well go back through this thread and everything I said that was not true was not true. Some examples: 1) In state FFL (transferred to) owns the firearm. 2) I believe because the law states that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3) I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. All of these are not true. I think you have admitted 1 is not true, 2 is not true as an FFL has always been able to sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3 is not true as Mr Hansohn pointed as you can do a non-over the counter transaction. There are more, but these examples suffice. You still haven't refuted anything I said with any sort of citation. You are quoting things out of context. In this specific instance the firearm in question is not a rifle or shotgun, so it is not exempt (which I have mentioned the exemption for rifles and shotguns multiple times). Number 1 is a legal theory based on the out of state selling FFL not dealing face to face with the out of state buyer at all, which face to face would only be applicable with a shotgun or rifle (which the firearm in question is not). Number 2 only makes exception for rifle and shotgun, which I have mentioned, but is not relevant in this case. Number 3 is in no way incorrect the way I stated it. Non over the counter transaction cannot be performed when the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee. The real problem here is that you do not seem to understand words have meaning. You also do not seem to even understand what you write, for example your wrote (#3 BLUE above): I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun Yet n your response above (in RED), you some how think you mentioned "the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee" so either my monitor is broken and omitting passages, or you are not paying attention to what you write. Nowhere did you mention anything about the person not residing in same state in the BLUE passage. I can only answer the questions you wrote, I cannot answer the questions you think you wrote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 7:54:20 PM EDT
[#12]
You quoted me at on a point that I did use the words out of state. I then quoted you, within that context, but in my reply I didn't use the term out of state. After that you quoted me again and left the out of state context out. Just because you forgot that the context was in reference to out of state doesn't mean that it doesn't apply, since that is the basis of this entire conversation. Again, I've been specifically mentioning the USC, which does mention the out of state issue and is specifically what that particular law is about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 9:28:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, I've been specifically mentioning the USC, which does mention the out of state issue and is specifically what that particular law is about. Yes I see that. That is a good starting point, but not the end point. Congress writes sloppy laws, and ATF cleans them when they write the CFR and Revenue Rulings, etc. And ATF when writes a sloppy CFR, and SCOTUS cleans it up via Case Law. You will find most of the exemptions, exceptions to the rule, and other guidelines in these documents, not in the USC. 922(o) is a great example of sloppy law cleaned up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 10:00:54 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You still haven't refuted anything I said with any sort of citation. You are quoting things out of context. In this specific instance the firearm in question is not a rifle or shotgun, so it is not exempt (which I have mentioned the exemption for rifles and shotguns multiple times). Number 1 is a legal theory based on the out of state selling FFL not dealing face to face with the out of state buyer at all, which face to face would only be applicable with a shotgun or rifle (which the firearm in question is not). Number 2 only makes exception for rifle and shotgun, which I have mentioned, but is not relevant in this case. Number 3 is in no way incorrect the way I stated it. Non over the counter transaction cannot be performed when the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well go back through this thread and everything I said that was not true was not true. Some examples: 1) In state FFL (transferred to) owns the firearm. 2) I believe because the law states that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3) I quoted the actual United States Code that says that an FFL can't sell a firearm to someone unlicensed if that unlicensed person is not in a face to face transaction with the FFL and if that firearm is not a rifle or a shotgun. All of these are not true. I think you have admitted 1 is not true, 2 is not true as an FFL has always been able to sell a firearm to someone unlicensed out of state, 3 is not true as Mr Hansohn pointed as you can do a non-over the counter transaction. There are more, but these examples suffice. You still haven't refuted anything I said with any sort of citation. You are quoting things out of context. In this specific instance the firearm in question is not a rifle or shotgun, so it is not exempt (which I have mentioned the exemption for rifles and shotguns multiple times). Number 1 is a legal theory based on the out of state selling FFL not dealing face to face with the out of state buyer at all, which face to face would only be applicable with a shotgun or rifle (which the firearm in question is not). Number 2 only makes exception for rifle and shotgun, which I have mentioned, but is not relevant in this case. Number 3 is in no way incorrect the way I stated it. Non over the counter transaction cannot be performed when the unlicensed person does not reside in the same state at the licensee. Your contention that the receiving FFL "owns" the firearms he is transferring is pure unadulterated bullshit. No state in this country differs in that view. While the dealer may be the one in lawful possession, he sure as hell doesn't own that gun. I don't think you are aware that ATF uses the terms "buyer" and "transferee" interchangeably, as they do "sale" and "transfer". Your misunderstanding of ATF regulations begins with you reaing only the US Code. To really understand firearms law you also need to read the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically CFR 478 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 10:11:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your contention that the receiving FFL "owns" the firearms he is transferring is pure unadulterated bullshit. No state in this country differs in that view. While the dealer may be the one in lawful possession, he sure as hell doesn't own that gun. I don't think you are aware that ATF uses the terms "buyer" and "transferee" interchangeably, as they do "sale" and "transfer". Your misunderstanding of ATF regulations begins with you reaing only the US Code. To really understand firearms law you also need to read the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically CFR 478 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5 Reading CFR 478, I still see the same thing as in the USC. The two sections that are relevant are about out of state and mail order sales, and prohibited sales and deliveries (specifically interstate). I've quoted them below, edited for clarity (but not changing the content/meaning) §478.96 Out-of-State and mail order sales. (b) A licensed dealer may sell a firearm that is not subject to the provisions of §478.102(a) to a nonlicensee who does not appear in person at the licensee's business premises if the nonlicensee is a resident of the same State... (c)(1) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may sell or deliver a rifle or shotgun to a nonlicensed resident of a State other than the State in which the licensee's place of business is located That says the same thing as the USC, that a dealer can only sell to a resident of the same state on a mail order sale, and that a dealer can sell a shotgun/rifle to an out of state buyer. §478.99 Certain prohibited sales or deliveries. (a) Interstate sales or deliveries. A licensed dealer shall not sell or deliver any firearm to any person not licensed under this part and who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in the State in which the licensee's place of business or activity is located. (exceptions for rifle/shotgun are also included) To further my point, there is also a CFR that requires a background check before the sale of the firearm to an unlicensed person: §478.102 Sales or deliveries of firearms on and after November 30, 1998. (a) Background check. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a licensed dealer (the licensee) shall not sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this part unless the licensee meets the following requirements: (1) Before the completion of the transfer, the licensee has contacted NICS; Those 3 CFRs still say the same thing as the USC. A licensed dealer can't sell a firearm to an unlicensed person that doesn't reside in the same state as the licensee, unless that firearm is a shotgun or rifle and the unlicensed person that doesn't reside in the same state as the licensee is at the licensee's business premises. So logically, an out of state buyer hasn't actually purchased the firearm from the out of state dealer since the out of state dealer can't legally sell the firearm to them. The in state dealer that the out of state dealer transfer the firearm to is the one selling to the buyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 10:15:08 AM EDT
[#16]
Your lack of comprehension is astounding.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 10:24:52 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Then explain it to me. I'm reading, citing, and discussing the law. You're not providing any additional relevant information or discussion -- just trying to insult me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 10:37:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then explain it to me. I'm reading, citing, and discussing the law. You're not providing any additional relevant information or discussion -- just trying to insult me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Then explain it to me. I'm reading, citing, and discussing the law. You're not providing any additional relevant information or discussion -- just trying to insult me. Several licensed dealers have already explained ad nauseam. Suppose you explain to us how interstate sales can meet the letter of the law. For example, Bud's SELLS a customer a handgun. Buds ships the gun to a dealer in Texas, the TX dealer has the customer complete a 4473/NICS. Customer pays the TX dealer a small transfer fee. According to you, the above is illegal.....because Buds sold the gun, not the Texas dealer. ATF will be very interested in your answer. Because you will enlighten them by explaining how Buds violates Federal law a thousand times a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:02:53 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:07:02 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppose you explain to us how interstate sales can meet the letter of the law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Suppose you explain to us how interstate sales can meet the letter of the law. That is exactly what I have been doing. My explanation (theoretical) is that the out of state dealer is technically selling the firearm to the in state dealer. The in state dealer is then selling/transferring the firearm to the ultimate buyer. That would meet the letter of the law. Quoted:
For example, Bud's SELLS a customer a handgun. Buds ships the gun to a dealer in Texas, the TX dealer has the customer complete a 4473/NICS. Customer pays the TX dealer a small transfer fee. According to you, the above is illegal.....because Buds sold the gun, not the Texas dealer. ATF will be very interested in your answer. Because you will enlighten them by explaining how Buds violates Federal law a thousand times a day. Yes, according to the way I read the law, Bud's can't legally sell directly to the customer. But that isn't actually what I said is happening. I explained that fee that the customer pays the TX dealer in your example is actually (well, theoretically) a contract between the customer and the receiving dealer for the receiving dealer to purchase the firearm from Bud's, then sell it to the customer (even though the customer has directly paid Bud's). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:22:57 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what I have been doing. My explanation (theoretical) is that the out of state dealer is technically selling the firearm to the in state dealer. The in state dealer is then selling/transferring the firearm to the ultimate buyer. That would meet the letter of the law. Yes, according to the way I read the law, Bud's can't legally sell directly to the customer. But that isn't actually what I said is happening. I explained that fee that the customer pays the TX dealer in your example is actually (well, theoretically) a contract between the customer and the receiving dealer for the receiving dealer to purchase the firearm from Bud's, then sell it to the customer (even though the customer has directly paid Bud's). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Suppose you explain to us how interstate sales can meet the letter of the law. That is exactly what I have been doing. My explanation (theoretical) is that the out of state dealer is technically selling the firearm to the in state dealer. The in state dealer is then selling/transferring the firearm to the ultimate buyer. That would meet the letter of the law. Quoted:
For example, Bud's SELLS a customer a handgun. Buds ships the gun to a dealer in Texas, the TX dealer has the customer complete a 4473/NICS. Customer pays the TX dealer a small transfer fee. According to you, the above is illegal.....because Buds sold the gun, not the Texas dealer. ATF will be very integrated in your answer. Because you will enlighten them by explaining how Buds violates Federal law a thousand times a day. Yes, according to the way I read the law, Bud's can't legally sell directly to the customer. But that isn't actually what I said is happening. I explained that fee that the customer pays the TX dealer in your example is actually (well, theoretically) a contract between the customer and the receiving dealer for the receiving dealer to purchase the firearm from Bud's, then sell it to the customer (even though the customer has directly paid Bud's). You are wholly and completely wrong. The way YOU read the law is the problem. 
The receiving dealer is TRANSFERRING possession, not ownership. He has nothing to do with the sale of the firearm and wouldnt have any liability or role in refunding the customers purchase if the customer refused to accept the firearm. When I accept a firearm to transfer to a customer I dont pay Buds one red cent and there is no contract between Buds and myself. Stop trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:36:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to you, the above is illegal.....because Buds sold the gun, not the Texas dealer. ATF will be very interested in your answer. Because you will enlighten them by explaining how Buds violates Federal law a thousand times a day. Exactly. In order for telero to be right, 250,000+ FFLS + 50 State Tax agencies + IRS + BATFE + Appeals Court System for past ~40 years have to be wrong. This is how it has been since 1968, and he think he has suddenly discovered we are all criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:56:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop trolling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stop trolling. Ah, the general sign of an actual troll is when you don't agree with someone, but don't actually make any valid point, so you call the other person a troll. I realize I just indirectly called you a troll, but this is a technical forum and we are having a technical discussion. But what you did, calling someone a troll when they are having a legitimate discussion, is just bad form. Quoted:
You are wholly and completely wrong. The way YOU read the law is the problem.
The receiving dealer is TRANSFERRING possession, not ownership. He has nothing to do with the sale of the firearm and wouldnt have any liability or role in refunding the customers purchase if the customer refused to accept the firearm. The legal definition of the word sell is: to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value So, since it's illegal for the out of state dealer to sell (transfer ownership) the firearm to the buyer directly, but it's not illegal for the in state dealer to sell the firearm to the buyer, then how did the buyer legally end up with ownership of the firearm? Had to be from the in state dealer. Quoted:
When I accept a firearm to transfer to a customer I dont pay Buds one red cent and there is no contract between Buds and myself. I think you kind of did have a contract between you and Bud's and you and the customer. By making yourself available for firearms transfers, either by providing Bud's or the customer with a copy of your FFL, you agreed to do something for that fee. My explanation is that you as the in state dealer agreed to buy the firearm from Bud's, Bud's agreed to accept the customer's money on your behalf, and you agreed to sell the firearm to the customer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 1:51:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The legal definition of the word sell is: to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value. I think you kind of did have a contract between you and Bud's and you and the customer. By making yourself available for firearms transfers, either by providing Bud's or the customer with a copy of your FFL, you agreed to do something for that fee. My explanation is that you as the in state dealer agreed to buy the firearm from Bud's, Bud's agreed to accept the customer's money on your behalf, and you agreed to sell the firearm to the customer. I think the root of your issue is that there are apparently different legal definitions of "sell". Why would selling have to be a transfer of ownership AND possession? Can I not buy a house or land without physically setting foot there or even seeing them? Can't I purchase most items online and have them shipped to a third party? Of course I can. Did that third party then become a buyer? No they didn't. We don't think it means what you think it means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 2:01:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think you kind of did have a contract between you and Bud's and you and the customer. By making yourself available for firearms transfers, either by providing Bud's or the customer with a copy of your FFL, you agreed to do something for that fee. My explanation is that you as the in state dealer agreed to buy the firearm from Bud's, Bud's agreed to accept the customer's money on your behalf, and you agreed to sell the firearm to the customer. Yet another example of you do not know what you do not know. Once again your assumption he has to provide an FFL to accept a transfer is WRONG. Thus there is no possible contract - either written, verbal or even implied. As any FFL will tell you, packages "just show up". Inside the box there is say, a Glock 17 and nothing else. No ID nothing. Three days later someone calls up and asks, "Did you get my Glock 17?" I guess under your view, the FFL would answer "Yes, but I sold it yesterday because I read on the internets telero said I was the owner and it was sold to me." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 2:16:38 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ah, the general sign of an actual troll is when you don't agree with someone, but don't actually make any valid point, so you call the other person a troll. I realize I just indirectly called you a troll, but this is a technical forum and we are having a technical discussion. But what you did, calling someone a troll when they are having a legitimate discussion, is just bad form. No, sir, a troll is someone who once presented with correct information by a knowledgeable person experienced in ATF regulations (RenegadeX), continues to disagree without providing one shred of information to support his argument. You aren't a lawyer, you aren't a licensed dealer and you have no working knowledge of ATF regs. I would never want you to merely accept internet postings at face value, but since you have been pointed to the regulations you either did not read them, do not understand them or choose to not read them. So, either you are posting based on a complete and total ignorance of firearms law, ATF regulations, business law and common sense or you are trolling to get attention for your silly theoretical legal arguments. The legal definition of the word sell is: to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value That is not the definition or standard that ATF uses. Nice try though.
So, since it's illegal for the out of state dealer to sell (transfer ownership) the firearm to the buyer directly, but it's not illegal for the in state dealer to sell the firearm to the buyer, then how did the buyer legally end up with ownership of the firearm? Had to be from the in state dealer. Again, your understanding of ownership is flat out wrong...........making the rest of your question moot. I think you kind of did have a contract between you and Bud's and you and the customer. By making yourself available for firearms transfers, either by providing Bud's or the customer with a copy of your FFL, you agreed to do something for that fee. Horseshit. I have no written or verbal contract with Bud's. I have no written or verbal contract with any of my transfer customers. There may be an implied contract as to the services I provide to lawfully transfer the firearm to the buyer, but neither Bud's nor my customers have any belief that the sales transaction involves me. My explanation is that you as the in state dealer agreed to buy the firearm from Bud's, Bud's agreed to accept the customer's money on your behalf, and you agreed to sell the firearm to the customer. And your explanation isn't remotely accurate. At best, its pure ignorance of what an interstate firearm transfer involves. You are wholly and completely fucked up in the head if you think the receiving dealer buys the gun from Bud's or that Bud's accepts customer $$$$ on my behalf. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stop trolling. Ah, the general sign of an actual troll is when you don't agree with someone, but don't actually make any valid point, so you call the other person a troll. I realize I just indirectly called you a troll, but this is a technical forum and we are having a technical discussion. But what you did, calling someone a troll when they are having a legitimate discussion, is just bad form. No, sir, a troll is someone who once presented with correct information by a knowledgeable person experienced in ATF regulations (RenegadeX), continues to disagree without providing one shred of information to support his argument. You aren't a lawyer, you aren't a licensed dealer and you have no working knowledge of ATF regs. I would never want you to merely accept internet postings at face value, but since you have been pointed to the regulations you either did not read them, do not understand them or choose to not read them. So, either you are posting based on a complete and total ignorance of firearms law, ATF regulations, business law and common sense or you are trolling to get attention for your silly theoretical legal arguments. Quoted:
You are wholly and completely wrong. The way YOU read the law is the problem.
The receiving dealer is TRANSFERRING possession, not ownership. He has nothing to do with the sale of the firearm and wouldnt have any liability or role in refunding the customers purchase if the customer refused to accept the firearm. The legal definition of the word sell is: to transfer possession and ownership of goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value That is not the definition or standard that ATF uses. Nice try though.
So, since it's illegal for the out of state dealer to sell (transfer ownership) the firearm to the buyer directly, but it's not illegal for the in state dealer to sell the firearm to the buyer, then how did the buyer legally end up with ownership of the firearm? Had to be from the in state dealer. Again, your understanding of ownership is flat out wrong...........making the rest of your question moot. Quoted:
When I accept a firearm to transfer to a customer I dont pay Buds one red cent and there is no contract between Buds and myself. I think you kind of did have a contract between you and Bud's and you and the customer. By making yourself available for firearms transfers, either by providing Bud's or the customer with a copy of your FFL, you agreed to do something for that fee. Horseshit. I have no written or verbal contract with Bud's. I have no written or verbal contract with any of my transfer customers. There may be an implied contract as to the services I provide to lawfully transfer the firearm to the buyer, but neither Bud's nor my customers have any belief that the sales transaction involves me. My explanation is that you as the in state dealer agreed to buy the firearm from Bud's, Bud's agreed to accept the customer's money on your behalf, and you agreed to sell the firearm to the customer. And your explanation isn't remotely accurate. At best, its pure ignorance of what an interstate firearm transfer involves. You are wholly and completely fucked up in the head if you think the receiving dealer buys the gun from Bud's or that Bud's accepts customer $$$$ on my behalf. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 2:18:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. In order for telero to be right, 250,000+ FFLS + 50 State Tax agencies + IRS + BATFE + Appeals Court System for past ~40 years have to be wrong. This is how it has been since 1968, and he think he has suddenly discovered we are all criminals. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
According to you, the above is illegal.....because Buds sold the gun, not the Texas dealer. ATF will be very interested in your answer. Because you will enlighten them by explaining how Buds violates Federal law a thousand times a day. Exactly. In order for telero to be right, 250,000+ FFLS + 50 State Tax agencies + IRS + BATFE + Appeals Court System for past ~40 years have to be wrong. This is how it has been since 1968, and he think he has suddenly discovered we are all criminals. Post count of 76 Join date of October 2012 That pretty much explains it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the root of your issue is that there are apparently different legal definitions of "sell". Why would selling have to be a transfer of ownership AND possession? Can I not buy a house or land without physically setting foot there or even seeing them? Can't I purchase most items online and have them shipped to a third party? Of course I can. Did that third party then become a buyer? No they didn't. We don't think it means what you think it means. With real property (the land in your example), sure, you can buy without physically possessing via setting foot on it. But when the contract is executed, you have taken possession of it by title or deed, or whatever. And with purchasing most items online and having them shipped somewhere else, the third party may not be the buyer, but they may be the owner. How did they become the owner? They either bought it from you, or you gifted it to them. The reason for making the distinctions with firearms is important is because most things aren't illegal to sell interstate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:06:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet another example of you do not know what you do not know. Once again your assumption he has to provide an FFL to accept a transfer is WRONG. Thus there is no possible contract - either written, verbal or even implied. As any FFL will tell you, packages "just show up". Inside the box there is say, a Glock 17 and nothing else. No ID nothing. Three days later someone calls up and asks, "Did you get my Glock 17?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet another example of you do not know what you do not know. Once again your assumption he has to provide an FFL to accept a transfer is WRONG. Thus there is no possible contract - either written, verbal or even implied. As any FFL will tell you, packages "just show up". Inside the box there is say, a Glock 17 and nothing else. No ID nothing. Three days later someone calls up and asks, "Did you get my Glock 17?" I do feel for you for having to deal with random shipments showing up and no information. But someone coming up with your FFL information and having a firearm sent to you randomly is not what I'm talking about. Generally (correct me if I'm wrong on this point), you've provided your FFL to the seller or to the buyer to present to the seller, for that specific transaction. Or maybe provided your FFL to Bud's or gunbroker for general transfers that originate from those sites. I'm glad I don't have to deal with the random shipments showing up...I'd probably just return to sender anything I wasn't expecting... Quoted:
I guess under your view, the FFL would answer "Yes, but I sold it yesterday because I read on the internets telero said I was the owner and it was sold to me." If only it were that easy. Might put an end to people not contacting you about incoming items. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:10:22 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: With real property (the land in your example), sure, you can buy without physically possessing via setting foot on it. But when the contract is executed, you have taken possession of it by title or deed, or whatever. And with purchasing most items online and having them shipped somewhere else, the third party may not be the buyer, but they may be the owner. How did they become the owner? They either bought it from you, or you gifted it to them. The reason for making the distinctions with firearms is important is because most things aren't illegal to sell interstate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think the root of your issue is that there are apparently different legal definitions of "sell". Why would selling have to be a transfer of ownership AND possession? Can I not buy a house or land without physically setting foot there or even seeing them? Can't I purchase most items online and have them shipped to a third party? Of course I can. Did that third party then become a buyer? No they didn't. We don't think it means what you think it means. With real property (the land in your example), sure, you can buy without physically possessing via setting foot on it. But when the contract is executed, you have taken possession of it by title or deed, or whatever. And with purchasing most items online and having them shipped somewhere else, the third party may not be the buyer, but they may be the owner. How did they become the owner? They either bought it from you, or you gifted it to them. The reason for making the distinctions with firearms is important is because most things aren't illegal to sell interstate. There's nothing new or radical going on in regards to firearm transactions, and I'm not going to waste time attempting to convince you otherwise. Best of luck with your continuing legal interpretations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:02:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, sir, a troll is someone who once presented with correct information by a knowledgeable person experienced in ATF regulations (RenegadeX), continues to disagree without providing one shred of information to support his argument. You aren't a lawyer, you aren't a licensed dealer and you have no working knowledge of ATF regs. I would never want you to merely accept internet postings at face value, but since you have been pointed to the regulations you either did not read them, do not understand them or choose to not read them. So, either you are posting based on a complete and total ignorance of firearms law, ATF regulations, business law and common sense or you are trolling to get attention for your silly theoretical legal arguments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, sir, a troll is someone who once presented with correct information by a knowledgeable person experienced in ATF regulations (RenegadeX), continues to disagree without providing one shred of information to support his argument. You aren't a lawyer, you aren't a licensed dealer and you have no working knowledge of ATF regs. I would never want you to merely accept internet postings at face value, but since you have been pointed to the regulations you either did not read them, do not understand them or choose to not read them. So, either you are posting based on a complete and total ignorance of firearms law, ATF regulations, business law and common sense or you are trolling to get attention for your silly theoretical legal arguments. So far the "correct information" I've been provided hasn't been in the form of citing regulations. I read the USC and CFR but that's all I've been pointed to. I still draw the same conclusions from those. If you have additional links to ATF regulations and open letters , etc., that deal specifically with this issue, please provide them. The thing about ATF letters and regs is that whatever opinion they form they generally do a good job of referencing the law they used to form that opinion as well as the logic they used. Not that they don't sometimes used flawed logic or take some liberties with interpretation that many don't really agree with... Quoted:
The receiving dealer is TRANSFERRING possession, not ownership. He has nothing to do with the sale of the firearm and wouldnt have any liability or role in refunding the customers purchase if the customer refused to accept the firearm. By your logic if the receiving dealer doesn't own the firearm and has nothing to do with the sale, then the original out of state dealer must be the one selling the firearm to the out of state buyer...which is very specifically illegal. Quoted:
There may be an implied contract as to the services I provide to lawfully transfer the firearm to the buyer, but neither Bud's nor my customers have any belief that the sales transaction involves me. Because of the wording of the law, that's where our opinions differ. Quoted:
And your explanation isn't remotely accurate. At best, its pure ignorance of what an interstate firearm transfer involves. You are wholly and completely fucked up in the head if you think the receiving dealer buys the gun from Bud's or that Bud's accepts customer $$$$ on my behalf. Again, because of the wording of the law, it doesn't appear that sale can take place directly from the out of state dealer to the end buyer. I understand how the process works in practice, but not in the underlying legal mechanics and technicalities, at least not with the information I have so far. Quoted:
Post count of 76 Join date of October 2012 That pretty much explains it. Don't be a jerk. It's crap like that that makes people hate ar15.com |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:30:33 PM EDT
[#32]
So, what's your angle and why does it matter so much? Why is it so important to show that dealers are breaking the law with every transfer (in your opinion)?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 5:03:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the USC and CFR but that's all I've been pointed to. I still draw the same conclusions from those. And that is the problem. So many folks think the totality of the industry regulation is based on what they have read and is linkable on the Internet. It does not work that way. Firearms regulations in the US dates back many, many decades. So much of what is accepted practice was decided decades ago in the form of Revenue Rulings, Case Law, etc. Have you research these from around 1969, when the FFL system was first put into place and the first FFL wrote a letter to IRS asking if "sale" meant taking money from individual A shipping firearm to FFL B? Have you asked a lawyer to research it? Have you asked your IOI? Have you asked BATFE? No you haven't or you would not be on here posting your foolishness. These are long-settled matters, and the fact that some non-FFL does not understand lawful business practices does not change them. We tried to explain it to you, you do not want to accept it, it is not job to provide written citations for basic business practices. Take it or leave it as is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 6:32:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't be a jerk. It's crap like that that makes people hate ar15.com Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Post count of 76 Join date of October 2012 That pretty much explains it. Don't be a jerk. It's crap like that that makes people hate ar15.com You call it being a jerk, I call it being aware of reality. The reality is the posts by guys with low post counts and join dates in late 2012 and 2013 have a higher than normal amount of stupid. Your responses in this thread do little to change that perception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 9:02:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By your logic if the receiving dealer doesn't own the firearm and has nothing to do with the sale, then the original out of state dealer must be the one selling the firearm to the out of state buyer...which is very specifically illegal. Selling across state lines is perfectly legal. It's the transfer, shipping, receipt, and transport of the firearm that is regulated. By your logic if I'm the FFL/SOT for a transferrable machine gun, during the 6-8 months when it's sitting in my safe while the Form 4 is getting processed, since I ***own*** that gun I should be able to do what I want with it - use it as a rental, use it as eye candy at gun shows on my table, etc. BUT I can't and I wouldn't because I don't own that gun. Only I can legally possess it until that Form 4 gets approved so I can hand it over to the owner, but the firearm is not mine. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
