Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/30/2005 6:48:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2005 1:59:17 PM EDT by Rose]
I've seen several online dealers indicate that the ATF no longer requires blue or red ink signed copies of FFLs to be mailed to them. Faxes are now ok.

I think this as to do with the advent of the FFLeZCheck System. But I can't find anything from the ATF on this matter except for this, from the ATF FAQ:

"F8) In transactions between licensees, how is the seller assured that a purchaser of a firearm is a licensed dealer? [Back]

Verification must be established by the transferee furnishing to the transferor a certified copy of the transferee's license and by any other means the transferor deems necessary. [27 CFR 178.94] "

Who knows the facts on this matter?
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 6:56:37 PM EDT
*
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 6:58:59 PM EDT
**
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 6:59:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rose:
........ a certified copy of the transferee's license a........... [27 CFR 178.94] "





Doesn't sound like a fax to me.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:02:04 PM EDT
Yes, you can fax a copy. It has to be easy to read. Most places require a follow up mailed in copy.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:11:25 PM EDT
I just did a deal that way. Had them fax me a copy and ran it on EZcheck. It all matched up and I shipped it.
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:35:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2005 7:43:31 PM EDT by Rose]
Here are two places I found that are now saying FAXes are OK.

GlibertsGuns
ImpactGuns also see-->ImpactGuns FFL Fax Cover Sheet for some commentary on the issue

The applicable law says,"...Verification shall be established by the transferee furnishing to the transferor a certified copy of the transferee's license..." It never defines (that I can find) what a "certified copy" actually is. I understand that the traditional interpretation has been that a "certified copy" is a copy signed in blue or red ink by the FFL holder. With the advent of the FFLeZCheck (read the open letter to FFLs about FFLeZcheck HERE) I'm thinking the ATF has accepted an alternate definition of "certified copy". In other words, ANY copy that can be verified with FFLeZCheck is considered certified.

That is what I believe is happening. What I want is proof of my suspicion by way of some letter or document from the ATF. Is there such evidence?
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 7:41:32 PM EDT
tagamundo
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:10:36 PM EDT
anyone?
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:16:22 PM EDT


FFLs can now fax there license?



ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374909
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:18:52 PM EDT
tag.

I wondered how long it would take the grammar nazis to show up
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 10:47:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By david_g17:


FFLs can now fax there license?



ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374909



Hey, everyone messes up once in a while!

fixed it
Link Posted: 7/30/2005 11:09:18 PM EDT
There has never been a requirement for blue or red ink, I'm not sure where this originated from.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:02:42 AM EDT
Fax Copies are now acceptable. However, if you mail us the FFL, it must have an original signature (not a photo copy).

This makes no sense to me. It isn't the first time I have seen a statement like that though.

So, could you scan and email a copy? I've had people say a fax of a document was good but a scanned email copy was not.

The red ink signature thing was something I have always used to disqualify sellers as anyone with whom I would do business.

Blue ink was iffy.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:18:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Oslow:
Fax Copies are now acceptable. However, if you mail us the FFL, it must have an original signature (not a photo copy).

This makes no sense to me. It isn't the first time I have seen a statement like that though.

So, could you scan and email a copy? I've had people say a fax of a document was good but a scanned email copy was not.

The red ink signature thing was something I have always used to disqualify sellers as anyone with whom I would do business.

Blue ink was iffy.



please tell me why the ink color matters?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:23:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cduarte:

Originally Posted By Oslow:
Fax Copies are now acceptable. However, if you mail us the FFL, it must have an original signature (not a photo copy).

This makes no sense to me. It isn't the first time I have seen a statement like that though.

So, could you scan and email a copy? I've had people say a fax of a document was good but a scanned email copy was not.

The red ink signature thing was something I have always used to disqualify sellers as anyone with whom I would do business.

Blue ink was iffy.



please tell me why the ink color matters?



Red or blue ink is supposed to show that it is not a photocopy (putting aside the issue of color copiers, of course).
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:25:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spartacus2002:

Originally Posted By cduarte:

Originally Posted By Oslow:
Fax Copies are now acceptable. However, if you mail us the FFL, it must have an original signature (not a photo copy).

This makes no sense to me. It isn't the first time I have seen a statement like that though.

So, could you scan and email a copy? I've had people say a fax of a document was good but a scanned email copy was not.

The red ink signature thing was something I have always used to disqualify sellers as anyone with whom I would do business.

Blue ink was iffy.



please tell me why the ink color matters?



Red or blue ink is supposed to show that it is not a photocopy (putting aside the issue of color copiers, of course).



I understand that, so why would red disqualify and blue be iffy?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 4:53:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 4:55:21 AM EDT by Oslow]
Because if someone is goofy about the color of the ink they are probably just plain goofy.

Why complicate my life?

And if I told my local dealer that he had to sign in red ink he would just laugh.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 12:42:58 PM EDT
In another thread on another board there was some discussion about this. One contributer (ajamesp51) added this:

"Ok I just got off the phone with the ATF. I was told

It is legal (aka your allowed to) as a dealer fax a signed copy of your FFL to another dealer and it will be the same thing as mailing a copy. The new ruling was in the latest news letter that was mailed out to all FFLs. This is great becuase mail is slow. It will take time for all the FFLs to accept this since the news letter may still have not been mailed out to every one yet including my self."


Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:49:44 AM EDT
Any FFL's out there that can clear this one up?

So is a FAX sufficient? or does this mean it has to be backed up w/ a hard copy sent in the MAIL?

Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:19:10 AM EDT
This is all great fine and dandy, except they still place the responsibility on the FFL dealer to make sure that the FFL is the real deal, etc. For most guys this will still be in the form of an ink signed FFL mailed from the other dealer's address.

And they don't have a tracking mechanism on the FFL EZCHECK sight that says Joe Dealer on "X" date checked that PETE the dealer was in fact a dealer. So there is no proof you checked it out. If some punk photoshops an FFL and writes his own address in for me to send a gun to, then I'm TOAST. I'm the one that gets to meet BUBBA in the big house. So then end result is, not much will change for most dealers. I'll still send out mailed copies and expect them in return.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:30:18 AM EDT
Interesting,

so maybe the "verification" could be printing out the FFL EZCheck page for the dealer that faxed a copy of thier FFL? Too bad it doesn't show th date of the lookup....
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:39:11 AM EDT
That would be cool if they'd provide a verification method. I'd be all for it. The real issie is they(ATF) can issue opinions, make changes, etc. BUT, it's still the dealer that gets hung out to dry, so they could really care less. Just my humble opinion.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 7:31:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rcsguns:
This is all great fine and dandy, except they still place the responsibility on the FFL dealer to make sure that the FFL is the real deal, etc. For most guys this will still be in the form of an ink signed FFL mailed from the other dealer's address.

And they don't have a tracking mechanism on the FFL EZCHECK sight that says Joe Dealer on "X" date checked that PETE the dealer was in fact a dealer. So there is no proof you checked it out. If some punk photoshops an FFL and writes his own address in for me to send a gun to, then I'm TOAST. I'm the one that gets to meet BUBBA in the big house. So then end result is, not much will change for most dealers. I'll still send out mailed copies and expect them in return.



May be I am missing something here. It sounds like you have it backwards. "If some punk photoshops an FFL and writes his own address in for me to send a gun to, then I'm TOAST. " You should then verify that the address is correct. ALWAYS. The BATFE is going to allow you to use the FFL EZcheck to verify the FFL and address. No need for a mailed copy. The verification will be done through their computer system. It's about time.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 4:08:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 1:58:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PK90:
HERE IT IS!!!!



NICE, ok it's settled then.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 2:37:54 PM EDT
Wow! Something that actually makes sense.

Now, if my local FFL just had a FAX machine.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:55:24 PM EDT
What really needs to be done is for GunBroker, AuctionArms and GunsAmerica to update their information about the certification and verification processes.
Like:
1. Non-licensees do not need an FFL copy
2. Licensees only need a faxed (emailed?) FFL copy
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:00:39 PM EDT
I called a big place last week and asked if an item was in stock and the current price? iI was in and the price was acceptable so I said I'll fax you my FFL copy and COD it to me, He said what? I told the new fax regulation and he said they (remember big) hadn't heard of it. I snail mailed them my copy and a USPS money order. It save me the COD fee but it took longer for the transaction and I have to hope the item they put aside for me was still there when my mail arrived.
YMMV
M
Top Top