I think I may have a transaction that is going to go bad. I sold a nice AK-47 type rifle on an auction. I put the disclaimers on the auction about people from restricted states not bidding. I get the check and FFL in the mail today. The buyer is from California. The FFL to ship the gun to is in Nevada. The FFL is a copy no ink signiture. I think I can ship this gun to the dealer in NV but the FFL should be signed in ink, I am not an FFL dealer. I am tempted to pack up the FFL and check and ship it back to the guy and relist the gun. Any guidance would be appreciated
No need to be a jerk.
Again, some may think they're immune to all harm but some of us out here are just average joes aka: human and want a signed FFL. That's part of the reason this thread was originally started for by the OP.
Guy could well have a vacation home in Nevada. Do the EZ-check and print it out and perhaps even call the FFL. You are sending it to Nevada and the purchase is no doubt taking place legally in Nevada. What the guy does after it leaves the FFL is on him, not you or the FFL.
I am hesistant on sending a gun anywhere..Like one poster said it could be an altered address could get you in trouble becuase you really did not send it to an FFL.Even if you did not know about an altered address you could be held responsible for your actions.
Thats the reason I have no ever sold anything on gunbroker. I would have an FFL do all the work and I dont want to pay the $25 for the FFL to handle it.
My father is an attorney so i am over catious as to follwing the law as he is.. Pay the $25 or so dollars and have your FFL send it where it needs to go..I would not send it myself even with an inked signed FFL.
I want to thank everyone for their input. I didn't realize this would spark so much debate. I did the FFL ez-check and the Nevada FFL is good to go. I think I will give him a call and then ship the gun. Like most of the posters say, this transaction is between myself and the FFL in Nevada. The transferring FFL is responsible for determining the residency of the person filling out the 4473. I scanned over a lot of the BATF rules and I could not find anything that requires an FFL be signed in ink to do a transfer.
Good grief! Never seen a more paranoid bunch.
Verify the license on EZCheck and ship the damn rifle. What happens after that is nobody's business but the buyer and the FFL the rifle was shipped to.
Clearly, some typin in this thread have never used EZCheck.
When you plug the numbers into the EZCheck it gives you everything you need to ship the gun. It gives the expiration date of the license, the licensee's name, the trade name and the address of the licenses premisies. You ship the gun to that address and your responsibility ends there. Ink signed and all the rest doesn't matter a hill of beans to an unlicensed person. Print that EZCheck page if you want and staple the UPS shipping receipt to it for your records if it makes you feel better.
From GunBroker.com Firearms Shipping Guide:
Shipment by Unlicensed Persons
Any shipper who does not have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is considered to be an 'unlicensed person'. This section contains information on how unlicensed persons can ship firearms. If you have an FFL, please skip to the next section for shipping suggestions.
The most important thing to know is that you must only ship guns to a licensed dealer. If the buyer is not a licensed dealer, he will have to make arrangements with a dealer in his state to ship the item to.
Before you ship a gun, the buyer must fax or mail you a copy of the dealer's signed FFL license. You can only ship the gun to the address on the license. You must inform the carrier that the package contains a firearm. Of course, the firearm cannot be shipped loaded; ammunition may not be shipped in the same box. You should take the copy of the signed FFL with you when you take the item to be shipped in case the shipper wishes to see it.
20 posts = 20/20 hindsight
It's possible that the OP specified a signed FFL in the auction terms, the majority of gun auctions on GB do. If needed at a later date, a signed piece of paper to show the alphabet gang isn't that pointless.
Sure it's pointless since they accept faxes and pdfs. My FFL let me scan his form. I just print it off with signature in blue every time I buy a gun by mail. The old 'original signed in colored ink' rule is passe' because of allowing faxed FFLs.
No its not. It doesn't matter if it is signed. Quit posting if don't know what your talking about.
True and thats valid point. However the FFL is not legally required to sent it.
I hear ya on the letter of the law. You and I might be comfortable with it, but just like so many other things nowadays, ya never know. If the seller doesn't check the #'s (much less knows he/she can actually check), then a fake FFL is a piece of cake. Get one from a dealer, change the address, xerox it, fax or send it along with payment, felon/illegal immigrant gets a firearm.
Didn't mean to be so picky but crossin' and dottin' pays off once in awhile. Take an average joe that walks into a gunshow with an AK pistol, then have that avg joe try and convince a hardheaded ATF agent that it's not a SBR and that it doesn't have to be marked as a pistol...not that I would know anything about events such as this
Paperwork can be an asset at times
(yes, they had to give the pistol back in front of a zillion people)
Ref your first remark: As recently as Nov 2006, one member of the Air Force High Power Rifle Team aquired a permit from the CA DOJ to have his AR15's in the state. He is a legal resident of West Virginia but stationed at LAX and frequently shoots matches in CA. This has noting to do with the Soldiers and Sailors Act or taxes. It's spelled out in the CA Penal Code. I don't want to hi-jack this thread, so contact me by E-mail and I'll get you the details.
Ref your comment that an FFL is fake if it's not signed: That is wrong. Recently, the ATF sent a letter to FFL's allowing us to fax our FFL's, therefore, it won't have an original signature. You can verify an FFL with the ATF website. Lastly, as mentioned, the FFL holder is not required to send a non-FFL holder a copy of his license. As a private citizen, you can mail a firearm to any FFL dealer or manufacturer. Would you ask Ruger for a copy of their FFL to send your 10/22 back for repairs?
Lastly, your tag says you are from GU, USA. Where is that?
Despite the conspiracy theorists on this site, here is your situation:
1) As a NON-FFL, you do not need an 'ink signed copy' - or any copy at all, but you DO need to ship to a real FFL. The copy (signed or not) makes it easier... So EZCheck the license to make sure it's real, and then if you can, call the licensee to make sure someone isn't using his FFL without permission. At that point, you are good to go...
Remember: ATF no longer requires FFLs to have 'ink signed copies' anymore - they can accept licenses by FAX.
2) You are not liable for where the gun goes or who buys it - that is the responsibility of the FFL who is transferring it.
3) There is no reason to involve a FFL on your end...
4) A CA address doesn't mean shit - the guy could have property in NV, or be any number of other things...
5) Once again, the ATF or CA DOJ can't punish you for selling a rifle to a CA resident unless you are 'dealing without a license' - the sale takes place in your state and is legal there... If the buyer is illegal, that's his tough shit...
Correct - and some WON'T because they don't want their license 'in circulation' outside the FFL community...
I would not ship the gun to a dealer in another state for sale or transfer without having a signed copy of his FFL in your possession. It is not the same as sending the gun to the factory or to a gunsmith for repair. In fact, the shipping clerk may ask you to show him a copy of the FFL before accepting the gun. I would simply call the transfer dealer and ask him to mail or fax you a signed copy of his FFL. Talking with the dealer first also confirms that he is expecting to receive the gun for the customer, as sometimes the FFL is mailed or faxed to you directly from the customer. According to the BATFE, the faxed copy must be "certified," which I would interpret as signed. The eZCheck is not a substitute for a signed copy of the FFL. It is useful only in validating the FFL. It is kept up-to-date.
Thats only between two FFLs. Get with the program or get out of this thread.
EZCHECK is not a substitue, it is the main place for you to check the status of a license. Anybody can send you a piece of paper signed or not signed ..
If it's not there (EZCHECK), I would call ATF to verifiy the status of a license.
I couldnt care less about a copy of a FFL license that I have in my hand..
A copy of the FFL is a nice thing to have, but really means nothing to the sender. You still have to verify the status of the dealer and his address before shipping a firearm..
Thats why EZCHECK is there.
BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING. call the FFL holder and talk about it, he should know the law.
option 1) Keep FFL to CYB, deposit the check, wait till it clears, retain cost of the auction, send a short note of "thanks but no thanks" and the change back to bidder in the form of a Postal Money Order. Contact the FFL and ask what's up.
option 2) Keep FFL to CYB, send check back and eat cost of auction, relist.
just an idea,
ETA: got a pic of the AK?
1st off, IBTL/M as this belongs in GD or something...
i'm not a legal expert or the sort, but i will say this:
you can use the ATF EZ FFL check to verify the authencity of that FFL copy--just type in the #s/letters of the FFL: www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/
you can ship it to NV, and its up to that FFL guy to transfer it to the guy in CA--imo, if you got the funds and sent the firearm to the FFL, its no longer your responsibilty on who that FFL transfers it to; h/w, i'm pretty sure ALL FFL copies need some inked signature when its in a transaction, so if that FFL copy you got is NOT signed, i would not send the firearm and contact your buyer and ask why there is no signature
if worse comes to worse, you might have to report this to the ATF, but you should also be wary as this might be an ATF sting or a shady character trying to get a banned gun in CA
As a FFL holder I say +1. Contact the buyer and have him send you an ink signed copy of the FFL. If he provides that, look up the FFL with the link provided in the post above. If the FFL is current and you have a ink signed copy, sell it and ship it. Its not your responsiblity, its the FFL holders responsibilty. The FFL has to log the firearm in his book and the buyer will have to fill out a 4473, I am sure you know the drill.
If it makes you fell a little better send the buyer the MO back and have the buyer have the FFL holder send the payment and the ink signed copy of the FFL. Then your just dealing with the FFL.
I seriousely doubt and I stress seriously doubt it is an ATF sting. The California AWB is a state law not a federal. ATF has neither the man power, the jurisdiction nor the care to do something like that. I have first hand nowledge on this. I had a customer ship me a Arsenal AK-74 for some work and a refinish. When the package arrived I noticed it had come from a address in California. I emailed the customer and asked if he was law enfrocement (which is the only way he would have leaglly owned the rifle since it was new production) and if he was I ask for him to send a me a letter head from his department. He stated "no, I'm not LE" and I told him I could not ship the rifle back to him because of state laws there. I then received a phone call from him begging me not to contact the ATF but I told him I had to contact my local branch to see what I should do with the rifle since it could not go back to him. The agent I delt with told me he would look into it and call me back. A week later I get a call from the agent and he tells me quote "I contacted our Firearms division in Washington and I was told since the federal AWB was lifted it was a state issue." I then asked what I should do with the rifle and was told this " Keep it, do not ship it back.". Funny thing was non of the local agents here even knew what a Arsenal SLR-105 (AK-74) was. Sorry for the long post.
+1 on this advice!
My advice - do everything you can to abide by the law and at the same time transfer the "assault weapon" into a rightful owners hands.
If you stop into your local friendly FFL and ask him to ship said rifle to an FFL in another state...you wash your hands. For $25 you are now safe. FFLs are professionals and it is part of their job to know what can and can not be sent where and under what circumstances.
I am not sure if PRCA has a specific law that forbids a resident from owning an "assault weapon" that is physically located in another state.
Personally, I have a close friend that owns a significant collection of NFA toys and he lives in NYC. All of his NFA goodies reside in a safe in Pennsylvania that only HE has access to. Perfectly legal.
make a reasonable effort to protect yourself but do every darn thing you can to legally transfer that firearm to one of our brothers.
why did you even have him send a hard copy of the FFL and waste time like that? why do you even care? just ask for the last 5 digits of the FFL and check it online with the FFL ez check. get money, send package to the legit FFL. end of story.
unless you are a dealer, you dont need a copy of the FFL, and the "ink signed" thing is pointless now since you can FAX FFL's now!!!
edit: first 3 and last 5 of the FFL, not just the last 5
Many AK type rifles aren't banned guns in CA. If you are unsure, you could always check the info thread tacked at the top of the CA hometown forum. Many people now are selling AK and AR type weapons in CA. Just make sure it isn't banned by specific make and model, and that certain characteristics of the AK are removed(removing the pistol grip is often all it takes).
Just contact the guy, tell him about the ink signature issue, it should be something he can get taken care of.
As for why he shipped to an FFL in NV, it could be because he didn't want to go through the hassle of trying to explain to some out of state "expert" on CA laws, the whys and hows of making it legal. An extra $20 to ship it a second time may be worth it for him, I know its worth it to me. The FFL in NV will take care of making sure it is legal in CA, if it is going to CA. Seeing as how over 30,000 AK and AR type rifles and receivers were sold in CA last year, I would bet against it being an ATF sting, and more likely just another guy wanting a legal AK while he can get it. Besides I don't think that if you are following the law while shipping to an FFL in NV, there is any way the ATF can "sting" you.
As a CA resident, could the buyer just keep the rifle in NV (in a storage locker, friend's place, etc.)?
I figure it's the only way a lot of CA folks could own "banned" firearms.
BTW - this probably belongs in the Legal section or in the CA home town forum.
I've bought 4 guns on gunbroker over the last year and faxed the FFL, no problems.
I'm NO expert, But yes 2007 new ish going on on the CA AW.
The CA buyer probably did his research on that paricular model.
And know whats the risk and reasoned why he wanted it ship to NV.
If your acting part is LEGAL then ship it to NV FFL. holder. NV FFL holder will then mod it for the buyer in CA then ship it to his local CA FFL. or he can pick it up from NV.
I think you are being a little over protective. First, you no longer need an ink copy of the FFL. You can verifly the FFL on-line. Second, just because this guy is in Califorina doesn't mean he can't buy a rifle in NV. If I'm not mistaken, the only thing he can't buy in NV is a pistol as an out-of-state resident.
Lastly, is the guy in California Active Duty Military? If he is a resident of another state on active orders in California, then he is exempt from the Califorinia AWB and may posess a banned weapon in the state with a permit from the CDOJ.
Regardless, you are shipping to an FFL in a state which allows the weapon, just ship the weapon and stop being so afraid!
Talk to the winning bidder and ask him what he is trying to do. California dumped the ban list as of January of this year. No more additions than what has been listed since 2001. Chances are your "AK-47 type" is legal in CA but without the pistol grip.
The winning bidder is probably having you ship it to a NV FFL so the pistol grip can be removed before shipping it to a CA FFL dealer.
BTW, a California resident must go through the 10-day wait period called DROS here. I doubt the NV FFL is setup for California DROS, but who knows.
Twenty posts and nobody says this until now.
As a private individual, the transfering FFL is under no obligation to send his FFL to you. Weither the FFL copy sent to you is signed is irrelavent.
He is only legally required to send it to another FFL.
All the transfering FFL has to do is give you his FFL # so you can check it on the eZ Check.
It matters not, you are not sending an AK to California. You are sending one to Nevada. it's the Nevada FFL holders job to make sure the buyer is legal.
It is legal for him to buy the gun in nevada ! He might have a second home there OWN OR RENT !
Californian's buy guns here in ARIZONA all the time , if you have a place of residence you can go to DMV AND GET AN nevada or arizona ID CARD AND STILL KEEP YOUR CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE.
This allows you to purchase all the guns you want.. You can even purchase NFA items but
you are suppose to reside in the other state a least 6 months of the year.
People have been doing this for years all legal , you might not be able to bring a particular gun back to california but you can shoot
the hell out of it in other states.
However, it is possible to have more than one place you live, and
it is permissible to obtain NFA weapons at an address, when you are
actually living there. For example, if you have a summer home, you
may get NFA weapons when you are living there, and have the CLEO
for that place do the signoff. During the rest of the year, when
you live elsewhere, you may obtain the weapons at the second home.
MG - machine gun
SI - sound suppressor (silencer)
SR - short barreled rifle
SG - short shotgun
AOW - any other weapon
LBDD - large bore destructive device
EXPDD - explosive, incendiary or poison gas destructive device
STATEMG SI SR SG AOWLBDD EXPDD Comments
AK Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
AL Y Y N N Y Y ?
AR Y Y Y Y Y Y ? (state registration of pistol cal. MG's over .30)
AZ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
CA Y N Y Y Y Y Y (requires discretionary and rarely issued permit for mg, lbdd or expdd from state Dept. of
Justice; no AOW pen guns; C&R sg, sr only)
CO Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (requires state explosives permit for expdd)
CT Y Y Y Y Y Y ? (no select fire mg's-full auto's only, after 1993 assault weapon ban, state registration of
DE N N Y N Y Y N (no smooth bore pistol AOW's)
FL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
GA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (no incendiary expdd's)
HI N N N N N N N
IA N Y Y Y Y Y Y (only si, sr, sg, lbdd and expdd designated as collector's items by the Comm'r of Public
Safety - they use the ATF C&R list)
ID Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
IL N N N N Y ? N
IN Y Y Y N Y Y N
KS N N Y N Y Y N DEWAT machine guns are OK.
KY Y Y Y Y Y Y ?
LA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (mg's require a permit to purchase - war relics only; mg's, sr, si, sg and some expdd's
require a permit to purchase)
MA Y N Y N N Y N (license for mg's required; 1998 law bans covert firearms (AOW's), short shotguns)
MD Y Y Y Y Y Y N (mg's must be registered)
ME Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
MI Y N Y Y Y Y Y (FFL needed to own machine guns; no incendiary expdd; C&R sr, sg only)
MN Y N Y Y Y Y ? (C&R mg, sg only, registration required)
MO Y N Y Y Y N N (C&R mg, sr, sg only to non-FFL holders; FFL holders (including C&R) any mg, sr, sg)
MS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (as of 7/1/00, silencers are legal, but must be registered with the state)
MT Y Y Y Y Y N N (state law banning silencers and requiring pistol cal. mg's over .30 be registered with state
NE Y Y Y Y Y Y N
NC Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (sheriff's permit required for mg's; must be FFL holder (including C&R) for mg, si, sr, sg
lbdd and expdd, or fall into another exception, see comments below)
ND Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (fed. "licensees" required to register all NFA weapons with state when possessed for
"protection or sale")
NH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NJ Y N N N Y N N (mg requires discretionary and rarely issued permit from state court)
NM Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NV Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
NY N N N N Y Y N (AOW smooth bore handguns are allowed, on a state pistol license)
OH Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
OK Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
OR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (no incendiary expdd's)
PA Y Y Y Y Y Y N
RI N N N N Y Y ?
SC Y Y Y Y Y Y ? In 2001, S.C. law was changed to permit all Federally registered items
SD Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
TN Y Y Y Y Y Y ?
TX Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
UT Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
VA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (state registration of all mg's)
VT Y N Y Y Y Y Y
WA N Y N N Y Y N (silencer may not be used on a gun)
WI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (permit required for expdd, no incendiary expdd's; no pistol caliber mg's w/o permit)
WV Y Y Y Y Y Y ?
WY Y Y Y Y Y Y ?
A Note about NFA Weapons and California
As a general rule the definitions of NFA weapons, as regulated in
California, track exactly the federal definitions, and categories.
Cal. Penal Code Sec. 12020(a) prohibits the possession of, among
other things, AOW's (Any other Weapons) and short shotguns and
short rifles. Subsection (b) lists exemptions to the application of
Subsection (b)(7) of section 12020 exempts any "firearm or
ammunition" lawfully possessed under federal law and on the C&R
list. Subsection (b)(8), exempts ALL AOW's except "pen guns."
Subsection b(2) is the exemption for the movie permit for short
shotguns and short rifles with the procedure for its issuance found
at section 12095.
In short, Californians can legally possess any AOW, except a pen
gun, as long as it is possessed in compliance with federal law, and
as long as it isn't classified as an assault weapon (SB 23 treats
some semiauto pistols with dual pistol grips, AOWs under federal
law, as prohibited assault weapons). Likewise they can possess any
C&R listed short rifle or short shotgun.
Short shotguns and short rifles are defined at (c)(1) and (c)(2)
respectively; the definitions are essentially the same as federal
law. HOWEVER, unlike the feds, California courts have ruled that
the length of a rifle with a folding stock is measured with the
stock folded, not extended, as the feds do. So a gun that is not
a short rifle under federal law may be one under California law.
See People v. Rooney, 17 Cal.App.4th 1207 (1 Dist. 1993).
Any firearm whose possession is otherwise prohibited by subsection
(a) is ok, under b(7), if the gun is a C&R one and lawfully
possessed under federal law. This would not provide an exemption
to the requirement for a state permit for a machine gun, as
12020(a) does not regulate mg's. That is section 12220 (ban) and
12230 et seq. (permits). Rules for DD's are at section 12301 et
seq. Silencers are regulated at section 12500 et seq. The state
Department of Justice has discretionary authority to issue permits
to possess DD's or machine guns, and does not issue them to
collector-civilians. Civilians are totally prohibited from owning
US military members in California CAN NOT have or take assault weapons into that State. They RE-WROTE the Soldiers and Sailors Act and REMOVED the protections of a State charging a tax (license or permit to possess) on ANY property they may hold on any land within their State.
FFL's in Nevada ARE NOT stupid and require military members with out of State drivers licenses to provide official orders showing they are stationed in Nevada.
If that FFL isn't signed.....it's a FAKE.
So far, there are only 3 people in this entire thread that know whats going on.
Its not a substitute for a license between two FFLs.