Background checks and trading

[General Disarray]

I understand the law changes after the 1st that background checks will be required for sales; two questions:

1) does having a CCW circumvent this since one has already been done? In other words, is a background check at a FFL is required on every single purchase?

2) will background checks be required for trades as well? Even trades? Also +/- cash trades?

[hurley842002]

1) no
2) yes

[Dr_Fwd]

I thought it's
1 yes
2 yes
.?

[Brian]

The bills to accept CCW instead of background checks never passed, so it's meaningless as far as CBI is concerned.

Yes, a background check is required for every single purchase. A purchase may be 5 guns at once (1 background check) or 1 in the morning, another one in the afternoon (2 separate background checks). It can even be one single check for 3 guns from 3 different sellers, assuming you all show up at the same time to the FFL (and assuming the FFL will cooperate with that).

CBI will charge the FFL $10 each time the check is run. That's separate from whatever your FFL will charge you for the service (law says $10 max, for whatever that's worth). Assume your price for a (legal) FTF transfer goes up at least $20 on Monday.

One other fun fact...

If the buyer fails the background check, the FFL is now supposed to run a check on the seller before turning the guns back over to them. Oh yeah, at least another $10 to CBI for that too.

See update regarding this part - pg6.

[SAnd]

I thought it's
1 yes
2 yes
.?
To back up what Brian just posted cocerning question #1-
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPS-CBIMain/CBON/1251622199756

[jerrymrc]

Why is it I see very few background checks being done for private arms.
If the buyer fails the background check, the FFL is now supposed to run a check on the seller before turning the guns back over to them. Oh yeah, at least another $10 to CBI for that too.

That just killed any private person from taking anything to a gun show. Not passing the check is one thing but then running another check on the owner as well.....

[spleify]

Number 1 is actually two different questions so it would look like this

1) no/yes
2) yes

[ChadAmberg]

The bills to accept CCW instead of background checks never passed, so it's meaningless as far as CBI is concerned.

Yes, a background check is required for every single purchase. A purchase may be 5 guns at once (1 background check) or 1 in the morning, another one in the afternoon (2 separate background checks). It can even be one single check for 3 guns from 3 different sellers, assuming you all show up at the same time to the FFL (and assuming the FFL will cooperate with that).

CBI will charge the FFL $10 each time the check is run. That's separate from whatever your FFL will charge you for the service (law says $10 max, for whatever that's worth). Assume your price for a (legal) FTF transfer goes up at least $20 on Monday.

One other fun fact...

If the buyer fails the background check, the FFL is now supposed to run a check on the seller before turning the guns back over to them. Oh yeah, at least another $10 to CBI for that too.

Would that only apply IF the FFL takes possession of the firearm?

I wasn't aware that the FFL needs to take possession. So this scenario is what I see. I meet the buyer at FFL. We ask the FFL do to a bg check on the buyer. At no point to I ever intend to hand over the firearm to the FFL. Buyer passes, I walk out to the parking lot and hand over the firearm. FFL makes his fee, but never needs to add the firearm to their logbook.

Now, I know there's so much confusion about everything, so I may be wrong. Is anyone clear about any of these crappy laws?

[Dr_Fwd]

Number 1 is actually two different questions so it would look like this

1) no/yes
2) yes

That's what I thought.

[hurley842002]

Number 1 is actually two different questions so it would look like this

1) no/yes
2) yes

Ahh indeed it is, I was addressing the CCW question.

[Irving]

Chad, the FFL can't run the background check without adding the firearm to their log books. I asked the exact same question as you.

[hurley842002]

Chad, the FFL can't run the background check without adding the firearm to their log books. I asked the exact same question as you.

I guess as the seller, you better make sure you can pass a BG check before you try to sell, this is such horse sh$t! So let's say this turns into a frequent occurrence, I wonder what happens to all these firearms that don't have homes?

[Irving]

Problem with that, is that you can't just get a background check to test and make sure you can pass.

[Great-Kazoo]

I guess as the seller, you better make sure you can pass a BG check before you try to sell, this is such horse sh$t! So let's say this turns into a frequent occurrence, I wonder what happens to all these firearms that don't have homes?

On display with the other used / trade in guns.

[mikedubs]

On display with the other used / trade in guns.

Better yet, since someone who failed a BCG is attempting a sale to someone else who failed a BCG, they have obviously shown that they are irresponsible people and should have their guns confiscated by the ATF...it's for the children, you know.

ETA: Scary thought. What if the requirements for passing a BCG get ridiculously stringent, or say a person is BOLO'd for a closer look. If you are a person who has never failed a check (and never would under normal circumstances), you could walk into an FFL and suddenly find that you are unable to legally own guns...and now your name has popped up on CBI's new hardware, paid for with every $10 fee.

Just saying.

[battle_sight_zero]

I asked one of the folks at Green Mountain Guns about how they we will handle the sales between people, and he said that they are not going to handle those transactions because 10 dollars does not cover expense to the business. I wonder how many other dealers are going to do the same.

[cysoto]

I asked one of the folks at Green Mountain Guns about how they we will handle the sales between people, and he said that they are not going to handle those transactions because 10 dollars does not cover expense to the business. I wonder how many other dealers are going to do the same.

Sadly, we will not be facilitating person-to-person transfers for this very reason.

[flogger]

I asked one of the folks at Green Mountain Guns about how they we will handle the sales between people, and he said that they are not going to handle those transactions because 10 dollars does not cover expense to the business. I wonder how many other dealers are going to do the same.
Great point, what if most gun dealers refuse to do private sale BGC? Will they need to keep the transaction 'on file' like any other sale per law? Sounds like a hassle to me and not worth the time for a shop owner. Thoughts?

[hurley842002]

Great point, what if most gun dealers refuse to do private sale BGC? Will they need to keep the transaction 'on file' like any other sale per law? Sounds like a hassle to me and not worth the time for a shop owner. Thoughts?

Sounds like just what the Dems wanted, no more private party sales period...

[cysoto]

Will they need to keep the transaction 'on file' like any other sale per law?

Yes, all BATF rules will need to be followed including entering the firearms into the bound book and then transferred to the new owner & also maintaining the 4473 records.


Sounds like just what the Dems wanted, no more private party sales period...

I absolutely agree!!

[mikedubs]

Sounds like just what the Dems wanted, no more *recorded* private party sales period...

FIFY

Nice job dumbasses...make us all criminals for selling personal property.

[fj605]

Since Sportsman's isn't going to sell any remaining firearms that have standard magazine capacities that are non-Colorado compliant after tomorrow, will they have to run BGCs to return them to their distributors? This is assuming they don't load them out tomorrow night.

[SA Friday]

Why is it I see very few background checks being done for private arms.

That just killed any private person from taking anything to a gun show. Not passing the check is one thing but then running another check on the owner as well.....
HUGE problem in this scenario. The number one concern about HB1229, and main reason many will never do these.

BTW, a fee is going to be associated to this stuff too. Ya, I know what the law says but no way people are doing this for $10. Won't even cover the labor and time involved. There are ways around the law's wording and it will happen by those that will do these transfers.

[SA Friday]

Since Sportsman's isn't going to sell any remaining firearms that have standard magazine capacities that are non-Colorado compliant after tomorrow, will they have to run BGCs to return them to their distributors? This is assuming they don't load them out tomorrow night.
FFL to FFL doesn't require this...

[cysoto]

Since Sportsman's isn't going to sell any remaining firearms that have standard magazine capacities that are non-Colorado compliant after tomorrow, will they have to run BGCs to return them to their distributors? This is assuming they don't load them out tomorrow night.

I doubt that any distributor is going to accept these firearms back. What I am sure will end up happening is that Sportsman's (and all other large chain stores) will send their "CO-illegal" guns to their stores in other states.

[KAPA]

Really, why bother even following this law. There is no registration of firearms thus no way to know who owns what. Screw this law, it is not enforceable unless you are buying form an undercover or get caught in a sting of some sort. If you know the person though, screw it!

Ok, rant off, this just pisses me off!

[SideShow Bob]

The $10 fee is for the Background Check through CBI, the FFL dealers can charge a Tranfer fee as they wish. I have had a dealer already do this to me, $10 for the Background check, plus 2X $25 Tranfer fees for 2 items and this was for a receiving FFL.
I am sure they will increase this transfer fee for the hassle of a person to person sale.

[cysoto]

The $10 fee is for the Background Check through CBI, the FFL dealers can charge a Tranfer fee as they wish. I have had a dealer already do this to me, $10 for the Background check, plus 2X $25 Tranfer fees for 2 items and this was for a receiving FFL.
I am sure they will increase this transfer fee for the hassle of a person to person sale.

If a dealer is receiving a firearm for someone (for example, when a firearm is being shipped from another state), they are allowed to charge whatever they want as a service fee for the transfer but, if they are just facilitating the sale between two people in Colorado, HB 13-1229 is very specific when it says that the dealer can only charge a fee not to exceed $10.

18-12-112(2)(d) - A LICENSED GUN DEALER MAY CHARGE A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, WHICH FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS.

[BlasterBob]

If a dealer is receiving a firearm for someone (for example, when a firearm is being shipped from another state), they are allowed to charge whatever they want as a service fee for the transfer but, if they are just facilitating the sale between two people in Colorado, HB 13-1229 is very specific when it says that the dealer can only charge a fee not to exceed $10.

18-12-112 (tel:18-12-112)(2)(d) - A LICENSED GUN DEALER MAY CHARGE A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, WHICH FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS.

So, you just know there will be damn few FFL dealers who will agree to screw around with these transfers if $10 is actually the maximum they can charge per 18-12-112(2)(d) for their transfer service. Surely some of our FFL holders will jump on here with a comment or two!
Before this law goes into effect, dealers have been able to charge a maximum of $10 for BG checks while at a gun show..

[SideShow Bob]

If a dealer is receiving a firearm for someone (for example, when a firearm is being shipped from another state), they are allowed to charge whatever they want as a service fee for the transfer but, if they are just facilitating the sale between two people in Colorado, HB 13-1229 is very specific when it says that the dealer can only charge a fee not to exceed $10.

18-12-112(2)(d) - A LICENSED GUN DEALER MAY CHARGE A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, WHICH FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS.


my bad...........[facepalm]

[SA Friday]

I doubt that any distributor is going to accept these firearms back. What I am sure will end up happening is that Sportsman's (and all other large chain stores) will send their "CO-illegal" guns to their stores in other states.
A couple of the manufacturers are swapping mags. S&W is swapping all mags no longer legal for compliant mags. Someone else was too, but I cant remember who it was. Other manufacturers are doing nothing. Stock that can't be swapped out will be sold to other FFLs out of state. At least that's how the store I work for is doing it.

[cysoto]

A couple of the manufacturers are swapping mags. S&W is swapping all mags no longer legal for compliant mags. Someone else was too, but I cant remember who it was. Other manufacturers are doing nothing. Stock that can't be swapped out will be sold to other FFLs out of state. At least that's how the store I work for is doing it.

A few of the manufacturers have agreed to swap us mags too but the distributors were a "no-go." The only issue is that some of them don't have enough 10 rounders to swap for all the dealers here Colorado so we may need to wait a few weeks/months to get them.

[Dave]

A few of the manufacturers have agreed to swap us mags too but the distributors were a "no-go." The only issue is that some of them don't have enough 10 rounders to swap for all the dealers here Colorado so we may need to wait a few weeks/months to get them.

Oh joy, another black rifle shortage. This one caused by a lack of 10 round mags. Now if I could only find where I lost mine at. [dig]

[jerrymrc]

I think the bottom line is there will be no private sales because no FFL will do them. I read where the CBI added 12 people to handle the "rush" of background checks between private parties.

So after 2-3 months of nothing will they go Hmmmmm? and realize that they made a law that has no impact because nobody is using it or can't use it? Or will they think that suddenly there goals are achieved because with no background checks being done for private parties that no guns are being sold.....[Bang]

[TFOGGER]

I know that I will not be buying or selling anything that would be covered by this law, at least until the lawsuit runs its course. I think it fairly likely that the sheriffs will be successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction to prevent implementation on this and the mag ban while the suit is in litigation.

[jerrymrc]

SAF has already pointed out that its all about the wording. It'll still be a $10 transfer fee, but then there will be a $25 "admin" fee, or a $15 "secure records" fee or some such.

Just like the Cali guys figured out a way around the named rifles ban, FFLs here will figure out a way around the fee structure.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

When a fudd finds out that if the buyer does not pass the background check and has to pay $45 to get his shotgun back how many will be willing to sell?

[battle_sight_zero]

So, you just know there will be damn few FFL dealers who will agree to screw around with these transfers if $10 is actually the maximum they can charge per 18-12-112(2)(d) for their transfer service. Surely some of our FFL holders will jump on here with a comment or two!
Before this law goes into effect, dealers have been able to charge a maximum of $10 for BG checks while at a gun show..

Well some dealers are going to be making some killings on consignments.

[james_bond_007]

The $10 fee is for the Background Check through CBI, the FFL dealers can charge a Tranfer fee as they wish. I have had a dealer already do this to me, $10 for the Background check, plus 2X $25 Tranfer fees for 2 items and this was for a receiving FFL.
I am sure they will increase this transfer fee for the hassle of a person to person sale.

What he said ^^^^

[james_bond_007]

It sounds like, a private sale of a C&R item to a C&R holder OR a non-C&R holder should not require a CBI BGC, per HB1229 aka 18-12-112


HB1229 aka 18-12-112
(6)THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO
(a)A TRANSFER OF AN ANTIQUE FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN 18U.S. SEC 921(a)(16), AS AMENDED,OR A CURIO OR RELIC,AS DEFINED IN 27 CFR478.11,AS AMENDED



So M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, etc. , are still OK to do FTF and without a CBI BGC.


Do you guys read it this way ?

[Great-Kazoo]

SAF has already pointed out that its all about the wording. It'll still be a $10 transfer fee, but then there will be a $25 "admin" fee, or a $15 "secure records" fee or some such.

Just like the Cali guys figured out a way around the named rifles ban, FFLs here will figure out a way around the fee structure.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Or not do a transfer, because they have the same item in inventory.

[jhood001]

It sounds like, a private sale of a C&R item to a C&R holder OR a non-C&R holder should not require a CBI BGC, per HB1229 aka 18-12-112



So M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, etc. , are still OK to do FTF and without a CBI BGC.


Do you guys read it this way ?

I'd like to know the answer to this as well!

[jerrymrc]

It sounds like, a private sale of a C&R item to a C&R holder OR a non-C&R holder should not require a CBI BGC, per HB1229 aka 18-12-112



So M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, etc. , are still OK to do FTF and without a CBI BGC.


Do you guys read it this way ?

If you are correct I see a big market in Maks, CZ52's, 82's and the tokes. I can see the armslist ad now.

C&R CZ52 for sale. NO background check required. Semi-Auto that defeats L3 body armor........ [Flower]

I am kinda glad the gang bangers never figured this out.

[james_bond_007]

If you are correct I see a big market in Maks, CZ52's, 82's and the tokes. I can see the armslist ad now.

C&R CZ52 for sale. NO background check required. Semi-Auto that defeats L3 body armor........ [Flower]

I am kinda glad the gang bangers never figured this out.

Let me make sure the language is still in the LAST amended HB1229. I'll post a link and see if you see what I see ...

[ffcol]

Can 15+ round mags be shipped/sold out of state?

[james_bond_007]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/590C29B4C02AFC2F87257A8E0073C303?open&file=1229_enr.pdf

This is the link I used. It showed all versions of the bill. I believe I referenced the final version.

Jerrymrc, I'd appreciate your opinion, as you and I have had "C&R" discussions before.

As I see it :
1) Colorado law previously allowed intrastate FTF transfers b/w Colorado residents w/o a BGC for all (please apply "all" in a reasonable context) firearms.
2) HB 1229 now requires a BGC for all FTF transfers between Colorado residents, but exempts antiques and C&R items from said BGC.
3) I see no language that requires the transferee or transferor to be a C&R/FFL03 holder...just the exemption for firearm category.
Further...
4) Federal law should continue to allow a Colorado C&R holder to receive an interstate transfer of a C&R item without a BGC due to this exemption.

This post is my opinion, and does not constitute legal advise.

[jerrymrc]

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/590C29B4C02AFC2F87257A8E0073C303?open&file=1229_enr.pdf

This is the link I used. It showed all versions of the bill. I believe I referenced the final version.

Jerrymrc, I'd appreciate your opinion, as you and I have had "C&R" discussions before.

As I see it :
1) Colorado law previously allowed intrastate FTF transfers b/w Colorado residents w/o a BGC for all (please apply "all" in a reasonable context) firearms.
2) HB 1229 now requires a BGC for all FTF transfers between Colorado residents, but exempts antiques and C&R items from said BGC.
3) I see no language that requires the transferee or transferor to be a C&R/FFL03 holder...just the exemption for firearm category.
Further...
4) Federal law should continue to allow a Colorado C&R holder to receive an interstate transfer of a C&R item without a BGC due to this exemption.

This post is my opinion, and does not constitute legal advise.

I looked myself and I think if one had shown them all the C&R's one can get to include SKS's they would not have left that. Of course now the burden of proving it is a C&R falls on the seller because except for the LEO's that have a clue I know that if one were to try and sell one without a background check... Well you get the idea. They kind of shot themselves in the foot because they think "Curio & Relic" means some old 03 Springfield. Jokes on them.[Flower]

[james_bond_007]

I looked myself and I think if one had shown them all the C&R's one can get to include SKS's they would not have left that. Of course now the burden of proving it is a C&R falls on the seller because except for the LEO's that have a clue I know that if one were to try and sell one without a background check... Well you get the idea. They kind of shot themselves in the foot because they think "Curio & Relic" means some old 03 Springfield. Jokes on them.[Flower]

So you interpreted it just like I interpreted it ? Correct ?

[jerrymrc]

So you interpreted it just like I interpreted it ? Correct ?

Yes.

[james_bond_007]

Yes.

Thanks for the help in "interpreting" JERRYMRC !!!

Anyone have an M1 Garand for sale ?[Coffee]

[jerrymrc]

Thanks for the help in "interpreting" JERRYMRC !!!

Anyone have an M1 Garand for sale ?[Coffee]

Have to do some more work but the site is aware of this tidbit. [Coffee]

[def90]

Where are the FFLs on here? The way I read the law and the way I interpret that it is supposed to work is that you walk into a shop, pay them $10 and they get on their computer and enter the buyers name into NICS, if they pass you can sell the firearm to the guy, if they fail the check you go home and find someone else to sell to.. Where does it say anywhere that the firearm gets transferred to the FFL, entered into their books or that a form 4473 is filled out?

[cysoto]

Where does it say anywhere that the firearm gets transferred to the FFL, entered into their books or that a form 4473 is filled out?

30937 A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103,C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL. THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18U.S.C. SEC. 922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.

[wctriumph]

As for C&R firearms, What constitutes a C&R? Is it based strictly on age? Or, does the BATFE have a list if C&R qualified firearms? I will also do a google search and see what I can find.

OK, went to the source, here is a link for C&R. Ignore my questions and just go to the link.


http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/curios-relics/index.html

[Great-Kazoo]

Where are the FFLs on here? The way I read the law and the way I interpret that it is supposed to work is that you walk into a shop, pay them $10 and they get on their computer and enter the buyers name into NICS, if they pass you can sell the firearm to the guy, if they fail the check you go home and find someone else to sell to.. Where does it say anywhere that the firearm gets transferred to the FFL, entered into their books or that a form 4473 is filled out?


30937 A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103,C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL. THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18U.S.C. SEC. 922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.



Thanks, cause the poster above you must have missed the numerous "discussions" regarding any firearm in a LGS being logged in.

[Brian]

Where are the FFLs on here? The way I read the law and the way I interpret that it is supposed to work is that you walk into a shop, pay them $10 and they get on their computer and enter the buyers name into NICS, if they pass you can sell the firearm to the guy, if they fail the check you go home and find someone else to sell to.. Where does it say anywhere that the firearm gets transferred to the FFL, entered into their books or that a form 4473 is filled out?


FFL 07/02 here. I want to revise what I said earlier. Looks like ATF has released updated instructions to us, which means as long as a seller does not "relinquish" the firearm, they can leave with the gun at any point. Don't release your gun to the dealer when you're doing the transfer!

A 4473 is required for all transfers, and logging in/out of FFL books is still required before any FTF transfer can proceed. However, the BGC can happen prior to the transfer, and if the buyer fails, the seller can walk out. The $10 still gets charged to the FFL regardless, and you can bet they are going to want their service fee up front too, regardless of pass/fail.

Also, keep in mind the $10 you pay to CBI is not to the ATF. Colorado requires the $10 fee to pay for its own internal check, because "it's better" than the free federal NICS check, I guess. [facepalm]

For your viewing "pleasure":
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf

Short version:
1) Buyer fills out 4473
2) FFL checks and records buyer ID, marks handgun/longgun/other (no SN# yet), and runs the BGC. CBI charges $10 at this point
3) If pass, FFL takes gun & confirms SN, enters gun into books, writes the SN# on the 4473, and logs the book out to buyer. Buyer/seller leave happy.
4) If fail, seller takes the gun and leaves. FFL did not take possession. FFL does not enter the gun into the books. 4473 gets filed (without SN/gun info).
5) If the seller ever gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL (not a lawyer but you'd probably have to actually leave to do this), then seller has to pass a BCG to get their gun back. Seller still owns it, just can't take possession. If seller fails BGC, you'll have to work something out with the FFL (likely consignment as mentioned above, or find another buyer).

So it could be worse. Could be a LOT better though.
Be nice to your FFL if you found a good one. This stuff is as much BS for us as it is for you. Also, keep in mind not every FFL does it exactly this way. You can certainly direct them to the linked doc, but don't be a jerk about it.

[jerrymrc]

FFL 07/02 here. I want to revise what I said earlier. Looks like ATF has released updated instructions to us, which means as long as a seller does not "relinquish" the firearm, they can leave with the gun at any point. Don't release your gun to the dealer when you're doing the transfer!

A 4473 is required for all transfers, and logging in/out of FFL books is still required before any FTF transfer can proceed. However, the BGC can happen prior to the transfer, and if the buyer fails, the seller can walk out. The $10 still gets charged to the FFL regardless, and you can bet they are going to want their service fee up front too, regardless of pass/fail.

Also, keep in mind the $10 you pay to CBI is not to the ATF. Colorado requires the $10 fee to pay for its own internal check, because "it's better" than the free federal NICS check, I guess. [facepalm]

For your viewing "pleasure":
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf

Short version:
1) Buyer fills out 4473
2) FFL checks and records buyer ID, marks handgun/longgun/other (no SN# yet), and runs the BGC. CBI charges $10 at this point
3) If pass, FFL takes gun & confirms SN, enters gun into books, writes the SN# on the 4473, and logs the book out to buyer. Buyer/seller leave happy.
4) If fail, seller takes the gun and leaves. FFL did not take possession. FFL does not enter the gun into the books. 4473 gets filed (without SN/gun info).
5) If the seller ever gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL (not a lawyer but you'd probably have to actually leave to do this), then seller has to pass a BCG to get their gun back. Seller still owns it, just can't take possession. If seller fails BGC, you'll have to work something out with the FFL (likely consignment as mentioned above, or find another buyer).

So it could be worse. Could be a LOT better though.
Be nice to your FFL if you found a good one. This stuff is as much BS for us as it is for you. Also, keep in mind not every FFL does it exactly this way. You can certainly direct them to the linked doc, but don't be a jerk about it.

Thank you for that clarification.

[flogger]

I'm assuming the State will be able to 'modify' the law, as they seem fit, with a stroke of a pen. Is that correct? Another question, as I understand it, when a BGC is completed and the buyer or seller fails, there is no reason given. Does the FFL (doing the BGC) have an obligation to notify the police at any time?

If a felon attempts to purchase a gun, shouldn't something click when a BGC fails? Would the seller be under fire trying to sell to a felon?

[james_bond_007]

Brian: Thank you for chasing down all the details.
I have some comments on the "exclusive possession" clause. Please provide your comments when you have digested mine, below .

I don't believe the seller has to leave the premise to allow "exclusive possession" to occur.
EX:
1) Selling on Consignment- seller retains ownership, but gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL. This may be in the form of a verbal or written contract for the FFL to sell the firearm on behalf of the owner (similar to previous methods). The FFL logs the firearm into his/her A/D list.

2) Background checks taking multiple days - As like earlier this year, sometimes a multi-day backlog can occur in processing BGCs. The seller "could" leave the firearm with the FFL (i.e. give him exclusive possession) to prevent the seller from having to come back a 2nd time when the BCG is finally executed/completed. I believe "exclusive" possession occurs when the seller agrees to leave the firearm in the care of the FFL...not when the seller leaves the premise. The FFL logs the firearm into his/her A/D list.

Further, before taking exclusive possession, an ethical FFL "should" explain the ramifications of the requirement for a BGC and associated costs for the seller, should the FFL need to return the firearm to the seller (viz. buyer's BGC fails or item doesn't sell under the consignment contract), but is under no obligation to do so.

Your thoughts ?

Note: This post is my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice.

[def90]

Thanks, cause the poster above you must have missed the numerous "discussions" regarding any firearm in a LGS being logged in.

Hey, people have been talking about it but no one at that point had posted the actual language in the bill. I had even read the bill when it was passed and failed to see it at that time so Foff.

[def90]

30937 A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103,C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL. THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18U.S.C. SEC. 922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE.



FFL 07/02 here. I want to revise what I said earlier. Looks like ATF has released updated instructions to us, which means as long as a seller does not "relinquish" the firearm, they can leave with the gun at any point. Don't release your gun to the dealer when you're doing the transfer!

A 4473 is required for all transfers, and logging in/out of FFL books is still required before any FTF transfer can proceed. However, the BGC can happen prior to the transfer, and if the buyer fails, the seller can walk out. The $10 still gets charged to the FFL regardless, and you can bet they are going to want their service fee up front too, regardless of pass/fail.

Also, keep in mind the $10 you pay to CBI is not to the ATF. Colorado requires the $10 fee to pay for its own internal check, because "it's better" than the free federal NICS check, I guess. [facepalm]

For your viewing "pleasure":
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf

Short version:
1) Buyer fills out 4473
2) FFL checks and records buyer ID, marks handgun/longgun/other (no SN# yet), and runs the BGC. CBI charges $10 at this point
3) If pass, FFL takes gun & confirms SN, enters gun into books, writes the SN# on the 4473, and logs the book out to buyer. Buyer/seller leave happy.
4) If fail, seller takes the gun and leaves. FFL did not take possession. FFL does not enter the gun into the books. 4473 gets filed (without SN/gun info).
5) If the seller ever gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL (not a lawyer but you'd probably have to actually leave to do this), then seller has to pass a BCG to get their gun back. Seller still owns it, just can't take possession. If seller fails BGC, you'll have to work something out with the FFL (likely consignment as mentioned above, or find another buyer).

So it could be worse. Could be a LOT better though.
Be nice to your FFL if you found a good one. This stuff is as much BS for us as it is for you. Also, keep in mind not every FFL does it exactly this way. You can certainly direct them to the linked doc, but don't be a jerk about it.

Thank you and thank you..

[def90]

On another note, Colorado used to charge for background checks in the past but it was found to be unconstitutional or some other ruling came down and they had to stop collecting the fee. What is different now and why can't a simple lawsuit refer back to the previous decision?

[james_bond_007]

On another note, Colorado used to charge for background checks in the past but it was found to be unconstitutional or some other ruling came down and they had to stop collecting the fee. What is different now and why can't a simple lawsuit refer back to the previous decision?

This has some relevant info...http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22619973/denver-lawmaker-notes-gop-first-charged-gun-background

[BlasterBob]

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread!

So, here is one scenario that could possibly take place and wonder how it'd be handled since the BGC can be initiated ONLY when a transfer is taking place.
So, the FFL just finishes up getting the OK on the BGC and is about ready to have the buyer/transferee start filling out the 4473. Just before doing so, the buyer gets an emergency phone call from his spouse advising him that they are going to need some IMMEDIATE major home repair or immediate very high priced vehicle repairs and he should not spend that $1,000 on that firearm. So, here is an instance where a BCG was made and the transfer did not or will not materialize. The $10 fee would surely have to be paid to the FFL by the intended buyer but since the FFL did not make a transfer, only the BGC, wonder what he'd charge for just making the phone call over and above the required $10?? This could be one instance where a non-FFL could get a BGC on another non-licensed individual. Right?

[SA Friday]

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread!

So, here is one scenario that could possibly take place and wonder how it'd be handled since the BGC can be initiated ONLY when a transfer is taking place.
So, the FFL just finishes up getting the OK on the BGC and is about ready to have the buyer/transferee start filling out the 4473. Just before doing so, the buyer gets an emergency phone call from his spouse advising him that they are going to need some IMMEDIATE major home repair or immediate very high priced vehicle repairs and he should not spend that $1,000 on that firearm. So, here is an instance where a BCG was made and the transfer did not or will not materialize. The $10 fee would surely have to be paid to the FFL by the intended buyer but since the FFL did not make a transfer, only the BGC, wonder what he'd charge for just making the phone call over and above the required $10?? This could be one instance where a non-FFL could get a BGC on another non-licensed individual. Right?

Disregard. I missed Brian's previous post.

[brutal]

Meh, not really. At my shop, have had people run BGCs and then flake out. I'm sure all have. We charge the $10 for the BGC and then it goes into the transfer not completed file. There is no need to go beyond that. If the transfer isn't finished, there isn't a need to share the info or charge for more than Dickinpooper's $10 douchebag tax.

I suspect the biggest issue will be once the gun is transferred into the bound book and then the receiver is denied. Then we have to run the original owner and they are denied. Now the shop has obtained a firearm with two pissed off people and no real desire for the firearm and a very unclear road ahead. If one or both of the denials is overturned, then the transfer can be completed and holding the gun for 30 days isn't that big of a deal. CO has the 3rd highest denials (3.6%) and is number one for overturns on appeal, about 60% of the denials are overturned. The above scenario is going to happen. The kicker is when both denials are sustained. Well crap, what to do now? Call the cops? Obviously the original owner wasn't allowed to own the gun in the first place. Does the gun have to be turned over to the local LE?

Nobody knows. There is absolutely ZERO guidance in 1229 on this. My boss has asked the ATF twice on this and they don't have a clue either. The local LEs don't want to screw with it. It's primarily a Federal violation and a 4473 violation at most. Now you have a gun that no LE is going to take, tell the FFL it's released to sell as it's really not theirs, and two people with claim that can't have it. It's a liability paperweight.

This is ultimately the problem with the law. What a nightmare for FFLs. I can't blame a single one of them that decides to NOT do these transfers.

Is there any reason, as a seller, I could not request and pay the fee to an FFL, to have a BGC run on myself before committing to a transfer and BGC for a buyer?

[Brian]

Is there any reason, as a seller, I could not request and pay the fee to an FFL, to have a BGC run on myself before committing to a transfer and BGC for a buyer?

Technically, you can only do this when you are indicating you are buying a gun. FFL has to mark whether the BGC is for a long gun, hand gun or other.
That being said, you really were interested in that handgun the FFL had in stock, but changed your mind, right?

[SA Friday]

Technically, you can only do this when you are indicating you are buying a gun. FFL has to mark whether the BGC is for a long gun, hand gun or other.
That being said, you really were interested in that handgun the FFL had in stock, but changed your mind, right?
[Alrigh]

[Brian]

Thanks to the OP for starting this thread!

So, here is one scenario that could possibly take place and wonder how it'd be handled since the BGC can be initiated ONLY when a transfer is taking place.
So, the FFL just finishes up getting the OK on the BGC and is about ready to have the buyer/transferee start filling out the 4473. Just before doing so, the buyer gets an emergency phone call from his spouse advising him that they are going to need some IMMEDIATE major home repair or immediate very high priced vehicle repairs and he should not spend that $1,000 on that firearm. So, here is an instance where a BCG was made and the transfer did not or will not materialize. The $10 fee would surely have to be paid to the FFL by the intended buyer but since the FFL did not make a transfer, only the BGC, wonder what he'd charge for just making the phone call over and above the required $10?? This could be one instance where a non-FFL could get a BGC on another non-licensed individual. Right?

I guess that depends on how your FFL values his/her time.

Especially those of us who are home-based probably would not enjoy having to schedule some time to have guys meet, sit around waiting for the background check, and then leave, and receive zero compensation for it. FTF transfers are a PITA for the FFL, and even the $10 Colorado says can be charged for the service is so low many refuse to get involved at all.

Wasn't sure what you meant with your last comment. Non-FFLs can't do BGCs...?

[Brian]

Brian: Thank you for chasing down all the details.
I have some comments on the "exclusive possession" clause. Please provide your comments when you have digested mine, below .

I don't believe the seller has to leave the premise to allow "exclusive possession" to occur.
EX:
1) Selling on Consignment- seller retains ownership, but gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL. This may be in the form of a verbal or written contract for the FFL to sell the firearm on behalf of the owner (similar to previous methods). The FFL logs the firearm into his/her A/D list.

2) Background checks taking multiple days - As like earlier this year, sometimes a multi-day backlog can occur in processing BGCs. The seller "could" leave the firearm with the FFL (i.e. give him exclusive possession) to prevent the seller from having to come back a 2nd time when the BCG is finally executed/completed. I believe "exclusive" possession occurs when the seller agrees to leave the firearm in the care of the FFL...not when the seller leaves the premise. The FFL logs the firearm into his/her A/D list.

Further, before taking exclusive possession, an ethical FFL "should" explain the ramifications of the requirement for a BGC and associated costs for the seller, should the FFL need to return the firearm to the seller (viz. buyer's BGC fails or item doesn't sell under the consignment contract), but is under no obligation to do so.

Your thoughts ?

Note: This post is my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice.

Agree 100% with your assessment. Definitely a seller can intentionally give possession just by saying so, or in either of the scenarios above. I was approaching it more from the perspective of "accidental possession" - I wouldn't want a seller to be afraid to hand a gun to the FFL to look it over (heck one of the best parts about transfers is seeing what someone else had the money to buy!). On the other hand, if the BGC is taking a while, I wouldn't put either yourself or your FFL in the position of leaving your gun with them while you run to get coffee or something, unless you know them very well. Even that probably doesn't achieve "exclusive possession," but somewhere in there, the grey starts to get a bit darker, and better safe than sorry.

edit: not a lawyer, don't trust a word I say. :D

[Hound]

FFL 07/02 here. I want to revise what I said earlier. Looks like ATF has released updated instructions to us, which means as long as a seller does not "relinquish" the firearm, they can leave with the gun at any point. Don't release your gun to the dealer when you're doing the transfer!

A 4473 is required for all transfers, and logging in/out of FFL books is still required before any FTF transfer can proceed. However, the BGC can happen prior to the transfer, and if the buyer fails, the seller can walk out. The $10 still gets charged to the FFL regardless, and you can bet they are going to want their service fee up front too, regardless of pass/fail.

Also, keep in mind the $10 you pay to CBI is not to the ATF. Colorado requires the $10 fee to pay for its own internal check, because "it's better" than the free federal NICS check, I guess. [facepalm]

For your viewing "pleasure":
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf

Short version:
1) Buyer fills out 4473
2) FFL checks and records buyer ID, marks handgun/longgun/other (no SN# yet), and runs the BGC. CBI charges $10 at this point
3) If pass, FFL takes gun & confirms SN, enters gun into books, writes the SN# on the 4473, and logs the book out to buyer. Buyer/seller leave happy.
4) If fail, seller takes the gun and leaves. FFL did not take possession. FFL does not enter the gun into the books. 4473 gets filed (without SN/gun info).
5) If the seller ever gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL (not a lawyer but you'd probably have to actually leave to do this), then seller has to pass a BCG to get their gun back. Seller still owns it, just can't take possession. If seller fails BGC, you'll have to work something out with the FFL (likely consignment as mentioned above, or find another buyer).

So it could be worse. Could be a LOT better though.
Be nice to your FFL if you found a good one. This stuff is as much BS for us as it is for you. Also, keep in mind not every FFL does it exactly this way. You can certainly direct them to the linked doc, but don't be a jerk about it.

This post should be stickied!..... Please

[SA Friday]

FFL 07/02 here. I want to revise what I said earlier. Looks like ATF has released updated instructions to us, which means as long as a seller does not "relinquish" the firearm, they can leave with the gun at any point. Don't release your gun to the dealer when you're doing the transfer!

A 4473 is required for all transfers, and logging in/out of FFL books is still required before any FTF transfer can proceed. However, the BGC can happen prior to the transfer, and if the buyer fails, the seller can walk out. The $10 still gets charged to the FFL regardless, and you can bet they are going to want their service fee up front too, regardless of pass/fail.

Also, keep in mind the $10 you pay to CBI is not to the ATF. Colorado requires the $10 fee to pay for its own internal check, because "it's better" than the free federal NICS check, I guess. [facepalm]

For your viewing "pleasure":
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf

Short version:
1) Buyer fills out 4473
2) FFL checks and records buyer ID, marks handgun/longgun/other (no SN# yet), and runs the BGC. CBI charges $10 at this point
3) If pass, FFL takes gun & confirms SN, enters gun into books, writes the SN# on the 4473, and logs the book out to buyer. Buyer/seller leave happy.
4) If fail, seller takes the gun and leaves. FFL did not take possession. FFL does not enter the gun into the books. 4473 gets filed (without SN/gun info).
5) If the seller ever gives "exclusive possession" to the FFL (not a lawyer but you'd probably have to actually leave to do this), then seller has to pass a BCG to get their gun back. Seller still owns it, just can't take possession. If seller fails BGC, you'll have to work something out with the FFL (likely consignment as mentioned above, or find another buyer).

So it could be worse. Could be a LOT better though.
Be nice to your FFL if you found a good one. This stuff is as much BS for us as it is for you. Also, keep in mind not every FFL does it exactly this way. You can certainly direct them to the linked doc, but don't be a jerk about it.

Sorry Brian. I missed this post earlier. This is very interesting. Two phone calls to ATF and was NEVER told about this. This clarifies the process very well.

[Brian]

Sorry Brian. I missed this post earlier. This is very interesting. Two phone calls to ATF and was NEVER told about this. This clarifies the process very well.

You're not the only one. This information wasn't published to everyone like the last one from January was. No clue why...

[Brian]

This post should be stickied!..... Please

Maybe if I get bored tonight, I'll write up and summarize everything in one post and we can keep it updated, just with the facts.

[Marine24]

Process is no doubt confusing, even for the local FFL. The ones I typically use believes they need to take possession of the firearm, log it in to their books with both seller and buyer present. They will charge the $10 CBI fee plus an additional fee, like they would for an out of state transfer. The latter would run as much as $50. If the buyer fails, they would have to run an additional BGC on the seller to release the firearm to them. If the seller fails the BGC, they would hold the weapon until either the buyer or the seller cleared up what ever caused them to fail the BGC. They didn't say what they would do if neither could pass.

Not sure if they are aware of the net ATF guidelines posted above, but right or wrong, this is the process they believe is appropriate given the new laws. Good time to feed my knife fetish until the dust settles on this one, while supporting the Sheriff's suit to get it thrown out.

[brutal]

Technically, you can only do this when you are indicating you are buying a gun. FFL has to mark whether the BGC is for a long gun, hand gun or other.
That being said, you really were interested in that handgun the FFL had in stock, but changed your mind, right?

Yes, I wasn't going to specifically call that premise out, but it was there for those that could interpret my "intent." :D

[edit] I also did not see Brian's excellent post follow up.

[brutal]

OK,

I think that clears up FFL transfer.

Now what about repairs not sent to the MFR?

If I have to hand off a lower/frame for repair or finishing, is that a transfer?

Not an issue for the current slide finishing work I'm having done - the guy is SOT or I could have just handed over the slide part, but what about all these other part time handlers that do not have an FFL?

[SA Friday]

OK,

I think that clears up FFL transfer.

Now what about repairs not sent to the MFR?

If I have to hand off a lower/frame for repair or finishing, is that a transfer?

Not an issue for the current slide finishing work I'm having done - he guy is SOT or I could have just handed over the frame part, but what about all these other part time handlers that do not have an FFL?

Ah, a BP inquiry if I've ever seen one.

[brutal]

Ah, a BP inquiry if I've ever seen one.

"slide part" I caught my error...

[james_bond_007]

...I was approaching it more from the perspective of "accidental possession" - I wouldn't want a seller to be afraid to hand a gun to the FFL to look it over (heck one of the best parts about transfers is seeing what someone else had the money to buy!)...

Brian: Your scenario of handling a firearm while looking it over should be covered...handling it with a seller supplied >15rd mag however, DOES violate HB13-1224[facepalm]


HB13-1229 aka 18-12-112 (6)(g) should cover this scenario
(6) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO:
...

(g) ANY TEMPORARY TRANSFER THAT OCCURS WHILE IN THE CONTINUOUS PRESENCE OF THE OWNER OF THE FIREARM




Note: In case anyone is wondering, I'm not "freaking out" or "all uptight" over the new laws. I just enjoy threads where they can be "tested" a bit, with some other friendly forum members. In lieu of better written laws, common sense is always a good choice (...might not coincide with the law, 100%, but if you are not sure of the law, it is the next best thing...)

Note: This post is my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice.

[Brian]

Brian: Your scenario of handling a firearm while looking it over should be covered...handling it with a seller supplied >15rd mag however, DOES violate HB13-1224[facepalm]


Yeah, I have yet to come up with a scenario where a legal transfer could occur with >15rd mags, other than maybe adding someone to a trust you created prior to today that held your mags. And I'd never recommend that anyway, even if it was legal. The "person" clause in 1224 makes that sketchy at best anyway. Any thoughts on how well the "trust" method of mag ownership is going to hold up?

[SA Friday]

Yeah, I have yet to come up with a scenario where a legal transfer could occur with >15rd mags, other than maybe adding someone to a trust you created prior to today that held your mags. And I'd never recommend that anyway, even if it was legal. The "person" clause in 1224 makes that sketchy at best anyway. Any thoughts on how well the "trust" method of mag ownership is going to hold up?
Don't know, but there is precedence for it via NFA items. I put everything into my gun trust.

[james_bond_007]

... Any thoughts on how well the "trust" method of mag ownership is going to hold up?

I believe it will hold up. As I mentioned in another post, laws are very specific about what they allow and prohibit. 1224 goes to great lengths to provide rules for what a "person" can and cannot do. It never addresses a) trusts, b) business ownership, or c) co-ownership (multiple persons as an owner and each having constructive possession). It does not explicitly allow them, nor does it prohibit them. It just does not address them.

As such, 1224 pretty much "does not apply" to trusts as "owners". Now, 1229, had language to deal with multiple owners and trusts. 1224 does not.

I really hope an injunction will occur and the law be proven unconstitutional.

Note: This post is my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice.

[james_bond_007]

I also have issues with the fee for 1229, from a "constitutional right" perspective.

The law, as written, allows no recourse for someone unable to pay the $10 fee. Granted, $10 is small, but yet there is no clause to deal with "If you can show that you are unable to pay the fee, it will be waived." This type of clause is available for other "rights" such as needing permits to "assemble" in a park etc....most everything I have seen on rights, has a "if unable to afford it..." alternative.

So it seems OK to ASK someone to pay for a permit to assemble in a public park if they can, yet waive it if they cannot.
They STILL are able to exercise their Right to Assemble whether they CAN or CANNOT afford the fee. The right is not being denied.

However 1229 has no provision for those that cannot afford the $10.
In essence, one must ALWAYS pay to exercise a right to bear arms.
Those that cannot pay, lose this right.

Sounds kind of funny, doesn't it.

The right to bear arms is identified as natural (viz. people have this right because they are born and are persons) and an inalienable (viz. "can't be taken away") right. This right has not been bestowed upon them by the government (legal rights). The Bill of Rights does not GRANT the right, it merely recognizes it exists and declares that the government or anyone else cannot take it away.

So, in my opinion (as you know I'm full of opinions and full of "other" stuff[bulls]), 1229 alienates (viz "takes away") some people's 2nd Amendment rights, particularly, those persons that cannot afford the $10.

Even if it is ONE person, it makes the law, as sloppily and hastily written as it is, unconstitutional, for potentially denying a right that is guaranteed to "NOT be able to be taken away".

NOTE: This post is my opinion and is not to be construed as legal advice.

[DingleBerns]

For law enforcement: you give your glock (or any gun) to a glock armor to be cleaned and get new parts installed. Glock armor has it longer then 72 hours. BGC needs to be done to give officer his gun back.

[BlasterBob]

Wasn't sure what you meant with your last comment. Non-FFLs can't do BGCs...?


I was just recalling that Non-FFL guys are not allowed to perform a BGC without going through a FFL dealer. - i.e. they can't do it themselves.

My example was merely listing one possibility of a seller/buyer getting a BGC without executing the 4473 and having to complete the transfer. This would be like my example shown in my post above where the buyer really had to back out at the last minute just before filling out the 4473 thus not completing the transfer.
This would be just one example of getting a BGC without a transfer since the process would be handled THROUGH a FFL. This would probably be very unlikely to ever happen but it would be pretty unfair to have the FFL do all this and then not make a transfer but looks he could certainly charge for his time etc.

[UnoTaco]

Process is no doubt confusing, even for the local FFL. The ones I typically use believes they need to take possession of the firearm, log it in to their books with both seller and buyer present. They will charge the $10 CBI fee plus an additional fee, like they would for an out of state transfer. The latter would run as much as $50. If the buyer fails, they would have to run an additional BGC on the seller to release the firearm to them. If the seller fails the BGC, they would hold the weapon until either the buyer or the seller cleared up what ever caused them to fail the BGC. They didn't say what they would do if neither could pass.

Not sure if they are aware of the net ATF guidelines posted above, but right or wrong, this is the process they believe is appropriate given the new laws. Good time to feed my knife fetish until the dust settles on this one, while supporting the Sheriff's suit to get it thrown out.

Okay, so I think I should pick at this just a tad more. Here's a scenario I've been thinking about. I, the seller, sell you a rifle private party. We meet at the FFL and you go over the rifle and agree to purchase. You pay me cash and I write you a receipt. I hand the rifle to the FFL and sign the papers to release it from my possession. I've got my cash, sale is done, and I leave. You sign the BGC paperwork. Turns out you had a crazy ex who put a restraining order on you without your knowledge. You now cannot hold in your possession the rifle you just bought. You call me up all frantic and I say, "sale is final, no refunds." What now? The FFL doesn't want to hold the weapon for long but you can't pick it up.

[ChadAmberg]

Okay, so I think I should pick at this just a tad more. Here's a scenario I've been thinking about. I, the seller, sell you a rifle private party. We meet at the FFL and you go over the rifle and agree to purchase. You pay me cash and I write you a receipt. I hand the rifle to the FFL and sign the papers to release it from my possession. I've got my cash, sale is done, and I leave. You sign the BGC paperwork. Turns out you had a crazy ex who put a restraining order on you without your knowledge. You now cannot hold in your possession the rifle you just bought. You call me up all frantic and I say, "sale is final, no refunds." What now? The FFL doesn't want to hold the weapon for long but you can't pick it up.

Possession and ownership are two different things.

First off, it's unlikely you'll find an FFL that will let you proceed in this scenario, right now it seems unlikely you'll find any FFLs willing to do private sales at all.

But if you do, it's simple. The buyer OWNS the firearm. He just cannot POSSESS it. He's more than welcome to pay the FFL a storage fee while he finds a buyer himself, or let the FFL put it up on consignment. He can do whatever he wants with the gun, just not take possession of it.

[BlasterBob]

Okay, so I think I should pick at this just a tad more. Here's a scenario I've been thinking about. I, the seller, sell you a rifle private party. We meet at the FFL and you go over the rifle and agree to purchase. You pay me cash and I write you a receipt. I hand the rifle to the FFL and sign the papers to release it from my possession. I've got my cash, sale is done, and I leave. You sign the BGC paperwork. Turns out you had a crazy ex who put a restraining order on you without your knowledge. You now cannot hold in your possession the rifle you just bought. You call me up all frantic and I say, "sale is final, no refunds." What now? The FFL doesn't want to hold the weapon for long but you can't pick it up.

I'd say just be a "big boy" about it and return his money LESS the full amount the FFL is going to charge you to get your rifle returned back to you IF the FFL has already entered the rifle info into his A&D book. If that won't work because YOU can't also pass the BGC to get your own rifle back, ask the FFL to put your rifle on consignment. I believe that according to the brand new ATF guidelines for the person to person (via FFL) transfers, the BGC can be executed prior to the firearm actually entered in A&D book. If the BGC is given the OK and the transfer is made, then normally the FFL will enter the required info into his BB within the prescribed time period. This is just how I interpret this unusual scenario but it's only a guess on my part.........
Before you violently disagree, check out the NEW ATF guidelines for such a scenario.

[UnoTaco]

I'd say just be a "big boy" about it and return his money LESS the full amount the FFL is going to charge you to get your rifle returned back to you IF the FFL has already entered the rifle info into his A&D book. If that won't work because YOU can't also pass the BGC to get your own rifle back, ask the FFL to put your rifle on consignment. I believe that according to the brand new ATF guidelines for the person to person (via FFL) transfers, the BGC can be executed prior to the firearm actually entered in A&D book. If the BGC is given the OK and the transfer is made, then normally the FFL will enter the required info into his BB within the prescribed time period. This is just how I interpret this unusual scenario but it's only a guess on my part.........
Before you violently disagree, check out the NEW ATF guidelines for such a scenario.

If those are the new guidelines then that seems more of a win-win. I don't have to deal with a disgruntled buyer because they can't pass BGC and I don't have to waste time working on trying to get my firearm back because of someone else's issue.

[james_bond_007]

Okay, so I think I should pick at this just a tad more. Here's a scenario I've been thinking about. I, the seller, sell you a rifle private party. We meet at the FFL and you go over the rifle and agree to purchase. You pay me cash and I write you a receipt. I hand the rifle to the FFL and sign the papers to release it from my possession. I've got my cash, sale is done, and I leave. You sign the BGC paperwork. Turns out you had a crazy ex who put a restraining order on you without your knowledge. You now cannot hold in your possession the rifle you just bought. You call me up all frantic and I say, "sale is final, no refunds." What now? The FFL doesn't want to hold the weapon for long but you can't pick it up.

Reminds me a lot of the Rich Wyatt/Gunsmoke issue that was on the Tom Martino talk show.
Rich made a lady BUY a gun before he ran a BGC.
She failed due to some unexpected reason, as you mention.
Only he would not refund her money (wrong) or give her the gun (right).
He wanted to sell it on consignment for her .
...more to the story , but in general, it went down similar to your story and CHADAMBERG'S comments.
So not as hypothetical as one might think...

[Sharpienads]

Can't we all just claim we're first cousins?

[Brian]

If those are the new guidelines then that seems more of a win-win. I don't have to deal with a disgruntled buyer because they can't pass BGC and I don't have to waste time working on trying to get my firearm back because of someone else's issue.

Yep, see my post on pg 6. You will find out whether the buyer passes prior to initiating the actual "sale". The BGC should be executed prior to entering into the A&D book. Only challenge will be if there is some reason you "give" the gun to the FFL prior to starting all the paperwork, etc.

[Brian]

Reminds me a lot of the Rich Wyatt/Gunsmoke issue that was on the Tom Martino talk show.
Rich made a lady BUY a gun before he ran a BGC.
She failed due to some unexpected reason, as you mention.
Only he would not refund her money (wrong) or give her the gun (right).
He wanted to sell it on consignment for her .
...more to the story , but in general, it went down similar to your story and CHADAMBERG'S comments.
So not as hypothetical as one might think...

A lot of FFLs do it that way. And as far as I know, there is no reason they can't choose to do business like that. But it's a business choice, not an ATF process/mandate.

[Brass]

What other FFLs do it the Rich Wyatt way?

[rondog]

OK, forgive me if this has been covered, haven't read all the posts. But what if a guy buys the contents of a storage unit at an auction, and finds one or more guns in there? How do you do a BGC on something like that? Obviously you're the buyer, but who's the seller?

[kidicarus13]

OK, forgive me if this has been covered, haven't read all the posts. But what if a guy buys the contents of a storage unit at an auction, and finds one or more guns in there? How do you do a BGC on something like that? Obviously you're the buyer, but who's the seller?

You can't ask questions ...jim sez

[rondog]

You can't ask questions ...jim sez

Awww, damn an' shit! Always pickin' on me.....

[SideShow Bob]

Ok, a question pertaining to C&R weapons, or to be more detailed, the CMP Garands. Does these new State laws mean that we can no longer get CMP , or rather my first, shipped directly to our homes?
Being a non C&R holder, do I now need to have one sent to an FFL when I am ready to order one ?

[clocker]

C&R still follows the old rules from what I understand.

[Great-Kazoo]

You can't ask questions ...jim sez

search and read b4 posting the same stupid shit, over and over. There's 2-3 threads about mags already.