Background Check/Transfers

[BlasterBob]

Has anyone here really closely read and understood the new BGC law and interpret it the same way I do? I believe the new law does NOT actually require the TRANSFERS to be made via FFL but ONLY the required BGC via FFL. The way I read the new BGC law, is that it is NOT necessary for the transfer to go through a FFL once the BGC is received providing the firearm is NOT actually relinquished to the FFL for him/her to enter into their bound book. If the firearm IS actually relinquished to the FFL, then the normal transfer with 4473's must be completed. Appears the FFL, after getting the "OK" on the BGC from CBI and the fee is collected, is supposed to give both the buyer and the seller some sort of document which indicates that the BGC has been made and actually passed with an "OK" from CBI. After that, apparently the seller may decide to NOT have the FFL do the transfer after all and he CAN get his firearm back as long as it has NOT been relinquished to the FFL and is still in his actual possession. If the decision is made to not have the FFL do the transfer, it then appears the transaction may be made directly between buyer and seller (within all applicable laws) as long as it is accomplished within the time period allowed for the BGC to apply .
I am no Attorney and my wording above certainly shows that to be very true and I am certainly NOT attempting to stir up a pile of [pileoshit] but this is just the way I understand the new law.

[theGinsue]

This is how I read the law too Bob.

[BlasterBob]

This is how I read the law too Bob.

Thanks Thomas. At least someone of IMPORTANCE agrees with me. [Beer]

[10mm-man]

Ok, I haven't read it because I opted not to do them as I am a manufacture not a dealer. With that said; what form would I have the guy fill out? 4473 is the only form I have. Which form would I give to the two guys saying everything is Kosher? Don't have one of those either.

Maybe written and interpreted that way, but not the way it is being done. Also, I don't know an FFL that will do a BGC without a gun to log on the form.

[clublights]

Ok, I haven't read it because I opted not to do them as I am a manufacture not a dealer. With that said; what form would I have the guy fill out? 4473 is the only form I have. Which form would I give to the two guys saying everything is Kosher? Don't have one of those either.

Maybe written and interpreted that way, but not the way it is being done. Also, I don't know an FFL that will do a BGC without a gun to log on the form.


That is the problem( well one of them) with the law.. the writers ( knowing nothing on how BGC's work ) didn't worry about that. They didn't care that was no infastructure put in place to handle this they just wanted to pass the law. the devil is in the details.

Yes Bob and Ginsue are interpreting the law how it was written but since there is no way for the FFL do it THAT way they have to do it the other way ( which is how they are doing it ) the FFL must do it this way for all the paperwork to work out right and not get in trouble with the ATF.

OF course there is the other side of the coin that says they knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they wrote the law and to discourage buying and selling of firearms they made it as much of a pain in the ass as they could.

[To Bear Arms]

In order for an FFL to transfer a firearm to an individual a 4473 has to be filled out and a BGC completed. And for that to be done per the law the firearm has to go through the FFL and be logged in and out of the A&D book. In order for a transfer to be legal the actual transfer also has to be at the place of business of the FFL.
The way I do mine per my IOI is:
We all meet at my place of business.
The buyer fills out 4473.
I do not take possession of firearm till AFTER I get a Proceed response.
I submit the app for a BGC on buyer.
If I get a proceed response from CBI the buyer/seller exchange money and I take possession of firearm and enter the info into (In/out)my A&D book.
I hand firearm to buyer. There is no other forms to hand to buyer/seller other than my receipt.

Now if I get a delayed response (I still don't have possession of firearm) it is up to the seller what he wants to do. walk away, wait till I get a response from CBI (up till 3 days), or give me possession.
You can get a delayed response for all sorts of reasons common name, CBI wants to get a little bit deeper, or mis info not matching up with what they have on file.
Now if the seller gives me possession and the next day or whenever i get a response back from CBI saying it was denied then I have to do a 4473/BGC on the seller in order for me to log it out of my book and back to the seller.
But if the seller gives me possession and I get a proceed response from CBI only the buyer needs to come back if the money was exchanged.
But if the seller kept the gun and I get a proceed response then the seller and buyer both have to come back to my place of business in order for a lawful transfer to take place. (Remember I have not taken possession yet so I have no info on the firearm. it has to go in and out of FFL's A&D book and the firearm info has to be recorded on the 4473)

Its best for the seller to keep possession till the proceed response is given.

Hope that helps! Its a pain in the ass for everyone involved! But it is for the children!

[trlcavscout]

From what I seen on the site last night if the "buyer" fails the check the "seller" has to pass a check to regain the gun? It was on the CBI site? So that would mean the dealer has to take possesion of the firearm during the transfer.

[10mm-man]

From what I seen on the site last night if the "buyer" fails the check the "seller" has to pass a check to regain the gun? It was on the CBI site? So that would mean the dealer has to take possesion of the firearm during the transfer.


Yep! to do it right- have to have the serial number on the 4473 to run the BGC.

[BlasterBob]

Yep! to do it right- have to have the serial number on the 4473 to run the BGC.

Sure but the seller can hold on to the firearm while the FFL just observes the serial number, thereby NOT relinquishing ownership. I believe the latest BATFE bulletin (ATF Proc.2013-1) pretty well covers most of this crap.
This ATF Proc. 2013-1 bulletin covers "Recordkeeping and background check procedures for facilitation of private firearms transfers".

[clublights]

Sure but the seller can hold on to the firearm while the FFL just observes the serial number, thereby NOT relinquishing ownership. I believe the latest BATFE bulletin (ATF Proc.2013-1) pretty well covers most of this crap.
This ATF Proc. 2013-1 bulletin covers "Recordkeeping and background check procedures for facilitation of private firearms transfers".


I Found it interesting that the FFL must supply a "locking device" for all handguns transferred.

one more fucking hoop to jump thru...... and added cost to the FFL

[BlasterBob]

I Found it interesting that the FFL must supply a "locking device" for all handguns transferred.

one more fucking hoop to jump thru...... and added cost to the FFL

There are SO many possibilities that our illustrious legislators did not think of that it sometimes makes me wonder if some of their omissions were intended to be traps for some innocent folks to get caught up in. I am really amazed that these legislators don't have some "round table" meetings/discussions with dealers and experts to throw some "what if's" into the mix for consideration when working up a new law. Seems so many laws are passed by people who have absolutely no idea how their law will be applied AND policed. Our one time best Country in the world is being treated like a big ole septic tank that needs some serious flushing/cleaning. [Mad]

[Zundfolge]

There are SO many possibilities that our illustrious legislators did not think of that it sometimes makes me wonder if some of their omissions were intended to be traps for some innocent folks to get caught up in. I am really amazed that these legislators don't have some "round table" meetings/discussions with dealers and experts to throw some "what if's" into the mix for consideration when working up a new law. Seems so many laws are passed by people who have absolutely no idea how their law will be applied AND policed. Our one time best Country in the world is being treated like a big ole septic tank that needs some serious flushing/cleaning. [Mad]
Its not only that they have no idea how the laws they create are to be applied, its that they simply do not care.

Nobody voted for these laws because they wanted to see some specific mechanic of the laws implemented, they voted for these laws so they could turn to their libtard constituents (and more importantly, libtard donors) and say "See, I poked them evil Rethuglican gun nuts in the eye ... HA HA HA!"

As a friend of mine said, these laws are nothing more than "Counting coup in the culture war".

[clublights]

Its not only that they have no idea how the laws they create are to be applied, its that they simply do not care.

Nobody voted for these laws because they wanted to see some specific mechanic of the laws implemented, they voted for these laws so they could turn to their libtard constituents (and more importantly, libtard donors) and say "See, I poked them evil Rethuglican gun nuts in the eye ... HA HA HA!"

As a friend of mine said, these laws are nothing more than "Counting coup in the culture war".

What's the old saying ....

Never attribute to malice what you can also attribute to incompetence.... or something like that .....

[clublights]

**snip** I am really amazed that these legislators don't have some "round table" meetings/discussions with dealers and experts to throw some "what if's" into the mix for consideration when working up a new law. **snip**


They think they ARE the experts after all they are a **insert elected title here** Obviously they know more then you.

[To Bear Arms]

This is correct. If the seller never gives the firearm to the FFL until AFTER the buyer passes the BGC to complete the 4473. When I get home I will get a link to the ATF procedures.


Sure but the seller can hold on to the firearm while the FFL just observes the serial number, thereby NOT relinquishing ownership. I believe the latest BATFE bulletin (ATF Proc.2013-1) pretty well covers most of this crap.
This ATF Proc. 2013-1 bulletin covers "Recordkeeping and background check procedures for facilitation of private firearms transfers".

[ZERO THEORY]

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/suicide/grand/suicide-bullshyt-fuk-blog-fail-fb89705ae6d743bf1e848c206e16a1d7-19.gif

[Big E3]

This is my take on the new BGC law. Colorado has created a law that says we as private parties must use a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to preside over a BGC between two private parties in the state of Colorado. This transaction does not involve the BATF because in states other than Colorado it is not illegal and is not a federal requirement. Why do FFL's need to conform to BATF rules for a Colorado only transaction, especially since we are even using Colorado's own CBI and not the federal system to do these BGC. The private parties in this transaction never ask the FFL to take possession of any gun. The only reason that the FFL wants to take possession of the gun is because they insist on using the 4473 federal form. I think that an FFL should have/create it's own private party BGC form to use with any gun they have never possessed . That form does not have to comply with the BATF because you are not doing anything that falls under the federal jurisdiction. Colorado has asked FFL's to be the referee for this transaction and provide the parties a written copy of the BGC nothing more.

[clublights]

This is my take on the new BGC law. Colorado has created a law that says we as private parties must use a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to preside over a BGC between two private parties in the state of Colorado. This transaction does not involve the BATF because in states other than Colorado it is not illegal and is not a federal requirement. Why do FFL's need to conform to BATF rules for a Colorado only transaction, especially since we are even using Colorado's own CBI and not the federal system to do these BGC. The private parties in this transaction never ask the FFL to take possession of any gun. The only reason that the FFL wants to take possession of the gun is because they insist on using the 4473 federal form. I think that an FFL should have/create it's own private party BGC form to use with any gun they have never possessed . That form does not have to comply with the BATF because you are not doing anything that falls under the federal jurisdiction. Colorado has asked FFL's to be the referee for this transaction and provide the parties a written copy of the BGC nothing more.


NO

FFL's should NOT create their own "paperwork" this leaves them open to SERIOUS issues with the ATF.

Now MAYBE colorado should have their own paperwork BUT this again will give the FFL headaches with the ATF.

wish and dream all you want but the second an FFL is involved he MUST follow ATF rules or risk losing his license and business and possible jail time.

The only way to fix this law is to have it changed by the courts or new laws.

[To Bear Arms]

This is my take on the new BGC law. Colorado has created a law that says we as private parties must use a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to preside over a BGC between two private parties in the state of Colorado. This transaction does not involve the BATF because in states other than Colorado it is not illegal and is not a federal requirement. Why do FFL's need to conform to BATF rules for a Colorado only transaction, especially since we are even using Colorado's own CBI and not the federal system to do these BGC. The private parties in this transaction never ask the FFL to take possession of any gun. The only reason that the FFL wants to take possession of the gun is because they insist on using the 4473 federal form. I think that an FFL should have/create it's own private party BGC form to use with any gun they have never possessed . That form does not have to comply with the BATF because you are not doing anything that falls under the federal jurisdiction. Colorado has asked FFL's to be the referee for this transaction and provide the parties a written copy of the BGC nothing more.

In order for an FFL to conduct a BGC there has to be a 4473 to go with it.
Here is a link from the ATF on performing BGC for private parties. (https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf)

[BlasterBob]

In order for an FFL to conduct a BGC there has to be a 4473 to go with it.
Here is a link from the ATF on performing BGC for private parties. (https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf)

That sounds right. The 4473 section for the buyer is to be completed for the BGC but if the buyer or seller suddenly decides not to go ahead with the transfer AFTER the BGC "go ahead" is received, I believe the 4473 will still have to stay with the FFL and a notation would be placed on the form indicating the transfer did NOT transpire. Of course the firearm data/information would NOT be entered in the bound book since the transfer did not take place. A person would think the CBI and the BATFE would QUICKLY get together to issue a bulletin to all FFL containing some easy to understand guidelines to be followed. I can't understand why these two Government entities have to do so damn much foot dragging when the FFL's merely want some assistance in making certain that they are acting in compliance with the new law.??

[Sharpienads]

In order for an FFL to conduct a BGC there has to be a 4473 to go with it.
Here is a link from the ATF on performing BGC for private parties. (https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf_proc._2013-1_-_private_firearms_transfers_through_ffls.pdf)

That also says that in order for an FFL to conduct a transfer, they have to conduct a NICS checks on the buyer. Does CBI's InstaCheck satisfy that requirement?

[BlasterBob]

That also says that in order for an FFL to conduct a transfer, they have to conduct a NICS checks on the buyer. Does CBI's InstaCheck satisfy that requirement?

I'll bet it does take care of that requirement and I hope some FFL will get in here to verify that.

[Circuits]

Yes. A CBI check is a combination federal NICS and state-level records check. FFLs receive both a NICS and a state transaction number for each background check.

[To Bear Arms]

That sounds right. The 4473 section for the buyer is to be completed for the BGC but if the buyer or seller suddenly decides not to go ahead with the transfer AFTER the BGC "go ahead" is received, I believe the 4473 will still have to stay with the FFL and a notation would be placed on the form indicating the transfer did NOT transpire. Of course the firearm data/information would NOT be entered in the bound book since the transfer did not take place. A person would think the CBI and the BATFE would QUICKLY get together to issue a bulletin to all FFL containing some easy to understand guidelines to be followed. I can't understand why these two Government entities have to do so damn much foot dragging when the FFL's merely want some assistance in making certain that they are acting in compliance with the new law.??

On a cancelled transfer the 4473 has to be kept for 5 years.

[BlasterBob]

On a cancelled transfer the 4473 has to be kept for 5 years.

So that incomplete 4473 just gets filed in a special place (but not with the rest of the COMPLETED 4473 FORMS) and of course the firearm that WAS ALMOST TRANSFERRED would NOT be entered in the A&D book since the firearm was NOT relinquished and since there was no actual transfer. Then I suppose there will be a notation on the 4473 that the transfer did not occur due to cancellation by the buyer and/or seller. Still be interesting what the MAJORITY of FFL's will charge for this service and their time when there was no actual transfer - only a BGC. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it works.