Background Check/Transfers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clublights

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

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 .....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

**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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

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".

---

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/...e16a1d7-19.gif

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by To Bear Arms

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.

---

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.??