You are correct except that the UBC goes into effect on July 1, 2013, not immediately. 18-20 can do private handgun sales through June 30, 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkface
Printable View
You are correct except that the UBC goes into effect on July 1, 2013, not immediately. 18-20 can do private handgun sales through June 30, 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkface
And if your 17 year old kid turns 18 after July 1, sorry, you're SOL. Yet again, this is what happens when you vote for Democraps! I'm so furious, but I've decreed to stay in CO until I see this through (both the legal challenges and the 2014 election).Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Well, your kid doesn't even have to be 18 for you to give them a handgun. They just need your written permission when they're not on your property. CRS 18-12-108.5Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Ouch! Good Point- I would say yep.. Im not an attorney thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Punkface
By the way- the word is that Firing Line will not be doing any bgc for FTF purchases. We will be "opting out".
Yet again, that's the choice of the FFL if they actually want to do FTF transfers... And we get hosed (by our legislature) if the majority of them don't want to and those that do want big fees (again their business, their right to run it how they choose) for the transaction on top of the fee for the BGC. I hope no one here goes shifting their blame to the FFLs, they're not the ones to blame, it's those meddling demorats. <no that is not a typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakerd
why on earth would any ffl do it for 10 bux ?
everyone is going to opt out.
it is a back door prohibition on private sales.
Why do you think it is worded the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by lowbeyond
Looks like I'll be buying my long guns in Wyoming from now on. I am up there frequently anyways so I might as well save myself the $10.
When the bill was in committee they tried to add an amendment that stated no FFL would be required to perform the BGC, it was shot down and they basically said FFLs would be required to do them. I don't see how they can force a business to perform a service for a loss.
I get my tranfers through Green Mountain Guns and they charged $35.00 for transfers so I would suspect that their new price will be $45.00. Quite frankly I suspect that all this gun tracking in some way so I will not being buying any guns unless it is a real must have after July 1st or until this junk is overturned. As I said before I have 3 months to get what I need for the long haul. However after the 1st of July NOBODY is going to tell me how to interact with my family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
This is the primary issue I see with this new piece of legislation; it doesn't matter if a person is doing business with a family member or a complete stranger, this law is unenforceable.Quote:
Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero
they can force you to do anything, they do have the men in blue with the guns behind them. As for forcing a business doing things that cost them money; thats generally called red tape, taxes, fees, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
I wont bitch if I want to do a private transfer and a shop wont do it for $10. I will bitch if I cannot find a shop that will do it at all (as in, for what they would charge to transfer from internet sale).
They can only catch people with stings. Otherwise there is nothing they can do to enforce any of this. It is a bunch of slap happy bullshit that will either turn into a big damn joke that nobody listens to, or the biggest legislative nightmare that results in gun and magazine registration. I will tell you one thing though; I am going to be fucking livid if any background check that I pay for takes longer than 15 minutes. They are more than doubling their funding and increasing staffing so they better get shit done chop chop.Quote:
Originally Posted by cysoto
Don't forget that if you bring you firearm to a dealer for a private transfer and the buyer doesn't pass, the owner will have to fill out a form 4473 + $10.00 to get his firearm back
also this is copied from the CBI page:
The following lists some of the frequently asked questions already posed to CBI.
When will the fee go into effect? " CBI is currently finalizing the framework for the collection of the fee with the licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) throughout the state. It's expected the fee collection will begin as soon as signed into law by the Governor.
What will CBI do with the funding through the fees collected during the purchase of a firearm? " CBI will utilize the funding to address direct and indirect costs associated with InstaCheck including increased staffing (24.7 positions), equipment for the computer-based checks and additional physical space to house the team to accommodate the increase of background checks.
How did the CBI determine the dollar amount of the fee? " CBI considered the potential for increased volume of checks in the future, staffing needs and other operational costs to determine the $10 fee. While we believe actual costs exceed $10, we will assess the program at the end of the calendar year to determine if any adjustments need to be made once we have an opportunity to analyze actual data.
Is the fee of $10 fixed? " The $10 fee was based on calculations of two of the bills being debated in the 2013 Colorado Legislative session. The CBI plans to evaluate the program at the end of the calendar year to determine if any adjustments need to be made once we have an opportunity to analyze actual data.
Effective 03/20/13
I don't think this is the case. As long as the FFL dealer is only facilitating the sale (as opposed to taking possession of the gun), you don't need to run a second background check on the original owner of the firearm if the sale doesn't take place.Quote:
Originally Posted by R&S
What is the source of your information? ATF was at my place on Wednesday of this week and that is not what they said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cysoto
^ What he said! [hahhah-no] Exactly, if the buyer is denied on his BGC then the current owner(seller) is still the current owner no sale has taken place. Unless in the eyes of our wonderful new state law they see the FFL as taking ownership since he/she is part of the transaction.
Okay I got beat by 1 post.
They have really gummed things up. Sorta related. If I'm selling my glock 17, I can't sell the gun with the current mags, and I cant find 15 round approved mags. It kinda means the gun is not getting sold. Or I buy a 10 rounder which, will go for a premium, and pay the fees to transfer. Now I'm looking at another 100 bucks added to the cost of the gun. How is this not a regressive tax?
You've got until July 1 to sell it, probably at a hell of a markup before then
You may want to call the main office and verify what you were told; I am quite certain that the BATF agent gave you the wrong information. When you are facilitating a sale (like in the case that was mentioned above), the FFL is not required to accept the firearm into their bound book until after the background check has cleared and the new owner is to take possession of the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by R&S
Nope, the situation was covered very clearly, you might want to call BATF&E and speak with a compliance officer. FWIW
Man that sucks
This is just one more infringement on our 2nd amendment right, IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by osok-308
It doesn't matter how many FFLs would have shown up, the same way it didn't matter how many gun owners, how many Sheriffs and how many logical arguments showed up and were deliberately ignored. The Hand of God could have shown up as a burning bush, handed out individual clay tablets with His opinion why these were bad laws and they would have passed just the way they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
a simple "no" might be in order here folks. Isn't that how revolutions begin?
I hope the 96% hit them (house and Senate) where it hurts, at the polls! I can't wait to vote these folks out of office
The "elected officials" had their minds made up and they weren't going to be confused with the facts
I heard that gang bangers are raising their firearm transfer fee to (2) dime bags because of the new law.
[Shock]
To the couple of members who implied and/or stated that the FFLs are as much to blame as the sponsors of the bill- What are you smoking? A multi-multi million dollar entity like Magpul- with money for lawyers, lobbyists, money to hire people to fight for them- proves to be impotent. What the hell do you think an FFL owner is going to do about this Democrat-driven power grab? I applaud certain members who stood up and spoke for many of us, but I'm sorry if I had to go to work to bring home my full paycheck. You can't blame a business owner, big or small, for continuing to run their business and not stopping the train to get off and try to stop another one by standing in front of it and yelling at it. Besides, you have no idea what was being tried being the scenes.