*CONFIRMED SEE PAGE 7* Littleton PD Requesting online-uploads of video for firearms transactions

IANAL but I'm not sure how the definition of a pawnbroker can be stretched to include consignment services.

And I struggle to understand the policy benefits because I'm not sure thieves would ever use a consignment service--they want quick money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero

Ps. The cameras were provided by the law enforcement officers not the business. Audio and video feed. Both FFLs informed data was being sent to a 3rd party server. As for me this adventure will be my last one with this camera nonsense.

---

Audio and video of a business where little word makes me a felon is a no-go for me too. It's not just a violation of the customer's privacy at that point.

Example: If the camera hears speech from customers that can be inferred to mean a straw transfer, but my human hears miss it (happens), I'm done and I've just documented the case against me.

Maybe I'm having a hard time following this thread but I'm not connecting where LE/the law is compelling the use of cameras via the law. I get the whole "ticket" thing that has been the case. If Littleton PD is just forcing the issue by fiat, seems to be a bad precedent to allow that to happen.

Maybe I'm having a hard time following this thread but I'm not connecting where LE/the law is compelling the use of cameras via the law.

I do not either but the fact is police are providing the camera and informing the FFL they must install it under law they cite in the letter and requiring transfers to be covered by this nonsense. When I transfer a firearm I not pawning anything. I dont consign qbut many people do. Reading this letter makes it look like the firearm must be held 30 days etc. To me this is all overreach and is doing nothing to improve public safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero

Maybe I'm having a hard time following this thread but I'm not connecting where LE/the law is compelling the use of cameras via the law.

I do not either but the fact is police are providing the camera and informing the FFL they must install it under law they cite in the letter and requiring transfers to be covered by this nonsense. When I transfer a firearm I not pawning anything. I dont consign qbut many people do. Reading this letter makes it look like the firearm must be held 30 days etc. To me this is all overreach and is doing nothing to improve public safety.

---

Is there another letter because I don’t see anything in that letter pertaining to cameras or audio/video monitoring.
I have yet to see any documentation in this thread that an LEO agency is requiring audio/video monitoring.
Second hand rumor that an unidentified LEO provided video cameras to a FFL with claims that a third party service would be used while providing no court order and no legal documentation still sounds highly suspicious to me.

It's not a rumor. SPARTA and Rapidfire were provided the same cameras by law enforcement. The Littleton Police Department is the agency who dropped the camera off with the letter. For neighsayers just go by or ask the stores. Rapidfire closes Friday for good, and Sparta is open tommorow. As for me I am tired of defending what I reported. They are there in the darn stores. It's up to us to stop this crap from spreading.

So, Littleton is opening themselves up to a massive lawsuit for violating the CRS as it regards local jurisdictional control and establishing a registry of firearms owners and firearms...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

So, Littleton is opening themselves up to a massive lawsuit for violating the CRS as it regards local jurisdictional control and establishing a registry of firearms owners and firearms...

---

I did call the NRA on Friday about the situation. I shared with them the process that I went through. They gave me an email to send the pictures. Personally I hope this all a misinterpretation of the process for consignments and transfers. I did mess up and not get a picture of the 2nd page with the camera setup. I will try to get that for the naysayers. As for going through the process it felt wrong to me. If this process spreads I sure will not be trading with others anymore or putting my unwanted item on consignment. I dont believe many others would like to do the same. I have for one been compliant with transfer law since it was implemented in 2013. This discourages following that law. On a related note to transfers many of the firearms on auction sites like Gunbroker are used or sold by sellers without an FFL. How would that be interpreted?

As far as the other sites-you don’t have to have an ffl to ship a gun IF the receiving dealer accepts from individuals. In all the years I’ve bought and sold on GB I’ve never been solicited to send a firearm directly to a non-ffl holding individual.

I have found it to be more economical however to use an ffl locally to ship to the receiving ffl.

This camera thing seems like something to be addressed with the City of Littleton as it appears isolated there-definitely not happening in other cities in Arapahoe County.

To the op-you went well beyond anything I would’ve done, thanks for that.

If the letter is all Littleton PD provided, I'd politely tell them to take their cameras with them when the leave. There is nothing in that letter that says FFL's are legally required to install them. The police can't just run around telling people they "must do this because we said so". It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

If the letter is all Littleton PD provided, I'd politely tell them to take their cameras with them when the leave. There is nothing in that letter that says FFL's are legally required to install them. The police can't just run around telling people they "must do this because we said so". It doesn't work that way.

---

Yes, this.
Tell them that you will not comply with their request of video surveillance of your private property and business.
They can direct any further communication regarding the matter to your attorney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

If the letter is all Littleton PD provided, I'd politely tell them to take their cameras with them when the leave. There is nothing in that letter that says FFL's are legally required to install them. The police can't just run around telling people they "must do this because we said so". It doesn't work that way.

---

And then the city will "conveniently" find your business in violation of city zoning/regulations and shut the business down.

Drew890's response is spot on.