People who ask to trade without BGC

What's up with those people who ask to do FTF gun trades without back ground check and claim that he is "revolting against tyranny"? Do they really think that breaking laws will help our cause?

Yeah, selling without a bolt carrier group is unacceptable.

Glad I was not the only one scratching my head over that one.

I fixed the thread title but I'll leave it to the OP to correct his post.

As to the thread topic:
We've had a few of those here, more recently than in the first year. One was due to life stress events and the poster forgot about the new laws until we reminded him. His situation & great attitude in his reply ( both of which I never doubted from this great member) saved him from a banning.

Folks can rebel against these BS laws all they want without the Staff daring one bit - so long as they don't use this site to facilitate, encourage or condone such activity. That'll get you put into the "ex-COAR member" status faster than Bloomberg can scream "gun control".

I've done a couple of deals on here where the seller said they had "no BGC" offers but they simply refused and went with a legit buyer instead (me). [Beer] 99.9% good folks on here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UrbanWolf

What's up with those people who ask to do FTF gun trades without back ground check and claim that he is "revolting against tyranny"? Do they really think that breaking laws will help our cause?

---

If it's not within guidelines, tell them sorry, and move on.

MODS AND MEMBERS: The following is just a comment/ observation nothing more or less. AND NOT SOMETHING TO BE TAKEN AS CONDONING, OR SUGGEST BYPASSING ANY FIREARM LAW.

UW, While i applaud your stance to follow current gun laws in CO AND the COC RULES for selling a firearm on this web site.

You must wear blinders, have selective vision, OR never browse the magazine aisles when you're doing a transfer at Liberty Arms. Just saying.

[Cry][Cry][Cry][Cry] Im with jim on this one

You must wear blinders, have selective vision, OR never browse the magazine aisles when you're doing a transfer at Liberty Arms. Just saying.[/QUOTE]

How else would Gov Dicknpooper catch people breaking the law, thereby validating his cause?

I'm all for buying without a background check (how it should be). You just cant do it here on this site. They obviously have to follow the rules and laws that govern this state and I don't have a problem with that.

For what's its worth whom ever runs this site does a good job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theGinsue

That'll get you put into the "ex-COAR member" status faster than Bloomberg can scream "gun control".

---

He will never scream that! "Common sense" is what he would use instead....

If it happens, thank them for their service in law enforcement, say "no thank you" to their offer, and send a brief PM to one of the mods alerting them to the infraction.

Be safe.

I haven't been able to sell one of my pistols for this exact reason. Have had plenty of buyers but not one of them will do a BGC. I don't agree with it but I can't afford to not do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtnrider

I haven't been able to sell one of my pistols for this exact reason. Have had plenty of buyers but not one of them will do a BGC. I don't agree with it but I can't afford to not do it.

---

Success. Intended outcome.

Has it ever been publicized where someone in Colorado actually transferred or attempted to transfer a firearm and got charged with failure to secure a BGC since the new requirement went into effect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stenz

I'm all for buying without a background check (how it should be). You just cant do it here on this site. They obviously have to follow the rules and laws that govern this state and I don't have a problem with that.

---

Bingo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stenz

For what's its worth whom ever runs this site does a good job.

---

Absolutely! It's a crappy situation and the owner/mods have done an excellent job.

Just another reason I bought what I could before this law went into effect.

My signature backs up my understanding of this subject as provided by the SCOTUS.

Each has his own reasons for either complying or not... There are other ways to view this, the assumption in the OPs statement is just one way to look at it. Some folks believe that, at this point in time, it's not in their best interest to acquire another firearm that has a paper trail. History proves how that turns out when tptb want to exert more control.

OK so this is an anti rant, cause ever post I see by them refers to right wing gun nuts as not having Big Giant Cocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mtn.man

OK so this is an anti rant, cause ever post I see by them refers to right wing gun nuts as not having Big Giant Cocks.

---

It may not be giant but it sure is pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfortune

It may not be giant but it sure is pretty.

---

His or mine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

His or mine?

---

hahahaha. I don't even know how to answer that.... Don't want to play favorites

It has caused more interest in 80% lowers, and maybe AK builds from flats (one reason they're so cost prohibitive now?)

those are legal ways to stick it to the CO politicians that stuck it to us last year...

Let's focus on voting out the folks who passed these laws and get people in there who will focus on reversing those laws.

http://www.weirdpicturearchive.com/i...antrooster.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

http://www.weirdpicturearchive.com/i...antrooster.jpg

---

You sir, have a large and mighty fine looking cock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

http://www.weirdpicturearchive.com/i...antrooster.jpg

---

Quote:

---

"Sometimes if they’re big enough, all you have to do is show it… and people will run"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davsel

http://www.weirdpicturearchive.com/i...antrooster.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

You sir, have a large and mighty fine looking cock

---

Looks like a comb over.

“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resigns his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.”
Henry David Thoreau

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

Has it ever been publicized where someone in Colorado actually transferred or attempted to transfer a firearm and got charged with failure to secure a BGC since the new requirement went into effect?

---

http://www.da5.us/2014/04/lake-count...vidence/<br />

Only one that I'm aware of.

http://www.da5.us/2014/04/lake-count...ndled-evidence

Truncated link works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by From the link

Written by da5_team on April 28, 2014
LEADVILLE, COLORADO: Former Lake County Sheriff’s Office Deputy William Berry and Sheriff’s Sergeant Jeffrey Hartman will be charged following an investigation into firearms that were mishandled after their confiscation from a defendant. Berry, who was first implicated by the investigation, will likely be charged with unlawful purchase of firearms, theft, and embezzlement of public property, all felonies, as well as unauthorized transfer of a firearm and first degree official misconduct, both misdemeanors. Hartman, who is a suspected accomplice, will likely be charged with theft, complicity with embezzlement of public property, and first degree official misconduct.

Warrants for Berry and Hartman’s arrest were sought by a District Attorney’s Office investigator, who initiated an inquiry on request from District Attorney Bruce Brown. Brown was contacted by Lake County Undersheriff Fernando Mendoza regarding the potential theft of firearms from the county’s store of case evidence.

Mendoza suspected criminal activity after receiving an email from a federal agent (not involved in the investigation) inquiring as to why he had not received a firearm he purchased from Berry for approximately $2,300.00 back in February. The agent stated that Berry, who had used his Lake County Sheriff email address for the transaction, had claimed the firearm, a government model 38 caliber super colt semi-automatic handgun, was confiscated from a defendant who was in the country illegally. Mendoza, who had no knowledge that a sale of a firearm had taken place, turned the case over to the District Attorney.

The investigation, initiated on April 8, 2014, revealed that the handgun in question, along with three other firearms, was signed out to the victim of a domestic violence case on January 17, 2014. Upon an interview with the victim, it was discovered that despite the fact that her signature appeared on the Release of Evidence form, she did not obtain the firearms from the office, and had never even seen the form.

The woman stated that she was approached by Berry about selling the weapons to him for $500.00 a few days prior to their removal from evidence. As she did not want the weapons, previously owned by her partner who has since been deported, the woman agreed, though she had some doubts about the legality of their transaction. While she stated she did sign a receipt produced by Berry, the paper only listed the sale of one gun, and it was not on letterhead. The receipt could not be located by investigators.

Statements by another witness implicated Sergeant Hartman along with Berry, as it is alleged that Hartman, as one of only two evidence custodians with the Sheriff’s Office, assisted Berry in signing the firearms out of evidence without the presence of the owner. It is further alleged that Hartman received one of the guns, an SKS rifle, as a “thank you” for his assistance.

Commenting on the warrants signed for Berry and Hartman, District Attorney Bruce Brown stated, “It is certainly disconcerting when cases of this matter come up, as we rely on our police officers to uphold the law and protect our communities from those who would participate in dishonest or dangerous activity. It is for this reason, though, that we hold law enforcement officers to an even higher standard, and when they fail to meet that standard, there needs to be consequences.”

The weapons in question, which along with the handgun included two Norinco SKS semi-automatic rifles and a Marlin .22 rifle, have been recovered by the Sheriff’s Office with the help of Berry’s most recent employer, the Teller County Sheriff’s Office.

A court date is set for advisement on June 17, 2014 at 8:30AM.

All charges contained in this release are merely accusations. The defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crays

http://www.da5.us/2014/04/lake-count...ndled-evidence

Truncated link works

---

This is more than no BGC it's about blatant theft of firearms by LE. pssst wanna buy a watch.

The last two deals I've done, the buyer asked if a BGC was required. I have no problem with the question and both buyers had no problem meeting me at an ffl to do the bgc after I told them a bcg was requires. He later told me that he has traded a few firearms and he doesn't care about the current law. Btw, he was from armslist, and yes he passed the bgc.
I hope one day they reverse the law but for now it's too easy to pay the transfer fee and $10 for CBI. I do find it funny that in a few months I'll be moving to a state where you can private party transfer rifles but not handguns.

Reading these posts make me sad at the smugness and even "turn in your neighbor" approach some people have to the 2013 gun control grab. They have no affect on paper, but they certainly work the "control" aspect of gun control, on ourselves.

A true liberal has no regard for law, thinking that driving without a driver's license, doing drugs, theft, etc. is perfectly acceptable unless you get caught. In this way we are made to police ourselves. We believe in the rule of law, whereas they do not and believe such laws do not apply and only apply to "bad people".

I hope we can initiate a change this November 4th and perhaps even roll back the clock.

Personally, I've done several no background check transfers (like the "old ways") since July 2013. Two of which were with deputies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeusExMachina

Personally, I've done several no background check transfers (like the "old ways") since July 2013. Two of which were with deputies.

---

LOL! Thanks fantastic.


I have high confidence in our ability to fix Colorado. I think enough people are pissed off right now that we can swing things back in the right direction.

My final point being, yes it's the law. Yes we want to follow the law. However, since it wasn't so long ago that we were participating in actions that are now illegal, maybe we shouldn't be all "alert the mods to the infraction" this or "illegitimate buyer" that. If you require a background check, inform the buyer/seller of that. If that's a problem, move on. Trust your gut just like before, if someone is fishy don't do it regardless. Being militant one way or the other doesn't help anything.

It's not so long ago (2009) that I was fresh-faced from New York and was all confused and panicked when someone in Colorado didn't want to do a bill of sale. To the point where someone found my post on another forum and was publicly embarrassed for it by multiple forum members. Now it seems to be the opposite.

Here is my analogy:

This board is someone else's house. If it were my house and one of many guests was violating the law, I would appreciate having another guest informing me of the facts rather than be informed by the officers at my door with a search warrant.

Maybe the guest violating the law is my crazy Uncle Johnny and I already know he routinely violates the law. I thank the guest for letting me know and I move on because no one is going to stop crazy Uncle Johnny and I like him too much to not invite him.

Maybe the guest is someone I've never met before and what they are doing in my home is offensive to my conscience, I thank the guest who notified me, and I politely ask the offending guest to leave.

My home my rules. The boards rules are pretty clear. No conduct of an illegal nature. As a guest, I feel compelled to notify the host and then let the host deal with it.

Just my opinion. I would assume others do as their conscience leads them.

Be safe.

What litigation do you deal with?