How will the new laws affect this?

[BPTactical]

At one time, I believe it was a FEDERAL requirement that if a firearm were left overnight at a gunsmith facility, the firearm had to be logged into the gunsmith/FFL bound book. This applied if it was left overnight due to not being able to be repaired on the spot (same day as brought in)? If it WAS logged in, the form 4473 had to be executed. This was the way it worked at one time. Someone with knowledge about the current FEDERAL requirements should be jumping in here soon.

Edit to add: The HB 13-1229 exempts from the background check requirement transfers:
"6. made to facilitate the repair of a firearm as long as all parties possessing the firearm may do so legally";

I kinda doubt if this would make it unnecessary to complete the form 4473 when the firearm is picked back up after completion of the repairs. Would seem that anytime a 4473 is filled out, a BG check has to be made to show an OK was given by CBI. Maybe I am totally wrong on this.

For "Repair/Gunsmithing" purposes:
A firearm must be logged into the A/D book if the repair encompasses more than one business day. If the firearm is picked up by the same party that dropped it off for repair/gunsmithing services then no BGC is required.

[Great-Kazoo]

That has never been authorized by the great State of Colorado - has it? Would sure be nice if it would work that way NOW.

Yes and it was a topic of "discussion" here some time ago. Didn't stay long, after columbine.. That Old Timers creeping up on ya, bob?

[BlasterBob]

For "Repair/Gunsmithing" purposes:
A firearm must be logged into the A/D book if the repair encompasses more than one business day. If the firearm is picked up by the same party that dropped it off for repair/gunsmithing services then no BGC is required.

Wonder how much of a problem it would be if the husband drops the firearm off for repairs and a few days later, when the repairs are completed, the wife goes in to retrieve it since the husband is out of town for an extended period of time - and she wants it back for home protection. Also, guess I was wrong then, that anytime a 4473 is filled out, there no longer has to be an authorization number or something shown on the form that a call was made to CBI. Tough to keep up with all these B.S. requirements.

[BlasterBob]

Yes and it was a topic of "discussion" here some time ago. Didn't stay long, after columbine.. That Old Timers creeping up on ya, bob?

No but I do occasionally have an attack of Some Timers.

[Great-Kazoo]

Wonder how much of a problem it would be if the husband drops the firearm off for repairs and a few days later, when the repairs are completed, the wife goes in to retrieve it since the husband is out of town for an extended period of time - and she wants it back for home protection. Also, guess I was wrong then, that anytime a 4473 is filled out, there no longer has to be an authorization number or something shown on the form that a call was made to CBI. Tough to keep up with all these B.S. requirements.

person who dropped it off, must pick it up. It was logged in said person's name. That person is responsible for retrieving it.

[UncleDave]

Take it to Todd Lockburner on Brown Road off of Walker road. He is a Browning guy from way back and a good dude.

[BlasterBob]

person who dropped it off, must pick it up. It was logged in said person's name. That person is responsible for retrieving it.

One of these days, someone is going to suggest a joint ownership (if the firearms owners so desire) and that fact to be shown on the 4473 to help solve the problem with the SAME person situation as mentioned above. May not be very practical but is possible and would cause more work for the poor already overworked CBI folks.
Dual ownership would require both applicants to answer each section of the 4473. What a mess that could make...

[Great-Kazoo]

One of these days, someone is going to suggest a joint ownership (if the firearms owners so desire) and that fact to be shown on the 4473 to help solve the problem with the SAME person situation as mentioned above. May not be very practical but is possible and would cause more work for the poor already overworked CBI folks.
Dual ownership would require both applicants to answer each section of the 4473. What a mess that could make...

Separate 4473's, Or bring a copy of your trust to your favorite smith.

[BlasterBob]

A dealer needs to log it if it is overnight for smith work. However, there is no 4473 for the customer to pick it up for smith work (even if smith has it for 2 months so long as picked up by same person)

I thought sure that once a firearm was logged in the bound book, it was logged out only when accompanied by a fully filled out 4473. Guess I'm wrong again.

[Great-Kazoo]

A dealer needs to log it if it is overnight for smith work. However, there is no 4473 for the customer to pick it up for smith work (even if smith has it for 2 months so long as picked up by same person)

There IS a 4473 if a customer drops off a gun for consignment or pawn and later picks it up.

There is no CCW exemption in colorado. The fields exist in the 4473, but we can't use them. Primarily, to my understanding, because our permits are issued by local sheriffs and not the state.

The exemption was closed after Columbine. The CO CCW while issues by the individual county sheriffs, IS a state wide permit. If it was not considered State issued, there would be no reciprocity. When the CCW exemption was allowed CCW was issued on a limited basis, by CCW friendly CLEO'S