Holding a firearm during BG Check.

[MAP]

It would make sense to have the owner hold on to it until the BCG clears and then do the transfer. Sound like a mess brewing, doesn't it.........


^^^ to your post above; Were does it say I would have to take possession on the day I submit the BCG? Not sure it does; so running it through my books on at the time the transfer takes place would be ok. Speculation on this of course; we will have to wait and see....

I just read the bill again. You are correct, it does not say that you need to take possession on the day you submit the BCG. I'm curious to know how Federal law will play into the possession issue. It certainly is a mess and much work for $10.00.

Mike

[ray1970]

I saw a couple of people several years ago doing a private ale through an FFL. Didn't seem all that complex to me. The buyer and seller went to the FFL, paid a small fee to have the FFL run the 4473 for them. The seller got some kind of "receipt" showing that the buyer had passed the BGC. Cash and firearm exchanged hands and off they went. I don't think the FFL actually too possession of anything. He was simply the middle man in the transaction and got his cut for processing the paperwork.

Of course, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night so I might be forgetting some of the details.

If anyone wants to see how it actually works then someone sell me a. Remington 870 and we'll do the transaction through an FFL.

[merl]

thinking about about the quote from the law I gave, specifically the "As if a transfer from inventory" portion. I have (once) had dealer run the BG check when I placed an order through them instead of when I picked it up. That certainly qualifies as a retail transaction.

The question arises, what do you do if denied and the gun is not in your possession. When ordering from the distributor you are getting from another FFL, no issues with whoever holds the gun. If some agency asks for the paperwork on that transaction and you don't have much because it was never logged... dunno what happens there.

[10mm-man]

it says you have to treat it exactly the same as you would treat a retail transfer.

This wording seems pretty clear to me, you record it in your book. I doubt you'll want anything in your book not physically in your shop.


I'll admit I have not read section 12-26-102 and 103 though.

There is nothing that says i can't run the check without logging a firearm or having to have it "in hand"; CBI has verified gun does not need to be in"HAND" or on your books to run a BGC- Serial, model, caliber is all that is needed.....

The question arises, what do you do if denied and the gun is not in your possession. When ordering from the distributor you are getting from another FFL, no issues with whoever holds the gun. If some agency asks for the paperwork on that transaction and you don't have much because it was never logged... dunno what happens there.

Good point put it is in original owners hands and transaction never took place... Mute point i would think...

[merl]

Good point put it is in original owners hands and transaction never took place... Mute point i would think...

Just wondering what happens if some LE decides to actually follow up on the denied action. May not be so moot if you don't have a 4473 that they lied on for them to work with.

[10mm-man]

Just wondering what happens if some LE decides to actually follow up on the denied action. May not be so moot if you don't have a 4473 that they lied on for them to work with.

O wait,sorry, let me clarify; I assumed in the conversation the 4473 was filled out. You need to have the firearms section filled out on the "4473" to run the BGC... Signed, license verified, etc. Just not required to have the gun "in hand"....

[wreave]

How does it work today at a gun show?

I sold a pistol at a gun show last year. Buyer did the form, I left the pistol at the BGC table and left. They had my number in case there was an issue. But I suppose it's theoretically possible that there could be a theft or fire during the wait for the BGC. "Then what?" is a fair question.

[BPTactical]

This legislation if passed has the potential to create quite a mess for the state. If I understand the regs correctly a FFL must have "possession" of a firearm to conduct a 4473 BGC. This means as noted earlier the FFL must log it as an "Acquisition", do the 4473 BGC of the purchasing party then log it out as a "Disposal". If the prospective purchaser is denied the FFL must perform a 4473 BGC on the seller before returning the firearm to them. If the seller gets denied the seller and purchaser are SOL and the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm.
FFL's will be mandated by law to conduct BGC's for private sales and will not be able to charge in excess of $10.00 for it.
So now a FFL is forced by law to perform the exact same process as a retail transfer that they usually charge $25-40.00 for for a reduced rate.
I don't believe the state can mandate a business to conduct a transaction that causes a business to lose money.
If the FFL's in this state were smart they would pull together as a collective group and exert some legal leverage.

[10mm-man]

This legislation if passed has the potential to create quite a mess for the state. If I understand the regs correctly a FFL must have "possession" of a firearm to conduct a 4473 BGC. This means as noted earlier the FFL must log it as an "Acquisition", do the 4473 BGC of the purchasing party then log it out as a "Disposal". If the prospective purchaser is denied the FFL must perform a 4473 BGC on the seller before returning the firearm to them. If the seller gets denied the seller and purchaser are SOL and the FFL becomes the owner of the firearm.
FFL's will be mandated by law to conduct BGC's for private sales and will not be able to charge in excess of $10.00 for it.
So now a FFL is forced by law to perform the exact same process as a retail transfer that they usually charge $25-40.00 for for a reduced rate.
I don't believe the state can mandate a business to conduct a transaction that causes a business to lose money.
If the FFL's in this state were smart they would pull together as a collective group and exert some legal leverage.

Can you post the back up - I don't care to dig through it. As for force, I doubt they can force me to do a BGC for a private transaction. As for the $10, isn't it for the BGC and not necessarily for the handling and transfer service? Either way looks like I won't be doing "private" transactions; which wasn't in my business model anyway.

to clarify; we are talking about "proposed" reg in relationship to "possession" of a firearm to conduct the a 4473 correct? Because as of right now there is no "possession" requirement. Of course i have no written regulation to back that up (only CBI verbal) but I also don't see nothing contrary in the ATF/ Colorado CBI regs. Please post if you do...

Thanks,

[BPTactical]

There was verbiage that MANDATES FFL's shall conduct BGC's for private transactions.

How can a FFL run a Federal BGC if they do not have possession of the firearm? As far as the 10.00 for the BGC I can easily see your point occurring. A FFL will charge 10.00 for the BGC but paperwork fees, handling fees etc will be tacked on. Next thing you know a private sale will cost you an additional $40.00.

All the more reason I have never nor ever will conduct transfers and sales.