Quote Originally Posted by BPTactical View Post
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,