If Private Sales Banned- Where do dealers stand?


PDA






Redlg155
December 28, 2012, 04:41 PM
Just curious as to how many dealers would take a stand against banning private sales? As I see it,dealers would profit by being able to charge gun owners a "Transfer" and background check fee.

I for one know of a dealer in my area who would most likely be happy. I went into his shop looking for an AR a year or so ago and was informed that we don't deal with "those" kinds of guns.

If you enjoyed reading about "If Private Sales Banned- Where do dealers stand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Grassman
December 28, 2012, 04:44 PM
Just curious as to how many dealers would take a stand against banning private sales? As I see it,dealers would profit by being able to charge gun owners a "Transfer" and background check fee.

I for one know of a dealer in my area who would most likely be happy. I went into his shop looking for an AR a year or so ago and was informed that we don't deal with "those" kinds of guns.
I wouldn't darken his door anymore then.

Chevelle SS
December 28, 2012, 04:46 PM
I'd bet a lot of dealers would take advantage of a ban of private sales.

CoRoMo
December 28, 2012, 04:53 PM
I for one know of a dealer in my area who would most likely be happy. I went into his shop looking for an AR a year or so ago and was informed that we don't deal with "those" kinds of guns.
How do you jump from this dealer specializing in non-tactical type firearms to him being one that would be happy for private transactions to be banned?

There should be a poll here, and the question should be, "Would you honestly expect licensed dealers to perform transfers for free if FTF transactions were illegal?".

Dreamliner787
December 28, 2012, 05:07 PM
A lot of dealers make more profit on their used guns vs. their new considering the prices that they offer/buy used guns for. So I see more people selling to dealers and/or the dealers charging transfer fees to both buyers and sellers for the transactions.

Redlg155
December 28, 2012, 05:08 PM
How do you jump from this dealer specializing in non-tactical type firearms to him being one that would be happy for private transactions to be banned?

I should have mentioned that, and other actions that I have witnessed. That is of course why I don't use the dealer for purchases or transfers when I buy out of state. I won't get into that arguement as to the specifics since that would take away from the question of the thread.

Unfortunately I can't start a poll, but if the mods would let me I would.

waterhouse
December 28, 2012, 05:12 PM
What do you mean by "take a stand?"

CoRoMo
December 28, 2012, 05:15 PM
...dealers would profit...
Only if they charged more than their expenses totaled. Otherwise it's the opposite of a profit; a loss. And profit is the goal of being in business after all. The goal of business is not to offer a free service to the citizens of the area out of some philanthropic motive.
Unfortunately I can't start a poll, but if the mods would let me I would.
I don't suppose that you would feel cheated if the dealers in your area felt it was only fair to charge you for their time and expertise, would you?

Redlg155
December 28, 2012, 05:15 PM
Perhaps I should have said " take a stance?" as in not supporting the inclusion of this in any new gun control legislation.

I don't suppose that you would feel cheated if the dealers in your area felt it was only fair to charge you for their time and expertise, would you?


Sure..if I could do a chargeback if they didn't have a clue as to what they are talking about for my time and expertise..

leadcounsel
December 28, 2012, 07:20 PM
Presumably dealers love the business of guns, and also the 2A. Smart dealers would realize that this is the beginning of the end of the 2A. And they won't be a dealer forever.
Also will create additional laws to comply with.

I can't imagine a dealer wanting to prohibit personal transfers.

Isaac-1
December 28, 2012, 07:23 PM
Around here it is already common to see dealers charging $50 or more for FFL transfers for online gun purchases, it seems they feel any gun not bought from them is taking money out of their pockets, so they charge as much as they can get away with.

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 07:29 PM
Because they are licensed dealers, they will do what is legal. As the OP mentioned, some dealers choose to not sell certain firearms; that is their choice.

Bohemus
December 28, 2012, 08:19 PM
Why do you think private sales will get banned? I guess there will be same conditions for private sales as there are for bussines sales - backround check etc..

MErl
December 28, 2012, 08:40 PM
Why do you think private sales will get banned? I guess there will be same conditions for private sales as there are for business sales - background check etc..

It would be easier to mandate all transactions happen through a FFL than deal with how a private citizen could provably run a check.

TennJed
December 28, 2012, 08:41 PM
I think it would regulate itself to reasonable fees in most places with multiple FFLs. If everybody is charging $50 one will see oppurtunity and charge $25. He will get all the business untill the others adjust.

their are a few FFLs in my area that charge $25 for internet purchases

smalls
December 28, 2012, 08:46 PM
I don't see how this would be enforceable.

How do you prove someone didn't have a gun before they mandated FFL transfers.

oneounceload
December 28, 2012, 08:53 PM
How do you propose to stop a sale between myself and an friend?
Do criminals use FFLs? Do you need a gov't agent to sell golf clubs or kitchen knives or a car?
Stop making up scenarios and then trying to determine solutions to scenarios that do not exist

Bohemus
December 28, 2012, 08:58 PM
It would be easier to mandate all transactions happen through a FFL than deal with how a private citizen could provably run a check.

Symply by presenting gun-licence?

spanishjames
December 28, 2012, 09:04 PM
How do you propose to stop a sale between myself and an friend?

No one can stop you. But it could become illegal to do so. If the "Gun Show Loophole" is ever closed, you'd have to use an FFL to sell a gun to your friend. If you don't use an FFL, and the State investigates your friend for whatever reason, (e.g., where/when he got his gun after a justified shooting) you'd be in trouble.

BK
December 28, 2012, 09:08 PM
Perhaps I should have said " take a stance?" as in not supporting the inclusion of this in any new gun control legislation.
I'm a dealer and I would not support even the most minor form of gun control and I don't know of any other dealer that would support any either. If FTF were forced through FFL's I would do those transfers just like I do others everyday. Simple internet transfers are a PITA frankly and I'm not looking to spend my whole day doing only that.

MErl
December 28, 2012, 09:10 PM
Simply by presenting gun-license?

I'd guess that most of us would rather be required to use a FFL than have a required gun license. I know that's be my preference.

oneounceload
December 28, 2012, 09:12 PM
Spanish
It is illegal to speed but most of us do it now and again, especially on the interstate.
It is illegal to drink and drive, but most have had a drink in a restaurant and then drove.
Most of break laws everyday, even if only in some small way.
Criminals do not obey laws, neither do Patriots obey laws from a tyranny

Your choice, you decide

Kramer Krazy
December 29, 2012, 12:21 PM
How do you prove someone didn't have a gun before they mandated FFL transfers.
At the same time they make private sales illegal, they also mandate a registry. If the gun is not on the registry, it is illegal, and any private sale from that point forward is illegal, also. What really would occur is that millions of guns will go into deep hiding and will not be placed on a registry and will be transferred illegally from that point forward, just as many guns that were effected by the 1934 NFA.

Over the years, I have run across, been offered, and heard stories of many NFA guns that were never placed on the NFA registry and they have been floating around for over 70 years without the government ever knowing that they were out there. It's like the old STG-44 German submachine gun that was turned in at a gun buyback a couple of weeks ago. That gun had been in hiding for 78 years - http://www.necn.com/12/08/12/WW2-weapon-turned-in-during-gun-buy-back/landing.html?blockID=811359&feedID=11106

With this story, though, I am assuming that the gun was not registered because I'm sure the woman should have known (my wife would definitely know if I had an NFA gun and the laws regulating it). I find it awfully strange that they would give the gun back, so I would tend to believe that maybe it was registered. Regardless of its registration status, there are many NFA firearms that were never registered and the government is clueless as to how many are out there and where they are located......just as they have no idea where any firearms are now that have been previously sold FTF without a paper trail.

nathan
December 29, 2012, 12:35 PM
I hate FFL dealers who gouge on fees. No way i would let them control private sales.
Do not give in . PRivate sales is private sales . DOnt let government dictate no matter what. THe is whats happening in California.

ApacheCoTodd
December 29, 2012, 12:45 PM
Just curious as to how many dealers would take a stand against banning private sales? As I see it,dealers would profit by being able to charge gun owners a "Transfer" and background check fee.

I for one know of a dealer in my area who would most likely be happy. I went into his shop looking for an AR a year or so ago and was informed that we don't deal with "those" kinds of guns.
I don't see the connection between the two sentences.

As a dealer, I have generally always benefitted from the existence of Arizona's very realistic "private sale" guidelines. It is often one of the greater engines driving sales at local shows and looking for the onesy-twosey dealers who might go along with private sale bans is using a very broad brush.

The number of times a fella has come up to try to trade out of a gun I'm not interested in yet returned with his cash after making a private deal to get a somethin' I have that he wants bears out that "private sales" can hugely benefit the licensed dealer.

Redlg155
December 29, 2012, 02:20 PM
The connection is that just because you are a dealer, it does not make you pro gun. No more than a private citizen that owns a gun is pro gun. (I use the term pro gun loosely to mean those who would not support ANY new ban)

Lets face it, there are dealers and private gun owners that don't agree that we should have AR type rifles.

ApacheCoTodd
December 29, 2012, 03:33 PM
I still don't see the "those guns" comment as anything negative.

I for one specifically do not nor ever will deal in Glocks. I recognize the cutting edge nature of the design, I appreciate the simplicity, durability and reliability of the gun. I totally understand others interest in and sometimes devotion to the marque but I can probably be quoted as having said something very similar to "we don't deal with "those" kinds of guns" myself. It's just a design I don't care to get into not unlike semi-auto shotguns or say Tec-9/Mini Uzi style items.

As far as ARs, I love 'em, have been a manufacturer and wholesaler, have more than a dozen still and yet completely get it when other firearms enthusiasts look askance at them. Don't like 'em? I'm cool with that as long as you don't succumb to the "divide and conquer" tactics of the antis.

In short, there're all sorts of firearms, ammunition and accessories I won't have anything to do with but don't stand agains their sale or ownership - just not gonna get 'em from me.

spanishjames
December 29, 2012, 04:56 PM
Quote:
How do you propose to stop a sale between myself and an friend?

No one can stop you. But it could become illegal to do so. If the "Gun Show Loophole" is ever closed, you'd have to use an FFL to sell a gun to your friend. If you don't use an FFL, and the State investigates your friend for whatever reason, (e.g., where/when he got his gun after a justified shooting) you'd be in trouble.
Spanish
It is illegal to speed but most of us do it now and again, especially on the interstate.
It is illegal to drink and drive, but most have had a drink in a restaurant and then drove.
Most of break laws everyday, even if only in some small way.
Criminals do not obey laws, neither do Patriots obey laws from a tyranny

Your choice, you decide
We're actually in agreement ONEOUNCELOAD, I didn't say a new law would stop any one from doing something. I basically said that what is legal to do now (private transfer) could become illegal in the future. Since most law-abiding gun owners don't want to become criminals, they'd end up using an FFL to do a transfer.

If we don't want private transfers banned, then we have to let our representatives know that.

Bubbles
December 29, 2012, 06:17 PM
There are plenty of people out there now who don't know that transferring a firearm across state lines without going an FFL is a federal felony. I don't see them getting prosecuted for it, absent some other triggering offense.

Personally I don't want to see private intrastate sales forced to go through an FFL. I'm in business primarily to build custom firearms, perform gunsmithing services, etc. not to push government paper.

mgkdrgn
December 29, 2012, 07:26 PM
Just curious as to how many dealers would take a stand against banning private sales? As I see it,dealers would profit by being able to charge gun owners a "Transfer" and background check fee.

I am an FFL.

I am opposed to the ban on private sales, on several levels, despite the fact that it would no doubt fatten my wallet.

1) It will do nothing to solve any "problem".
2) What "private property" will be banned from being sold next?
3) Will turn lots of ordinary otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals
4) Will completely crash the NICS system which is unable to deal with the volume of traffic it has NOW.

Bubba613
December 29, 2012, 07:34 PM
I am on record as opposing banning private sales. I dont even know how you could enforce it without gun registration as well. I'd consider it a hassle and the money isn't worth the loss of freedom overall.
I am in favor of banning private sales at "sanctioned events", i.e. gun shows. Mainly because of the guys who show up week after week with a new table full of "personal" guns. They are unlicensed dealers and need to go.

Isaac-1
December 29, 2012, 08:11 PM
Let the current system deal with those that show up as private sellers week after week, let the BATFE invesgate and show they were acting as a business, but don't ban the guys walking around the gun show with 2 or 3 guns they are trying to sell, or people posting online classified ads on state/regional gun boards.

Bubba613
December 29, 2012, 08:29 PM
The current system is inadequate to deal with this problem. I dont care about guys advertising on the internet and the like.

caribou
December 29, 2012, 10:30 PM
Dealers fees on a mandatory gun sales is akin to Voteing Tax's "Poll tax's" I think they were called.....pay to excersize yer rights.

Build yer own.

Ignition Override
December 29, 2012, 10:57 PM
Kramer Krazy:
It always seemed like a good idea to buy milsurps FTF, as only one gun shop in our area sells them. There are too few choices and premium prices. Yes, yes, overhead.....

My impression is that lots of AR/AK/Vz-58 owners now wish that they had bought their semi-auto rifles in a manner which is totally confidential, and leaves No govt. records.
The SKS behind McDonalds left nothing behind except car exhaust, and a thinner wallet.:)

smalls
December 30, 2012, 01:18 AM
I am in favor of banning private sales at "sanctioned events", i.e. gun shows. Mainly because of the guys who show up week after week with a new table full of "personal" guns. They are unlicensed dealers and need to go.

Another perfect example of the need to enforce the laws we already have instead of creating new laws.

Bubba613
December 30, 2012, 09:37 AM
The laws we already have are inadequate to deal with this problem.

rule303
December 30, 2012, 09:52 AM
I am a dealer, I have no problem with legal private sales. I see transfers as a convenience to my customers. I charge $20 for transfers, and they are not a money maker. If current laws were actually enforced, there would be no "gun show loophole" problem. Sellers at gun shows with tables full of "private sale, no paperwork" guns at 20 to 30% markup over legitimate dealers are already breaking the law by engaging in the business without an FFL. If the existing laws are not being enforced, more laws are not going to rectify the problem.

JohnBT
December 30, 2012, 10:07 AM
"It is illegal to drink and drive, but most have had a drink in a restaurant and then drove."

It's not unlawful to drink and then drive here, not if you stay under the published limit. That's why they use a breath or blood test. Fwiw, not too many years ago it was legal to drink alcohol WHILE you drove if you weren't 'impaired'. It wasn't until the '90s that we got to the point where the .08 standard went nationwide.

On the subject of dealers and transfers, I can certainly understand why a busy dealer doesn't want to be bothered by transfers and sets a high price to discourage them. The staff person doing the transfer could be selling a gun instead and some shops want to concentrate on sales. For example, a local shop - Green Top - sold over 18k firearms in 2011. I wonder what the 2012 total will be.

I was in there Thursday and they still had guns and the buyers were elbow to elbow around the handgun counters and the counters they have for doing the paperwork. (I like the new location in the former Gander Mountain building, there's plenty of aisle space compared to the old joint and a larger parking lot.) And I can't believe they still had a pair of Topsiders in an 11M.

X-Rap
December 30, 2012, 11:02 AM
I am a pure capitalist but I fear that having the gov mandate all transfers will create the kind of monopoly that closing the gunshow loop hole in Colorado has created. To me a transer fee of even $20-30 dollars is an unwanted expense but I see no reason that an FFL should do it for free with someone elses merchandise. I buy most all of my guns through FFL's directly with 4473 fees included or FTF with no fee at all. I don't like the idea of a third party being thrown into private sales.

mister_murphy
December 30, 2012, 11:05 AM
If private sales are banned, I think dealers would see a small uptick in transfers, but nothing huge, as many would still be selling firearms albeit illegally in a private format, and then it gets in to muddy water to prove the who, what, when of the issue, and once its figured out, its get someone to prosecute it. Good luck with that!

mgkdrgn
December 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
Another perfect example of the need to enforce the laws we already have instead of creating new laws.
+1 on that bruther

WCraven
December 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
Some guns are made without serial numbers from the factory , so how do you track that?

mgkdrgn
December 30, 2012, 11:24 AM
The laws we already have are inadequate to deal with this problem.
Nooo, the -laws- are perfectly adequate, if not more than adequate. What is -lacking- is enforcement.

More laws, if they are enforced no better than the existing laws, will do NOTHING to resolve anything, and simply create more criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Like our courts and jails are not full enough already.

Can you think of any other item, that you can legally own, that you can be arrested for selling to another law abiding citizen?

jbj
December 30, 2012, 11:44 AM
California banned private sales years ago. All transfers must go thru a FFL. The mandate capped transfer fees to keep dealers from gouging and to built trust into the system (so private parties don't think they're being taken advantage of). Dealers don't like it as they don't make money from it, but most are pretty easy going with it these days. Heck, make it easy and you'll have a new customer.

Bubba613
December 30, 2012, 11:58 AM
Nooo, the -laws- are perfectly adequate, if not more than adequate. What is -lacking- is enforcement.

More laws, if they are enforced no better than the existing laws, will do NOTHING to resolve anything, and simply create more criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Like our courts and jails are not full enough already.

Can you think of any other item, that you can legally own, that you can be arrested for selling to another law abiding citizen?

The definition of dealer "Engaged in the business with the intent of making a profit" is too vague and lets people set up as unlicensed dealers at gun shows. That is a problem. The law is not sufficient as currently written to cover this problem. Period.
As for another product you can be prosecuted for, how about Oxycodone?

GEM
December 30, 2012, 12:10 PM
Quite a few years ago, some local gun stores took out an ad in the San Antonio paper denouncing gun shows. Clearly a business move by some stores that had very high prices that went along with their snooty, snotty, elitist attitudes.

Didn't go anywhere. Never go near the main store of that drive.

theautobahn
December 30, 2012, 03:34 PM
I'd guess that most of us would rather be required to use a FFL than have a required gun license. I know that's be my preference.

I don't want ANY additional restrictions on private sales. That being said, given the choice, I'd rather have to get a one time license that I would have to present when doing a private purchase (or check when making a private sale). Or, they could open NICS up for anyone to call in with someone else's driver's license (but not require us to keep the paperwork for 20 years).

MachIVshooter
December 30, 2012, 04:13 PM
I don't see how this would be enforceable.

How do you prove someone didn't have a gun before they mandated FFL transfers.

Well, obviously if the firearm was manufactured or first transferred after the effective date, it wasn't a lawful sale under this law.

Moreover, if private sales were banned, doing so would be the same as any other illicit trade. It would still happen on a large scale, but there would be risks.

It's possible that this law could make it through the house, though more likely would simply be the requirement of record keeping on private transactions. Most of us already do this anyway, though.

blarby
December 30, 2012, 04:35 PM
I can see some LGS's setting some new hours aside, or perhaps a dedicated employee to deal with the FTF stuff like they have in CA.

Correct me if i'm wrong, FFL guys.... but if you had an employee dedicating to doing that PW, instead of sales, at "x" dollars per hour.... couldn't you set your fee appropriately to make that profitable ?

Obviously, every shop would be a little different.... but i'm sure you savvy business types could find a way... and it might be a way to get some new blood in the door and teach 'em the ropes of your business- building an employee, yes ?

mope540
December 30, 2012, 06:29 PM
Private gun sales will continue...no law can stop them

Redlg155
December 30, 2012, 07:44 PM
I do applaud most of the dealers in Fl that charge $5.00 to run the NICS check instead of the allowed $15.00 fee. There is one in town that charges the full $15 and I refuse to deal with him.

Frogman
December 30, 2012, 08:48 PM
Here in Florida I've seen prices vary from $25+5 for background check to $40+15 for B/G/C/ There are not to many bonafied gun shops where I live, but there is hundreds of pawn shops that suck the life out of gun owners who aren't to savy. Unfortunately it seams like a growing trend that I'm sure pawn shop owners would sell out to mandatory background checks to make a profit off the public.

Larry Ashcraft
December 30, 2012, 09:40 PM
Some guns are made without serial numbers from the factory , so how do you track that?
Not since 1968, which was, what, 45 years ago?

Kramer Krazy
December 30, 2012, 11:07 PM
Some guns are made without serial numbers from the factory , so how do you track that?
Not since 1968, which was, what, 45 years ago?
I have one of these from my grandfather. IIRC, it is a ca-1968 Remington Speedmaster 22 rifle. I haven't looked at it in a few years. It's just sitting in a dark corner of the safe.

Sport45
December 30, 2012, 11:58 PM
In the last 30 years I have bought, sold, or traded a gun or three.

Not once was there a "Bill of Sale" presented or requested for any of the face to face trades.

There is no way the government can track, regulate, or prohibit private sale of firearms unless we allow it through registration or some other asinine means.

mgkdrgn
December 31, 2012, 09:01 AM
The definition of dealer "Engaged in the business with the intent of making a profit" is too vague and lets people set up as unlicensed dealers at gun shows. That is a problem. The law is not sufficient as currently written to cover this problem. Period.
As for another product you can be prosecuted for, how about Oxycodone?

The terminology is more than adequate .. it's just not enforced. There is a difference.

If you have no FFL, and you show up at 5 gun shows both buying and selling, you are "in the business". However, there is no "big press bump" from busting Joe Blow at some gunshow selling old 22 rifles. Also, someone would actually have to do some work to investigate and make a case ... hence no enforcement.

As for Oxycodone ... yes, you can legally own it, in small quantities, ... if you have prescription for it. But it is a controlled substance, and it's illegal for you to own it without a prescription. As it is a controlled substance, it's also illegal for you to sell it without the proper credentials and federal licensing. I also don't recall reading anywhere in the US Constitution about the "right to keep and bear Oxycodone", and firearms are not a "controlled substance".

Bubba613
December 31, 2012, 10:19 AM
You think firearms aren't controlled? I have news for you. You asked for an item legal to possess but illegal to sell to someone else. I answered correctly.

The problem is the distinction between selling your own guns, and selling your own guns for profit is so minute as to be almost invisible. Thus no enforcement. I can't think of a way to preserve people's right to sell their own personal property while eliminating Joe Schmuck with his table at every gun show.
So the next best thing is to close "the gun show loophole" (as if there was such a thing) by requiring background checks of all firearms transferred at sanctioned events. It at least gets rid of a particular burr in my saddle, and probably would make the antis happy.

Redlg155
December 31, 2012, 11:26 AM
Why do we need government intervention? I would prefer that the gun show managers step in and put a stop to those folks if they believe they are breaking the law. I'm sure that it would raise eyebrows if someone was pushing the same volume as a dealer, but I doubt this is the case.
At the shows in my area you usually see the guy with a dowel stuck in the muzzle waving a price or a coulple with the old lady shopping carts.

Bubba613
December 31, 2012, 01:25 PM
Because people buy tables and gun show operators are in business to make money and because the people buying tables aren't necessarily doing anything illegal. So it won't happen.

smalls
December 31, 2012, 10:32 PM
Because people buy tables and gun show operators are in business to make money and because the people buying tables aren't necessarily doing anything illegal. So it won't happen.

You act like every person who is not an FFL buying a table at a gun show is dealing guns illegally.

Oh, and for those who are dealing gun illegally, would a new law put them out? If you think it would, why do you think the old laws haven't put them in jail yet? It's already illegal, you can't make something even more illegal than it already is. You can add repercussions, but they do no good without enforcement. Sound farmilliar? Our current laws.

Bubba613
January 1, 2013, 09:38 AM
You act like every person who is not an FFL buying a table at a gun show is dealing guns illegally.

Oh, and for those who are dealing gun illegally, would a new law put them out? If you think it would, why do you think the old laws haven't put them in jail yet? It's already illegal, you can't make something even more illegal than it already is. You can add repercussions, but they do no good without enforcement. Sound farmilliar? Our current laws.

Actually I was explicit that not everyone who buys a table is acting illegally. And you missed the part where I wrote that separating those acting illegally from those acting legally is very difficult to do. This is why the law needs clarifying. But instead of clarifying that part I'd just as soon prohibit person to person transfers at sanctioned events. Two guys meeting in a parking lot are fine. A guy with a table full of his own guns week after week at a show is not.

P5 Guy
January 1, 2013, 01:28 PM
The problem is the distinction between selling your own guns, and selling your own guns for profit

:cuss: I have never been able to sell a firearm at a gunshow and walk away with more money than I paid for the dang thing new. My guns are always plain jane worn out rusty junk to the guy wanting to buy and the guy selling always has a one of a kind rarity worht twice its weight in gold, even when it is the same as mine. :cuss:

X-Rap
January 1, 2013, 01:47 PM
[/QUOTE] A guy with a table full of his own guns week after week at a show is not.
[/QUOTE]
There are many gun owners/collectors that frequent gun shows to increase, improve and at times even liquidate their collections and they would be far from profit making dealers.
Gunshows should be more for the hobbiest and less for the FFL dealer in my opinion.
They were much like flea markets or swap meets for guns before they were taken over by retailers and beef jerky salesman.

22-rimfire
January 1, 2013, 01:56 PM
I agree with the hobbiest preference with gunshows. But with the stroke of a pen, all face to face sales would have to go through a FFL dealer. That is the case already in some states. Being done at a gunshow or other accumulation of people would simply make such transactions easier with FFL dealers present.

The transfers might be a good little sideline and getting a FFL might be a great idea to make a little side money if such a change were made.

Bubba613
January 1, 2013, 02:53 PM
There are many gun owners/collectors that frequent gun shows to increase, improve and at times even liquidate their collections and they would be far from profit making dealers.
And if they show up and do that just every now and then I wouldn't have an issue.
But many of them show up week after week trading, selling and buying guns. That is an unlicensed dealer and it needs to go. If they legitimately are doing this for their own collection then they shouldn't have a problem going through an FFL for any background check.

clg114
January 1, 2013, 04:22 PM
As armed citizens,we take on a lot of responsibility. One of these is to make sure that any arms in our possession.do not fall into the wrong hands. This makes selling a gun very tricky. I buy and sell guns often enough that it is a concern to me. Selling on a online auction works well for me. They have a FFL and it is their responsibility to do the backround check. I can control what it sells for and because of the nature of auctions,it quite often sells for more than I thought it would.

smalls
January 1, 2013, 09:47 PM
But many of them show up week after week trading, selling and buying guns. That is an unlicensed dealer and it needs to go. If they legitimately are doing this for their own collection then they shouldn't have a problem going through an FFL for any background check.

I don't need a licensed dealer (and pay ~$40/transfer) to buy/sell/trade baseball cards, why should guns be any different. Your reasoning is... off.

JohnBT
January 1, 2013, 09:56 PM
"There are many gun owners/collectors that frequent gun shows to increase, improve and at times even liquidate their collections and they would be far from profit making dealers. "

You forgot to include the guys who go from show to show with the same bunch of very nice guns and spend most of their time socializing. Maybe they win a couple hundred bucks for the best table display from the promoter, but they aren't there to sell guns or make money. If they do, that's great, but that's not the motivation.

Considering all of the uniformed and undercover police at the Richmond gun shows over the years, I figure they know who is who and who is selling what.

John

Bubba613
January 1, 2013, 10:24 PM
I don't need a licensed dealer (and pay ~$40/transfer) to buy/sell/trade baseball cards, why should guns be any different. Your reasoning is... off
Baseball cards aren't covered under the GCA of 1968. Your knowledge base is off.

MDW GUNS
January 2, 2013, 12:17 PM
Not hard to see, I am a FFL 01/08/SOT.
I am against banning private sales.
1. Only a few people would follow it.
2. It would criminalize otherwise honest people for no good reason.
3. It inferences on the peoples A4 and A10 rights.

This would take control of all firearms sales away from the states and put them under federal regulations.
One problem would be, that a handgun can not be bought by a person younger then 21 since as an FFL I can not transfer or sell handguns to 18-20 years old.
Plenty of states give however rightfully CCW's out to people of 18 years and older.

Personally I would not sell or buy a firearm from a person I don't know in a private sale.
I also think no firearms should be stored outside a safe of some kind to make it hard for them to be stolen.
Again, I am against laws regulating what people do at home with their property.
I rather apply to every responsible and ethical gun owner to prevent future problems.

Criminals do not obey laws, neither do Patriots obey laws from a tyranny
Your choice, you decide
Easily said, but I hope soon people will rise and fight for their rights.
This has of course NOT be done with arms; this should be done with peaceful demonstrations and civil disobedience.
One effective way would be flooding the government with requests, complains and petitions.
If Ms. Feinstein would have gotten a letter form every other gun owner, she would have not gotten into her office this morning!
Cost to every gun owner counting the paper; less then a dollar.

RockyMtnTactical
January 2, 2013, 11:57 PM
If an AWB 2.0 or similar is passed, it will kill off a lot of smaller dealers without question.

BlueBronco
January 3, 2013, 12:32 AM
People don't generally get 10 to 20 years in jail for speeding and forfeit most of the rights in the process. Therefore, if there is a requirement for private sales to go through a FFL, it will be a big deal if someone screws up and sells to a C.I. or undercover ATF agent etc., or gets ratted on. That said, I currently go through an FFL now unless it is someone I know real well like one of my sons etc. or someone with a ccw license and character reference. That said, I am strongly against any law that outlaws private sales.

ErikO
January 3, 2013, 12:48 AM
I know enough talented machinists to not fear a private sale ban. If I make what I want for personal use it's my business. I'm planning on learning gun smithing anyway.

I'm still confused why Bloomberg is walking around a free man after admitting consperacy to committ multiple straw purchases on video in 2009...

MDW GUNS
January 3, 2013, 02:12 AM
...I'm still confused why Bloomberg is walking around a free man after admitting consperacy to committ multiple straw purchases on video in 2009...
I can help you there: Eric Holder is the US Attorney General and the biggest illegal gun dealer I heard off in the US!
So he can't possibly prosecute Bloomberg.
And we are talking about over 2,000 guns sold to known criminals.
I somehow don't understand the basic logic of F&F. You sell guns which you know are going to be used in crimes (aka murder for example a USBP officer) so that you can figure out what exactly??
Maybe we should feed Holder in the DC zoo to lyons to find out if lyons really eat people??

DammitBoy
January 3, 2013, 02:30 AM
The terminology is more than adequate .. it's just not enforced. There is a difference.

If you have no FFL, and you show up at 5 gun shows both buying and selling, you are "in the business".

Complete nonsense. Up until this year, I had not sold a single firearm I'd bought in over ten years. I decided to remove 25 firearms from my collection over four gun shows by buying a table at each show.

I also bought four new firearms to add to my reduced collection. I made a profit on every single firearm I sold. I am not nor have I ever been "in the business".

I'm sure the ATF could make that case because the terminology is so loose and sloppy - but then again, they are in the business of turning lawful gun owners into criminals...

If you enjoyed reading about "If Private Sales Banned- Where do dealers stand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!