How careful for non FFL to verify Gunsmith/Gun Shop FFL status before shipping?

[bushmaster1313]

How careful does a non-FFL need to be to verify a gunsmith's FFL status before shipping firearm for repair?

Just saw a great video by a gunsmith out of state.
If I wanted to ship a gun for repair to that gunsmith, do I need to really verify FFL status or is it enough to ask: "Do you have an FFL?"

The first and last digits of the FFL would allow for EZ Check verification

 

[Birch Knoll]

I would ask for the 1st 3 and last 5 digits of the FFL to verify via EzCheck. If that's a problem for some reason, ATF has a nice downloadable file of FFLs by state (or nationwide) on their web site that you can use.

 

[dogtown tom]

bushmaster1313 How careful does a non-FFL need to be to verify a gunsmith's FFL status before shipping firearm for repair?

Just saw a great video by a gunsmith out of state.
If I wanted to ship a gun for repair to that gunsmith, do I need to really verify FFL status or is it enough to ask: "Do you have an FFL?"

The first and last digits of the FFL would allow for EZ Check verification

How careful?
Would you want to risk a fine, imprisonment and the inability to posess firearms by shipping interstate to a nonlicensee?

Verifying on ezcheck takes fifteen seconds. Is that too much time?

 

[Bubbles]

A gunsmith shouldn't have any problems giving you the first 3 and last 5 numbers on his license so you can verify with EzCheck that he has an FFL.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A gunsmith shouldn't have any problems giving you the first 3 and last 5 numbers on his license so you can verify with EzCheck that he has an FFL.

And if a gunsmith did have a problem with that, I think I'd be looking for another gunsmith.

 

[AirForceShooter]

There's no reason the FFl wouldn't send you a copy of the FFl.
A lot of shippers want that to verify shipping terms.
I have unsigned copies of my LGS FFl.

AFS

 

[Spats McGee]

How careful does a non-FFL need to be to verify a gunsmith's FFL status before shipping firearm for repair?

Careful enough to stay out of prison?

 

[Birch Knoll]

There's no reason the FFl wouldn't send you a copy of the FFl.

Many, perhaps most, FFLs will not provide a copy of their license to an unlicensed individual.

 

[bushmaster1313]

My (hypothetical) question should have been.
If charged with shipping a long gun out of state to a non-FFL, what do you have to show to beat the rap as a matter of fact or law?

1. Saw an ink copy of FFL?
2. Got numbers and checked EX-Check
3. Asked and got verbal answer that recipient was an FFL?
4. Testify: "I believed I was shipping to an FFL"? and the judge/jury believes you?
5. Checked the listed posted by BATFE?

(I have only shipped long guns and only to FFL's who I was able to confirm via EZ-Check)

 

[dogtown tom]

bushmaster1313 My (hypothetical) question should have been.
If charged with shipping a long gun out of state to a non-FFL, what do you have to show to beat the rap as a matter of fact or law?

1. Saw an ink copy of FFL?
2. Got numbers and checked EX-Check
3. Asked and got verbal answer that recipient was an FFL?
4. Testify: "I believed I was shipping to an FFL"? and the judge/jury believes you?
5. Checked the listed posted by BATFE?

(I have only shipped long guns and only to FFL's who I was able to confirm via EZ-Check)

I swear Bushmaster, you can come up with a dizzying amount of hypotheticals.

No Federal law requires a nonlicensee to have a copy of the receiving dealers FFL or to even verify the FFL#........the law only requires you to ship interstate to a licensee.

Stop and think for a second....if you verify the address of the dealer/gunsmith/manufacturer.....how in the world are you going to get charged with shipping to a nonlicensee?

If you ship interstate to a nonlicensee and get caught, your own address label will prove your guilt. Telling the jury or judge "I thought he was a licensed dealer" is laughable.

 

[bushmaster1313]

the law only requires you to ship interstate to a licensee.

But what criminal intent is needed to prove guilt.

Is it a strict liability crime where you are guilty if you ship to a non-licensee, period.

Or is it a standard type of crime where the prosecution must prove intent, and if the defendant reasonably believed he or she was shipping to a licensee there can be no crime.

At least with respect to possessing an unregistered machine gun, the defendant must believe it was a machine gun:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1441.ZO.html

We concur in the Fifth Circuit's conclusion on this point: "It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible ten year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon." Anderson, supra, at 1254. As we noted in Morissette, the "purpose and obvious effect of doing awaywith the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution's path to conviction." 342 U. S., at 263. [n.11] We are reluctant to impute that purpose to Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the probability of strict regulation in the form of a statute such as § 5861(d).

I would extend this to mean that to be convicted of shipping to a non-licensee the government must establish that the defendant believed beyond a reasonable doubt the he was shipping to a non-licensee.

 

[Sav .250]

Like they say,it`s better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Frank Ettin]

.....I would extend this to mean that to be convicted of shipping to a non-licensee the government must establish that the defendant believed beyond a reasonable doubt the he was shipping to a non-licensee.

Sorry, but those sorts of extensions generally won't work in court. As to what sort of "intent" is needed, that might involve a more complicated analysis.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[bushmaster1313]

I think I am right.

In Staples the Supreme Court relied on machine guns being less dangerous than grenades to find that the defendant had to know it was in possession of a machine gun. The shipping laws apply to a single shot .22 short rifle, so a fortiori there should be a mens rea requirement.

 

[Birch Knoll]

It's Latin, so it must be right!

 

[bushmaster1313]

"grenade" is French
Machine and possession are French also

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think I am right.

In Staples the Supreme Court relied on machine guns being less dangerous than grenades to find that the defendant had to know it was in possession of a machine gun. The shipping laws apply to a single shot .22 short rifle, so a fortiori there should be a mens rea requirement.

And you have practiced law for how long?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Horny Toad]

bushmaster1313 is an attorney, isn't he? I thought I saw him post that in the past. Or maybe I imagined it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

bushmaster1313 is an attorney, isn't he?...

Yes, and we've been having a private discussion about why the ruling under the NFA he referred to can not necessarily be assumed to apply to the shipping provisions of the GCA. There are a number of different standards for "intent."