Gun Dealers and taking ID Photocopies?

It's not a requirement at the Federal level, I know that. Can't say about California. Have you asked the dealers? I know I'd sure be needing proof that it was a legal requirement if I was asked for such a thing.

It's not required by federal law (as written), but it establishes proof that the gun shop actually looked at the ID. Overzealous enforcement can always say that the gunshop violated fed law by not looking at the ID if there is not a photocopy. Photocopying documents has become more common in a variety of settings that have a legal requirement for them. Some doctors' offices are photocopying IDs and insurance cards recently, especially on a patient's first visit. Some college admissions offices are photocopying birth certificates, etc. When you submit the required documents to start a job (I-9 stuff, I think), most employers are gonna make copies these days, not because it is a legal requirement, but because they want proof they inspected the documents.

I don't mind documents being copied if there is a legal requirement that they be shown in the first place, especially in situations that are subject to overzealous federal oversight. I DO politely refuse to show documents when there is no legal requirement to do so. Sometimes I leave the DL in my car so I can say I don't have it with me. I've also started carrying a passport card to show it instead of my DL, since it is more private (less information) and harder to use to steal one's identity. I also prefer not to let my ID (DL or passport card) out of my hand in situations where there are likely privacy issues and the legal requirement is fuzzy or marginal, such as buying booze - I'm in my late 40s. To further reduce privacy and identity theft risks, I've started to frequent places that don't ask for an ID when not required (doctors, liquor, ammo, etc.)

Berger.Fan222 said:

It's not required by federal law (as written), but it establishes proof that the gun shop actually looked at the ID. Overzealous enforcement can always say that the gunshop violated fed law by not looking at the ID if there is not a photocopy. .....

Click to expand...

No, it only proves that you have a copy of someone's drivers license.
Being that the dealer is required to record the type of government issued photo ID, its number and expiration date on the Form 4473.......wouldn't ya think they actually looked at it?

As far as "overzealous enforcement...by not looking at the ID..."? Please. The fact that the dealer recorded the info from the DL blows that silly argument right out of the water.

dogtown tom said:

No, it only proves that you have a copy of someone's drivers license.
Being that the dealer is required to record the type of government issued photo ID, its number and expiration date on the Form 4473.......wouldn't ya think they actually looked at it?

As far as "overzealous enforcement...by not looking at the ID..."? Please. The fact that the dealer recorded the info from the DL blows that silly argument right out of the water.

Click to expand...

As if the info can't simply be provided to the FFL on a piece of paper or even over the phone.

A photocopy can be linked forensically to a specific copy machine. It is much more convincing proof that the ID was shown to the FFL than simply the info written on the form.

Also, FFLs that process hundreds of 4473s in a year often make a small number of mistakes copying the ID info onto the 4473. The photocopy backs them up that they actually looked at the ID in these cases and also provides a way to provide the right info if needed by the BATFE or another agency for a legitimate purpose.

likely

Berger.Fan222 said:

As if the info can't simply be provided to the FFL on a piece of paper or even over the phone.

Click to expand...

"as if"?
How about "As if the dealer accepted that he violates Federal law?
How about as if the dealer accepted that he will lose his FFL?
How about as if the dealer accepted that he will be charged with a Federal crime?

The law and ATF regulations are clear as to what must be provided to the dealer.....a government issued photo ID. NOT a scrap of paper with your DL # on it. As far as "over the phone"? Both ideas are laughably ridiculous.

A photocopy can be linked forensically to a specific copy machine.

Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh........who cares?
ATF regs don't require a copy of the DL.
ATF's Best Practices Handbook doesn't mention getting a copy.
IOI's don't tell dealers "it's a good idea".
Instead, in this thread we have NONLICENSEES telling real dealers why having a copy of the buyers ID is a good idea. Good grief.

It is much more convincing proof that the ID was shown to the FFL than simply the info written on the form.

Click to expand...

HORSEHOCKEY.
Proof isn't required.

Also, FFLs that process hundreds of 4473s in a year often make a small number of mistakes copying the ID info onto the 4473. The photocopy backs them up that they actually looked at the ID in these cases and also provides a way to provide the right info if needed by the BATFE or another agency for a legitimate purpose.

Click to expand...

Again.......HORSEHOCKEY.
If the dealer incorrectly records the DL# on the Form 4473, he commits an error. Having a copy of the drivers license DOES NOT FIX THAT ERROR.
ATF doesn't give a rats hiney if you have photocopied birth certificates, drivers licenses, or video recording of the buyer/transferee completing the form........the ONLY thing they require is that the 4473 be completed CORRECTLY, ACCURATELY and HONESTLY.

In fact, a dealer who incorrectly records the DL# will likely NEVER be cited for an error. Guess what happens when the dealer records the DL# incorrectly and then attaches a photocopy of that drivers license? Yeah, he just made the error blindingly obvious.

I don't see that it's a big deal copy or not.

I can only recall one dealer who made a copy of each buyers driver license (or whatever government ID was tendered), a pawnshop. They never used to but something happened where they started doing it. Heck, I sold them some old CDs and they made a copy of my DL. Probably more to do with being scrutinized for fencing than selling guns. I didn't care one way or the other, the shop treated me well, made me some good deals and always greeted me with a smile and a handshake

Sounds like a "cover your butt" type deal to me, they figure it's better to have too much info than too little, especially given where they are. At any rate I can't say I'd mind it, I mean they take the info on the ID anyway.

California does things differently, so opinions based on how it's done elsewhere aren't applicable.

On handgun purchases, CA requires not only ID but proof of residency. One of the requirements is that the address on the proof (utility bill, car registration, etc) match the address on the ID. So while the law may not explicitly require a copy of the ID, it is understandable for the dealer to make copies of both ID and proof to prove that there was a match.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs#9G
#13.

Somehow it's unconstitutional to require ID to vote, but try and actually exercise your 2nd Amendment rights....

natman said:

California does things differently, so opinions based on how it's done elsewhere aren't applicable.

On handgun purchases, CA requires not only ID but proof of residency. One of the requirements is that the address on the proof (utility bill, car registration, etc) match the address on the ID. So while the law may not explicitly require a copy of the ID, it is understandable for the dealer to make copies of both ID and proof to prove that there was a match.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs#9G
#13.

Somehow it's unconstitutional to require ID to vote, but try and actually exercise your 2nd Amendment rights....

Click to expand...

Virginia used to require two documents as well, a photo ID and then something to prove residency, there were no copies needed to prove they matched, but what you say is true, in CA I can imagine there is a lot done to cover your butt since you're in such an anti-gun state.

natman said:

California does things differently, so opinions based on how it's done elsewhere aren't applicable.

On handgun purchases, CA requires not only ID but proof of residency. One of the requirements is that the address on the proof (utility bill, car registration, etc) match the address on the ID. So while the law may not explicitly require a copy of the ID, it is understandable for the dealer to make copies of both ID and proof to prove that there was a match.

Click to expand...

Federal law also requires both an ID and a proof of residency, and that's for all dealer firearm transfers. That can either be two documents (for example, a passport as the ID and then your vehicle registration with your current address on it as proof of residency) or just one document that shows both (a drivers license that has your current address on it, this satisfies both the ID requirement and the proof of residence requirement).

Are you saying that in CA if you're buying a handgun and you have a drivers license with a current address that satisfies the federal requirement of both ID and proof of residence, you're still required to show a second redundant document showing your residence address? So basically you have to prove your residence twice?

Theohazard said:

Federal law also requires both an ID and a proof of residency, and that's for all dealer firearm transfers. That can either be two documents (for example, a passport as the ID and then your vehicle registration with your current address on it as proof of residency) or just one document that shows both (a drivers license that has your current address on it, this satisfies both the ID requirement and the proof of residence requirement).

Are you saying that in CA if you're buying a handgun and you have a drivers license with a current address that satisfies the federal requirement of both ID and proof of residence, you're still required to show a second redundant document showing your residence address? So basically you have to prove your residence twice?

Click to expand...

Yes.
In CA, you must show proof of residence as well as a current valid CA ID with current residence.
Yes its redundant.
CA is a awash with redundancy.


That said, my LGS is a huge supporter of privacy and gun rights and I honestly trust him with safeguarding my info over the DMV.

Theohazard said:

Federal law also requires both an ID and a proof of residency, and that's for all dealer firearm transfers. That can either be two documents (for example, a passport as the ID and then your vehicle registration with your current address on it as proof of residency) or just one document that shows both (a drivers license that has your current address on it, this satisfies both the ID requirement and the proof of residence requirement).

Are you saying that in CA if you're buying a handgun and you have a drivers license with a current address that satisfies the federal requirement of both ID and proof of residence, you're still required to show a second redundant document showing your residence address? So basically you have to prove your residence twice?

Click to expand...

Yes, twice. Here's an excerpt from the link:

What documentation is acceptable proof of residency for handgun purchasers? Utility bill from within the past three months that bears on its face the individual's name and either of the following:

1. The individual's current residential address as declared on the DROS form; or
2. The individual's residential address as it appears on his or her California Driver License or California Identification Card, or change of address attachment thereto.

It goes on to cite other acceptable proof or residency documents which must match either the address on the ID or the declared address.

That seems a little ridiculous, but I assume that's the point, right? Got to make it as difficult as possible to buy a firearm...

If you don't hold a CCW permit, my state requires a transfer permit to take possession of a handgun from anyone who is not in your immediate family. (Cost is $5, it's issued by the county sheriff, and usually takes just a few minutes. It's not required for long guns.) Gun clubs use that permit or a CCW permit to screen for prohibited persons. If I were selling any gun to a private individual, I would insist on making a copy of his permit (either one) and his driver's license. If he were to use the gun in a crime, those copies would be my proof that he was not a prohibited person at the time of sale.

Kendahl said:

If you don't hold a CCW permit, my state requires a transfer permit to take possession of a handgun from anyone who is not in your immediate family. (Cost is $5, it's issued by the county sheriff, and usually takes just a few minutes. It's not required for long guns.) Gun clubs use that permit or a CCW permit to screen for prohibited persons. If I were selling any gun to a private individual, I would insist on making a copy of his permit (either one) and his driver's license. If he were to use the gun in a crime, those copies would be my proof that he was not a prohibited person at the time of sale.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but I sure hope you make this clear before anyone travels to meet you for a transfer. For privacy concerns, I take a lot of care regarding allowing other parties to copy my DL. The info on it makes identity theft and other crime much easier. I especially keep my home address private from untrusted parties who know there are firearms at that address. Knowing there are specific kinds of valuables in a home and where that home is can make a specific address a greater target for crime. There are a couple of local FFLs I trust with my home address, because I know them personally and I have seen how they protect the privacy of their customers. But I do not trust big box stores, pawn shops, and private sellers with my home address. Even if the private seller is honest, how well will they protect my information from others who may not be honest?

dogtown tom said:

No, it only proves that you have a copy of someone's drivers license.
Being that the dealer is required to record the type of government issued photo ID, its number and expiration date on the Form 4473.......wouldn't ya think they actually looked at it?

As far as "overzealous enforcement...by not looking at the ID..."? Please. The fact that the dealer recorded the info from the DL blows that silly argument right out of the water.

Click to expand...

Naw, I could give the dealer a DL number, name, and some address, etc. and it would not prove he looked at my ID.

Double Naught Spy said:

Naw, I could give the dealer a DL number, name, and some address, etc. and it would not prove he looked at my ID.

Click to expand...

Well, no.
Federal law REQUIRES that you provide the dealer with a government issued photo ID. You just telling him verbally doesn't meet that requirement now does it?
Being that the dealer is REQUIRED to record the DL# and date of expiration on the Form 4473.......don't you get the slightest hint that he would be looking at that DL# and expiration date on the drivers license?

Good grief

dogtown tom said:

Well, no.
Federal law REQUIRES that you provide the dealer with a government issued photo ID. You just telling him verbally doesn't meet that requirement now does it?
Being that the dealer is REQUIRED to record the DL# and date of expiration on the Form 4473.......don't you get the slightest hint that he would be looking at that DL# and expiration date on the drivers license?

Good grief

Click to expand...

Well, yes.

Let me get this straight, because it is federal law and because the dealer has some information written down, it is proof that he saw the ID? Surely, you are not that naive.

Sorry Tom, not everybody is fully honest and law abiding. Federal law requires people do a lot of things that they don't do, particularly dealers. How many times had Malvo's dealer been written up for infractions concerning their gun inventory? Numerous times. They weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing as per FEDERAL LAW! http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/09/u...op-in-sniper-case-stay-open-records-show.html

The ultimate stupid circular legal argument:

The dealer did it thus and such, because federal law requires them to do it thus and such.

Violation of federal law to copy military ID's. If they want to break a law to cya I think they are not too smart.

natman said:

California does things differently, so opinions based on how it's done elsewhere aren't applicable.

On handgun purchases, CA requires not only ID but proof of residency. One of the requirements is that the address on the proof (utility bill, car registration, etc) match the address on the ID. So while the law may not explicitly require a copy of the ID, it is understandable for the dealer to make copies of both ID and proof to prove that there was a match.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs#9G
#13.

Somehow it's unconstitutional to require ID to vote, but try and actually exercise your 2nd Amendment rights....

Click to expand...

From your link; #8

What identification is required to purchase a firearm?

Clear evidence of identity and age is defined as a valid California driver license or a valid California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Military identification is also acceptable if accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California, but the dealer must retain copies of both documents.

Temporary driver licenses and temporary identification cards are not accepted forms of proof of identity and age.

(Pen. Code, § 16400)

Click to expand...

Sounds like much ado about nothing, what does it really matter anyway. ATF and all the other three letter agencies already know all about you, if you're posting on these boards you are already on half a dozen lists, and there is nothing you can do about it. Think you can live with cash and never show an ID, the .gov folks know about deposits to your bank account and how much is taken out in cash, that puts you on another list.

Double Naught Spy said:

Well, yes.

Let me get this straight, because it is federal law and because the dealer has some information written down, it is proof that he saw the ID? Surely, you are not that naive.

Click to expand...

Again, "proof" is NOT required by ATF or any Federal law.
99.9% of dealers are going to ask for that ID and record information as required by law. To do that he LOOKS at the ID. Is that too difficult to comprehend?

When you post "Naw, I could give the dealer a DL number, name, and some address, etc. and it would not prove he looked at my ID." you are making the assumption that a dealer would find that acceptable and not actually look at your license.........I find that laughable.

If you tried that with me (and untold thousands of other FFL's) you would be told "No ID, No gun". Guess how other dealers and myself KNOW they saw that ID? We looked at it when we wrote down the DL# and expiration date. I can say with 100% accuracy that I've looked at every single ID for 10,000+ Form 4473's over the last nine years.

Sorry Tom, not everybody is fully honest and law abiding. Federal law requires people do a lot of things that they don't do, particularly dealers. How many times had Malvo's dealer been written up for infractions concerning their gun inventory? Numerous times. They weren't doing what they were supposed to be doing as per FEDERAL LAW! http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/09/u...op-in-sniper-case-stay-open-records-show.html

Click to expand...

Which has diddly squat to do with the topic of this thread. The overwhelming majority of licensed dealers abide by Federal law. If a dealer WAS NOT law abiding, he wouldn't be checking ID, he wouldn't comply with the recordkeeping requirements and certainly would not make a copy of the buyers ID much less "look at it".

Pulling up Malvo's dealers problems doesn't help your argument.......HE GOT CAUGHT!