Bill of Sale????

[stickhauler]

Oh hell, why bother! They are convinced, given 35 years of experience of being lucky, that no blow back comes from just doing a deal of "you got the cash, here's your gun, bye-bye." God forbid anyone points out the truth of the matter. That their actions is exactly what the anti-gun folks are keyed on right now. Lord, we'll hear the whines come from these folks when private sales are banned nationwide. And I'll be here pointing out who helped the Brady gang getting it done. A lot of you folks are gonna be hearing "I told you so."

That's a helluva good question, show us how a bill of sale had been a detriment? Ya'all are so smart, educate us poor ignorant folks how it's so bad.

Oh, BTW, the BS of government agents looking through dusty file cabinets to get possession of BOS's is so bogus it doesn't even deserve debate. We all know that's not going to happen.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Wow, who would have thunk this would be such a heated debate! I think it's pretty simple really.... a private seller should state what their requirements are right up front in the ad - so the buyer can choose if they even want to bother with it. If contact is made, and what the buyer might require from the seller is not listed in the ad, the buyer should be right up front with their requirements so the seller can not bother with it if they choose.

Then when the buyer and seller meet, who cares what the two individuals work out amongst themselves, so long as it is legal? That's what it comes down to, right - if you don't like the way I do business, you don't have to do business with me! No harm, no foul.

I don't think there is any evidence to prove that doing a BOS in a private transaction and copying ID's and numbers and such hurts our "cause", nor do I think there is any evidence to prove that not doing a BOS in a private transaction hurts our cause.

 

[22-rimfire]

A couple years ago, I was looking at buying a nickel 22 Colt Diamondback from a private seller (via a forum). He had a number of them and one of my early comments was.... where you get so many? I was expecting to hear something like "I have been buying them off and on for the last x years and just want to sell now." Simple right, and fairly normal kind of thing. The seller got all upset that I even asked such a question and never responded to another of my PM's or emails. Easy come easy go. The fact that they reacted the way they did made me very suspicious when there may in fact be no reason for suspicion. We never got to the bill of sale discussion and I can imagine what they would have said to that!

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Then when the buyer and seller meet, who cares what the two individuals work out amongst themselves, so long as it is legal? That's what it comes down to, right - if you don't like the way I do business, you don't have to do business with me! No harm, no foul.

There it is,all wrapped up in a tidy little package.

 

[dogtown tom]

stickhauler Oh hell, why bother! They are convinced, given 35 years of experience of being lucky, that no blow back comes from just doing a deal of "you got the cash, here's your gun, bye-bye." God forbid anyone points out the truth of the matter. That their actions is exactly what the anti-gun folks are keyed on right now. Lord, we'll hear the whines come from these folks when private sales are banned nationwide. And I'll be here pointing out who helped the Brady gang getting it done. A lot of you folks are gonna be hearing "I told you so."

How old are you?

FTF gun transactions by nonlicensees have been going on since the Gun Control Act of 1968 created the FFL system. Prior to 1968 NOBODY CARED. There has NEVER, in the two hundred thirty odd years of this country, been a Federal law that prohibited a transaction between two parties. As a matter of fact, the regulatory agency responsible for enforcement of these very Federal laws (the ATF) makes no freaking mention of a bill of sale, showing proof of ID or getting a stool sample from your buyer or seller. Further, their "FAQ's" (that you posted) tell you in simple terms that "...the Gun Control Act (GCA) does not require any record keeping..." on the part of the two nonlicensees. As such, you are not held to the same standard as an FFL.

You think that our discussion of our rights regarding such non FFL transactions will somehow alert the Brady Campaign and the anti gunners?

Where have you been the last forty years?

This is nothing new and you can cry that the sky is falling and gnash your teeth that the antigunners discovered the "gunshow loophole" right here on THR.....but you're a bit late to the party. What you, the Brady Campaign and all their antigun brethren can't wrap their head around is that we Americans ENJOY certain freedoms and rights. And right now one of those rights is being able to buy a gun from someone who does not hold an FFL and that a bill of sale is not required.

If you offer a gun for sale and state that you will record the buyers drivers license info....good for you and good luck on selling that gun. But expect to get a verbal smackdown if you spring that requirement at the last minute.

Similiarly, a buyer better tell the seller PRIOR to that FTF or he might have wasted two peoples time.

In short- a Bill of Sale might make you feel warm, but it offers zero assurance that the gun is not stolen, that the buyer or seller isn't who they say they are and if the police charge you with possession of a stolen gun- they'll likely laugh at your cries of "but, but, but.... I gots a bill of sale!.." as they cuff you. You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

BTW....how many guns have you bought or sold, where the other party gladly let you record the info on his drivers license?

 

[stickhauler]

Well, now that you've had your little rant, lets go back to common decency. My main point is that posts showing reluctance to formalize private sales in this public forum gives the anti-gunners (who want all sales ran through FFL's, with background checks) all the proof they need to cry for banning private sales. If you can't see that for yourself, you need to take off the blinders.

How many gun laws have been passed simply because of a claim made by the anti-gun side with limited, or no proof at all? I'd wager many. Wonder where the need to ban private sales in California came from? From anti-gunners influencing legislators that doing so would help end persons not legally able to own guns from getting them so easily. That doing so would lower violent crimes in the state. And they got the law they wanted, never mind that it didn't do a thing to lower violent crimes. Now they have a law requiring people to allow themselves to have their thumb print taken for the right to buy ammo. Using the same logic as a reason for passing the law, that it would lower violent crime. Betcha a dollar this won't lower violent crime either. But the law will still be there.

One final word on this, and then I'm done. You don't agree with me and what I prefer to do in regards to a private sale. That's fine, I don't expect every person in the world to agree with me. I've bought likely 10 guns in FTF sales, each done the way I described, and I've never had a person balk about it. I've bought many C&R's from sellers out of my area, and they required not only a copy of my C&R license, but a copy of my drivers license as well. If they were a dealer, I got a copy of their FFL along with the firearm, if not, a copy of both their C&R license and a copy of their drivers license.

As I said, I've no problem with others disagreeing with me. But you'll get a lot further in a discussion with people if you stick to the issue and leave insults out of the equation. That's it, I'm done!

 

[nalioth]

Well, now that you've had your little rant, lets go back to common decency. My main point is that posts showing reluctance to formalize private sales in this public forum gives the anti-gunners (who want all sales ran through FFL's, with background checks) all the proof they need to cry for banning private sales. If you can't see that for yourself, you need to take off the blinders.

Reading the US Code since 1968 has provided all the proof they need.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Well, if we aren't going to exercise freedom because of what the anti-c's might think and say, then we need to lock our guns up in our safes and stop carrying them. That's what gets them riled up the most - is us carrying our guns - OMG - in public! :banghead:

 

[postalnut25]

Wow! The is way too much preaching going on with both sides of the argument.

To me, a gun is an object. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't buy & sell cars, tvs, cameras, etc without some sort of bill of sale. I don't need personal information, but I do need a date, description, serial number and purchase amount. I expect the same sort of thing when I buy.

The paranoia over this is amazing.

 

[gym]

But if you don't know someone personally, why would you want to give them your ID, now they "might" come to your home one day or night, and rob your house thinking that there are more guns there. Having lived through a home invasion, I don’t want "just anyone" to know that I tote a gun, especially where I live.
These are not camcorders or cell phones we are dealing with. I think some guys just are in that group that think that nothing bad is ever going to happen to them. Wake up , it does. Why would you put yourself or your family at risk by giving a stranger your info, as he already knows you have at least 1 gun, and by sizing you up, may figure you may be a good score, nice car, good neighborhood, must have more guns at home, Start thinking defensively

 

[jimmyraythomason]

why would you want to give them your ID

I don't. All I want is his'her signature on the bill of sale.

I think some guys just are in that group that think that nothing bad is ever going to happen to them. Wake up , it does.

Things like getting accused of stealing a gun ,or reclaiming it if it is stolen,because you can't produce proof that you bought it.

 

[gym]

Jimmy,that's easy, just take a video or a digital picture of it, like the insurance company tells you to. As far as your first ID question, "that's you", there are other posts, "if you look" where guys want the lfe history of the other person, including drivers license numbers. This topic was not centered around just your requirements, it was about what the process should be. I have dealt with insurance companys and they have always paid if you had a picture you coulld show them. In the land of hurricanes it makes all the difference in the world, especially if you need to go to court.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

"if you look" where guys want the lfe history of the other person, including drivers license numbers.

that is WAY more information than is necessary for a purchase of anything.

 

[rscalzo]

drivers license numbers

Giving out a dl is bad business in any transaction. Any reports requested from out department except to the actual victim, official agency or attorney had the dl blanked out. That is a requirement by the NJ OPRA laws.

Same with the social. No need for either to be given.

 

[gym]

Here is a hot potato from Lee Ermey on 45's,9mm, and Glocks

Please remove, I posted in the wrong area, sorry.

 

[Average Joe]

I think this topic has gone way offtrack, I smell a lock down coming.