Do You Keep Records of Private Sales?

[Styx]

Those of you who sell firearms privately via face to face transactions, do you make the buyer sign a Bill of Sale? If so, how long do you keep this information, and under what circumstances would you turn it over to law enforcement or even admit that you have it?

 

[USAF_Vet]

No.

 

[kanook]

I will say I want a bill of sale and need to see ID to prove they are the name they name claiming and are a reident of my state. If they agree, I will do the sale without seeing ID and no proof of sale. If they say "NO", I will not sell.

It confuses some people and so far only one person didn't want to show ID. Call it profiling if you want, he had a NY or NJ accent and wanted a private tranfer at a gunshow in FL. If he showed a FL ID I would have sold.

 

[AirForceShooter]

No
I won't do BS on either side of the transaction.

AFS

 

[ku4hx]

No.

Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't coming back
You can't take the sky from me

There's no place I can be
Since I found Serenity

 

[HexHead]

Absolutely not. If you want any more than to see my drivers license with my thumb over my name & address, I'm not buying from you. I'll ask you if you're a prohibited person, and check you're from my state. After that you hand me money, I hand you gun and we're done. If you want more than that, there are plenty of other people that don't want a paper trail.

That said, if I don't like the way you look, your money's no good anyhow. I profile.

 

[huntsman]

No just my own record of what I bought and how much I got if sold.

 

[rhinoh]

No.
I once bought a used gun from an individual and they wanted a BoS with my DL number etc...
Even though it was low risk, bought at his wife's place of work, and he is a member of the same gun club as I am etc. I've regretted it ever since. Not doing it again. Never know where such info can end up.
Since I feel that way I would not expect the same from a buyer.

 

[Ryanxia]

It's funny, every so often someone asks this question on THR. I remember a couple years ago almost everyone said yes, now everyone's been a no, which is good.
My, how far we've come to tasting Liberty again.

You can check me off as a NO as well.

Edit: Of course for a new member to be asking this could be an anti-gunner's poll for all we know.

 

[Elkins45]

I won't sell without seeing proof they are a KY resident, and I do keep a record of their name if it's a gun I bought on a 4473. I will explain the reason to a buyer beforehand in that case so if that's not acceptable to them then we can stop wasting each other's time.

In the past I have bought several guns new from a FFL and have later traded them at gun shows with private individuals. I am a little troubled that a gun I bought new in 1988 and haven't owned in 20+ years might someday be used in a crime and be traced back to me. Yes, I know if would take a lot more bad luck for me to be seriously considered as a suspect, but it still nags at me a bit. That's why I'm now a bit more cautious selling anything I bought from a dealer.

My, how far we've come to tasting Liberty again.

I'm not sure how being unable to quickly clear yourself in a criminal investigation qualifies as liberty. Don't get me wrong: I'm still happy I live in a state that doesn't restrict private sales. But just because I don't have to do something doesn't mean I don't have a valid reason to do it.

For a gun that I bought in a private transaction then all I need to see is proof you aren't from out of state--there's nothing linking me to that gun.

 

[PapaG]

Here in the great state of IL where we must pay a tax to enjoy our second amendment right, we are now required to call in to the state police with a private purchaser's FOID number to be sure it is valid. Also supposed to maintain a record for ten years. Our "Progressive" governor assured us it would allow the police to keep track of illegal guns. (A quote).

 

[Warp]

No.

Resident of same-state where transaction occurs in that same state, no reason to believe they are a prohibited person (and nothing else hinky about it), mutually agree on the goods/cash to be exchanged for the firearm...that's it.

 

[LocoGringo]

No.

I don't have to do it for anything else in my house that is my property.

 

[Speedo66]

If I bought it from a dealer and there's a paper trail to me, yes, I want proof of sale to someone else. If something happens with it down the road I want proof to show it wasn't mine at the time.

I do the same thing when I sell a car. I have other party sign a bill of sale which I keep. It has not only date, but time it was received by other party. They have an accident leaving my house, or get tickets but never registered it, it would come back to me otherwise.

 

[Warp]

If I bought it from a dealer and there's a paper trail to me, yes, I want proof of sale to someone else. If something happens with it down the road I want proof to show it wasn't mine at the time.

I do the same thing when I sell a car. I have other party sign a bill of sale which I keep. It has not only date, but time it was received by other party. They have an accident leaving my house, or get tickets but never registered it, it would come back to me otherwise.

Are you sure that your homemade piece of paper claiming you transferred the gun to somebody constitutes "proof" in the legal sense?

 

[wally]

If something happens with it down the road I want proof to show it wasn't mine at the time.

Anti gun TV and Movies are instilling the fear in you, as is their plan.

Are you sure that your homemade piece of paper claiming you transferred the gun to somebody constitutes "proof" in the legal sense?

This is a very good point!

I won't sell without seeing proof they are a resident

This is IMHO prudent, along with verifying legal age lest you stumble into a "sting". However, I don't see any reason to write anything down.

 

[guyfromohio]

No!!! And I won't buy with one either!

I put in my add that you must legally be eligible to purchase. I put "CHL preferred". Upon the moment of sale, I ask to see photo ID to verify age and residency. No more, no less. I have NEVER had an issue. By stating "CHL preferred", I feel that I may have weeded out some idiots, but that is the only intent.

Oh, and I thought there was no such thing as registration when doing an FFL purchase. So why would anyone want to create their own.

If a firearm happens to be "traced" to me and I have sold it, I have sold it lawfully under current law. So what negative repercussions could there be? I sold it. Now be on your way doing your job.....

 

[Red Wind]

No. Selling or buying .Money for gun (s) and have a nice day.

 

[morcey2]

Are you sure that your homemade piece of paper claiming you transferred the gun to somebody constitutes "proof" in the legal sense?

To add to that, you may have just handed police evidence that you sold the gun to a prohibited person. At that point the only question is whether you did it knowingly or unknowingly. It's not up to you to prove that you don't own the gun anymore, the police have to prove that you still own it and were involved in whatever crime was committed. What about when you give a gun as a gift? Do you get a bill-of-gift for that?

Vehicle ownership/registration are very different. In Utah, when you sell a vehicle, you sign the title, have the buyer fill out his portion, and he takes the title and vehicle. Usually a bill of sale is involved, but it's not necessary. The problem is that, by law, you still own the vehicle until the buyer files for a new title with the DMV. A bill of sale, unless it's notarized, has very little bearing on who owns the vehicle. If there is a dispute later, it can be used of evidence but it is secondary to the title and registration/plates but it's too easy to create a bill of sale after the fact with both cars and guns. In most cases they're worthless. In the cases where they're not worthless, they almost always work against you especially with firearms.

Matt

 

[WVsig]

No issues asking someone to sign one or signing one.

I simply do it so I have a record of where guns came from and where they went. I am not the government and doing so has no infringed on anyone's rights.

If there is ever an issue with a gun I acquired or sold I have something beyond my flawed memory to detail when it came into my possession and when it left.

If someone does not want to sign one I do not freak out. I simply document what I can and go on with life. I have bought and sold many guns and never had an issue. Never had someone refuse one way or another.

I do not think it has anything to do with the gun grabbers it has everything to do with good record keeping. I do the same thing when I sell or buy a used car from a private individual.

 

[WVsig]

To add to that, you may have just handed police evidence that you sold the gun to a prohibited person. At that point the only question is whether you did it knowingly or unknowingly. It's not up to you to prove that you don't own the gun anymore, the police have to prove that you still own it and were involved in whatever crime was committed. What about when you give a gun as a gift? Do you get a bill-of-gift for that?

If they are coming to you about a prohibited sale they already know you sold it to a prohibited person. A bill of sale would not change anything because if you have the correct verbiage the person signing it is stating they are legally able to purchase the gun and are not a "restricted" person. I am not a lawyer but IIRC it is my understanding you have to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If the person lies to you bill of sale or not you are off the hook. A properly written bill of sale can demonstrate you have been lied to.

If there is a dispute later, it can be used of evidence but it is secondary to the title and registration/plates but it's too easy to create a bill of sale after the fact with both cars and guns. In most cases they're worthless. In the cases where they're not worthless, they almost always work against you especially with firearms.

Please site cases where a bill of sale worked against a seller or buyer of a firearms. I am interested.

 

[Warp]

No issues asking someone to sign one or signing one.

I simply do it so I have a record of where guns came from and where they went. I am not the government and doing so has no infringed on anyone's rights.

If there is ever an issue with a gun I acquired or sold I have something beyond my flawed memory to detail when it came into my possession and when it left.

If someone does not want to sign one I do not freak out. I simply document what I can and go on with life. I have bought and sold many guns and never had an issue. Never had someone refuse one way or another.

I do not think it has anything to do with the gun grabbers it has everything to do with good record keeping. I do the same thing when I sell or buy a used car from a private individual.

Well, you don't need a signed bill of sale with the other guy's info for that. I have a binder/notebook where a description, serial number, purchase date/price, and sale date/price (where applicable) for all of my guns. I don't need to know the DL number name and address of the guy I sold to in order to know when I sold it.

 

[WVsig]

Well, you don't need a signed bill of sale with the other guy's info for that. I have a binder/notebook where a description, serial number, purchase date/price, and sale date/price (where applicable) for all of my guns. I don't need to know the DL number name and address of the guy I sold to in order to know when I sold it.

I agree with that. I do not record their DL # but I record their name and have them sign it. It validates and backs up my record keeping.

 

[morcey2]

If they are coming to you about a prohibited sale they already know you sold it to a prohibited person. A bill of sale would not change anything because if you have the correct verbiage the person signing it is stating they are legally able to purchase the gun and are not a "restricted" person. I am not a lawyer but IIRC it is my understanding you have to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If the person lies to you bill of sale or not you are off the hook. A properly written bill of sale can demonstrate you have been lied to.

They aren't coming to you because you sold it to a prohibited person. All they know at the time is that you bought the gun from the dealer that the manufacturer shipped the gun to and that a prohibited person now has the gun. The assumption by the police is usually that the gun has changed hands several times since you sold it to get to the prohibited person. However, if you hand them a bill of sale that has shows that you sold the gun to a prohibited person, regardless of whether you knew they were prohibited at the time, you've just complicated your own situation significantly.

I've had this discussion with a couple of LEO friends of mine, including a detective who does these investigations on a very regular basis. If you tell him that you sold the gun to someone, they claimed to not be a prohibited person, showed you a valid Utah ID, and you had no reason to believe that they were prohibited, they move on. Utah state law doesn't require a bill of sale and is very rarely used for FTF sales. The police aren't going to assume you're being evasive because you don't have a bill of sale any more than they would assume you're being evasive because you haven't tracked everywhere you were at 15-minute intervals over that last year to prove that you haven't ever been anywhere where you could have possibly committed any of the potential crimes that have happened recently on the other side of town from where you live.

I know that there are LEOs on THR that have said similar things and hopefully they'll weigh in here.

Please site cases where a bill of sale worked against a seller or buyer of a firearms. I am interested.

I don't have a specific case as it didn't result in charges, but I know that the aforementioned detective has had at least one case where a seller's life was significantly complicated because he produced a bill of sale showing his sale of a firearm to a prohibited person. If the BOS hadn't existed, it wouldn't have been an issue. It was eventually determined that the seller didn't have any knowledge that he was selling to a prohibited person, but the BOS and the "prove you were lied to" wording in it didn't have anything to do with that decision. Quite the opposite.

Or should I get a bill-of-gift showing that the shotgun I bought a couple of weeks ago as a Christmas gift for my daughter is not my gun?

Matt

 

[WVsig]

I don't have a specific case as it didn't result in charges, but I know that the aforementioned detective has had at least one case where a seller's life was significantly complicated because he produced a bill of sale showing his sale of a firearm to a prohibited person. If the BOS hadn't existed, it wouldn't have been an issue. It was eventually determined that the seller didn't have any knowledge that he was selling to a prohibited person, but the BOS and the "prove you were lied to" wording in it didn't have anything to do with that decision. Quite the opposite.

Or should I get a bill-of-gift showing that the shotgun I bought a couple of weeks ago as a Christmas gift for my daughter is not my gun?

So you have one second hand account from a local LEO you know and that was enough for you to make what declarative statement about the negative repercussions of a bill of sale? I can see where you are coming from but I do not think you have demonstrated that your assertions are grounded in facts. In the case you have sort of sighted you state that the seller would have not had any issues without the bill of sale but that may or may not have been true. You assume that the LEO would not have been able to determine who sold the gun to the prohibited person. You, IMHO incorrectly assume that would be the only way to ascertain who sold the gun to the BG.

Were exact details of the single case you are siting disclosed to you. Did the bill of sale state that the buyer asserted that he/she was not a prohibited person? If so what was the verbiage? If so and you are using it for the justification of your assertions please elaborate further. You elude to knowing more but without further disclosure your statements lack gravitas. IMHO you are taking a very specific example and applying it to the general. All poodles are dogs not all dogs are poodles.

As for your daughters shotgun you should proceed as you see fit. It really has no relevance to my inquiry. It is a red herring.