Does shipment to FFL shield seller from downstream activity?

[bushmaster1313]

Hypothetical question:

If a private seller ships to a bona fide FFL for transfer to a buyer, is there a statute which shields the seller from bad acts that might be committed with the gun by the buyer?

 

[MedWheeler]

I know of no specific statute, but once a lawful sale is complete, the seller is not criminally liable for misdeeds committed by a future buyer (or even the immediate buyer.)
Of course, when it comes to civil issues, pretty much anyone can sue anyone for anything. However, I believe there is virtually no chance of being held responsible for the criminal acts committed by someone who buys a gun from someone you lawfully sold it to. If you could be held responsible for such a thing, we'd never trade in a car again, would we?
In your hypothetical case, the FFL is responsible for having the transferee properly checked. Even the FFL, if he follows his requirements, is not responsible for what is done with the weapon once it is properly transferred.

 

[NavyLCDR]

How many former owners of used cars are charged with anything because the person they sold a car to killed someone while driving drunk?

The Federal requirement is that you have no reasonable cause to believe or know that the buyer is a prohibited person or intends to use that specific firearm to commit a crime with. There is not even a requirement in Federal law to actually verify anything.

 

[kingpin008]

Exactly.

I wish people would stop worrying about this issue. In the real world, it's not as simple as a cop finding a gun that was involved in a crime, tracing it back to the original owner, and throwing them in jail for whatever crime was committed. It simply isn't how things work.

As Navy said - if you don't have reasonable cause to believe or know that a buyer is a prohibited person, you are legally in the clear. Simple as that. Cops can trace all they want - it won't mean a thing.

So, to answer the OP's question - yes, selling to or transferring through a FFL will shield you from any future shenanigans committed with the gun. But so will a properly conducted FTF sale.

 

[Sam1911]

NavyLCDR and kingpin have this nailed.

What risks are we stressing out about that we must shield ourselves from? Does having once owned a gun make us somehow liable for the bad acts some future owner might put it to?

If you have some reason to know that someone will use a gun for an unlawful act, then don't sell it to them. If you don't know, or have reason to know such a thing (and don't know or have reason to know that the person is ineligible to possess a firearm) then you're in the clear.

Now, a gun dealer would a potential buyer with even less likelihood of being a prohibited person than any other buyer, so selling to an FFL might ease your mind if you have trouble trusting another private citizen's word that they are a lawful possessor.

Who that dealer sells it to after that couldn't possibly be of less concern to you.

is there a statute which shields the seller from bad acts that might be committed with the gun by the buyer?

No. There is no statute that says you aren't liable for the acts committed by someone else. There doesn't really need to be one. That's just common sense. More importantly, there is no statute that says you ARE liable for those acts, either.

 

[Chief_Cabioch]

well, while I myself dont worry about such an issue, with all these ambulance chasing lawyers running loose just looking for someone to fleece, it's not hard to see where the concerns are generated from....the latest issue in Oklahoma is the Pharmacy Owner who got sentenced for defending himself in his business after shooting a kid several times after the first round apparently hit him in the head........and it's obviously on appeal....but few can actually know what over zealous DA's and corrupt courts will do to these "horrible gun owners"...

 

[Sam1911]

the latest issue in Oklahoma is the Pharmacy Owner who got sentenced for defending himself in his business after shooting a kid several times after the first round apparently hit him in the head...

What in the world does the Ersland case -- which appears to be a fairly solid case of murder -- have to do with the question at hand?

but few can actually know what over zealous DA's and corrupt courts will do to these "horrible gun owners"...

Corrupt courts? Corruption is a pretty specific charge. Do you think the court in the Ersland case is corrupt? How in the world so? Most of us here, upon reviewing the facts of that case as we were able to know them, came to the same conclusion as the jury. Really, we shouldn't even side-track this simple thread to re-hash that situation but please don't insert unrelated cases, and make ominous and unfounded accusations to support why folks SHOULD be paranoid.

...

Look, if the sale was legal, that piece of property has passed beyond your control. You have no responsibility for it. You cannot be accused of wrong-doing with it.

I agree that it isn't hard to see where the concerns have their origin: an imperfect understanding of the laws regarding firearms transfers, added to a lifetime of watching mangled news reports of the trials of various "heroes and villains" who ran afoul of laws that we should take the time to understand, but don't -- all multiplied by a heaping helping of paranoia that THEY are all out to get us.

Don't fall prey to it.

 

[snubbies]

Simple Answer

YES On to other business

 

[NavyLCDR]

Simple Answer

YES On to other business

Really?

The OP's question was this:

If a private seller ships to a bona fide FFL for transfer to a buyer, is there a statute which shields the seller from bad acts that might be committed with the gun by the buyer?

Since you answered yes, may we ask exactly which statute offers any additional protection by going through an FFL?

 

[Art Eatman]

Arrgghhh! There is no statute that anybody knows about. But no seller is liable for misuse by any downstream user after a lawful transaction.