selling a gun - any feelings of responsibility?

[Madcap_Magician]

I don't feel an obligation to run a background check (even if I could), but I certainly have both a legal and more importantly a moral obligation to do my part to avoid selling guns to someone who cannot legally possess them.

I am up front that a buyer must have a permit to purchase or carry (required for handgun purchases from dealers in my state). I usually spend a few minutes chatting, both because it's nice to talk to other gun enthusiasts and to get a feeling for the buyer.

I have turned down two sales in my life, one to a young man at a gun show who A. Appeared to be extremely interested in buying my gun before he even knew what gun it was, B. Claimed he left his driver's license and permit "at home in my car," C. Was extremely fidgety, refusing to look me in the eye at any point in the conversation and repeatedly glancing at the St. Paul police officers working security, and D. Offered me more than my asking price if I would sell to him anyway.

The other was to a fellow local to me who met me to look at a Beretta I was selling on Armslist. I had e-mailed him and let him know I needed to see his permit to purchase or carry and his driver's license. He said that was OK.

When we met he had a nylon duty belt rig with empty OC, baton, flashlight, and cuff cases. I asked him casually if he was a cop or a competition shooter, and he said he worked for Homeland Security and couldn't tell me what he did. He then rambled on about how he wanted my Beretta as a new duty gun.

At this point my alarm bells started going off, but the alarm was for "Probable mall ninja tactifool wannabe, but mostly harmless" instead of "Dangerous person/criminal."

Because I'm not sure that DHS has any sworn and armed agents, and if they do, they probably work for another agency and are certainly not allowed to just buy their own handguns as if DHS was a local Sheriff's Office or PD instead of a gigantic federal behemoth with a big procurement office. Even if such a thing existed, the "I'd tell you, but I'd have to kill you" line is just pure mall ninja.

Well, he then said "My permit is at home in my tactical vest."

OK, boss. Why don't you just go get it, and I will either wait or we can meet again.

Then he stuttered something about not having time to do that.

So I shrugged and told him we could meet some other time when he had it.

The next night I got some rambling foolishness in an e-mail from him to the effect of "I am a federal LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERZ AND U NEED 2 SELL 2 MEEEE. I don't need a permit to buy gunsss you should no that!!!"

At which point I just rolled my eyes and told him to stop wasting my time.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Let's say you have a reasonably 'dangerous' weapon, ie. not a .22 bolt action single shot but say an AK or AR rifle that you want to sell.

There are FAR more people (civilians that is) killed with a .22 than a AK and AR combined.
How "dangerous" are they?

Certainly we have all seen that these guns in the wrong hands can result in tragedy.

No more than other guns. In fact I believe only 2 or 3 of the mass shootings have been with a so called "assault" rifle.

Do you feel any sort of responsibility to get a background check on the individual you are selling to (provided you don't already know them) when dealing with a modern carbine or high capacity handgun?

High capacity handguns? What are those?
I feel a responsibility to follow all applicable laws. I feel this way because I am a law abiding citizen. In my state, there are no requirements for UBC. Not only that, individuals have no way to even get a background check on someone. NICS is for dealers. No one else has access to it.
It's not an option. You have to use your judgment, which you should always do. If it don't feel right, tell them you changed your mind. They'll be pissed but who cares.

Curious the forum's thoughts?

You've got over 1200 posts here and you didn't have a pretty good idea what the forum's thoughts would be?

Now obviously if I knew or even suspected someone was prohibited I would not sell to them. That's common sense. But placing the level of danger higher on some guns than others, demonizing the "evil" "assault" rifles and proposing individual citizens do background checks, which they don't even have the capability of doing is the exact same BS the antis do.
Since so many are in favor of background checks by individuals why do they have such a problem with the gov mandating it? What's the freaking difference?

 

[jrdolall]

I have sold one gun in my life(that's why I have multiple safes) and that was to a family member.

If I did sell a gun to a "stranger" then I would not feel any remorse if that person committed a crime with the gun. Of course I wouldn't sell a gun to some guy that met me with a hoodie pulled up, paid cash, and asked if he could also buy some bullets. I also wouldn't buy a gun from a guy that was selling them out of the trunk of his car. I believe we all have an obligation to make sure any FTF transactions we make, whether they are for a TV, a watch, a JI Joe, or an AR-10, are legit.

PS I have owned/currently own a gun that was used in a crime in Florida years ago. I hope to see that gun again some day but am not counting on it.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Madcap, I would have turned down both of those as well. No doubt about it.

I saw a similar incident to your first one happen at a local gun shop in Little Rock.
Guy comes in and says he doesn't have much money but wants a handgun for HD. His budget is only $300 so after a short conversation and him handling a few guns, he decides a revolver is right for him. The shop owner shows him a Smith & Wesson Model 10 that was a trade in from a security firm and they agree on a price.

The guy hands him the money and we all know what comes next. The shop worker hands him a clipboard with the forms on it and asks for his ID. He says he's from out of STATE and left his ID, but still wants the gun. He magically comes up with a little more money to do it anyway. Annnnnnnnnnnnd the employee calmly put the Smith back in the case and told him to get the hell out of the store.

 

[Godsgunman]

No such thing as a "more dangerous" gun. I've bought and sold many FTF and I've always felt fine about it. I always ask to see an ID either DL or CCL, ask a few questions, and on my way with either cash in my hand or a new gun. Meet the requirements of state laws. For those who think thats just doing the bare minimun or not doing one's part, then what is? Even going through a FFL and NICS doesn't prevent or stop anyone from commiting a crime with a purchased firearm. They can only identify those who have been convicted of felonies, they can't predict them. With that line of thinking then all of us are potential criminals and no guns should be bought or sold by anyone. I just say that so some on here step off their high horse and stop judging how some buy and sell, if it meets the state requirements then guess what, its a LEGAL sale.

 

[FuzzyBunny]

I'm in Texas and I don't sell guns. I do buy them at yard sales and such though. If someone ask for my ID I would let them keep the gun. The law here does not require it.

 

[oneounceload]

You are essentially saying:

"I don't care two bits if I sell a gun to a criminal, as long as I didn't feel uncomfortable when I did it."

People see this and decide:

"If gun owners won't be responsible enough to keep guns out of criminal hands, guns that may then be used against me or my family, then the gov't needs to do something to FORCE them to be responsible."

Let's change "gun" to "car" and "criminal" to "DUI Offender", or "gun" to "baseball bat at garage sale", and "criminal" to "bored teenage youth" - do you still everything to make sure that ANYTHING you sell isn't sold to someone who MIGHT commit a crime?

And then your statement:

And along comes UBC and registration

Basically is calling for and already surrendering to both of those

The "progressives" control over education in the last 50 years sure has destroyed the understanding of government, guns, freedom in general. Many should go back and look how things were done before 1968 and realize how much we have already lost since then. Giving into their mantra of "reasonable gun control" is foolish

 

[Pizzapinochle]

My goodnesss....

Guns are not cars.

Cars are not guns.

There are so many differences between them that comparing them just doesn't make sense. There is no way to venture down the "switch 'guns' for 'cars'" path without devolving into irrelevant argumentation.

 

[TanklessPro]

I don't sell guns.

+1

Me either.......

 

[ATLDave]

Let's change "gun" to "car" and "criminal" to "DUI Offender", or "gun" to "baseball bat at garage sale", and "criminal" to "bored teenage youth" - do you still everything to make sure that ANYTHING you sell isn't sold to someone who MIGHT commit a crime?

I think you're arguing with a bit of a straw man there. I don't see anyone arguing that you are directly responsible for ANYTHING that happens with a gun that you sell. If the bad thing wasn't foreseeable at the time of the sale, then nobody (at least nobody here) is saying there's responsibility. But if there are reasons to think the sale will have a bad result, even if technically legal, then (some of us argue) there is an ethical and moral duty on you to take some additional actions or refuse the sale. Madcap_Magician gave some excellent examples.

As for your other items analogy, I would say the same thing applies. If a person shows up to buy a car and is obviously intoxicated, regardless of whether you have any legal obligation not to sell, it's an ethical failure on your part to sell them a car, give them keys, and watch them weave off down the street in their lethal vehicle. If you're running a garage sale and two neighborhood kids that you know have a reputation for bullying and even burglary try to buy a youth bat from you that is too small for them to use for baseball, but just right to use as a cudgel, then, yes, I think you should tell them to scram and not sell the bat.

Considering the likely ramifications of your actions used to be widely acknowledged as something that decent people did. Now, apparently, some think bare compliance with legal requirements is all that a person should do.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If someone ask for my ID I would let them keep the gun. The law here does not require it.

Not explicitly, but since the seller would be committing a felony to sell to a non-resident, asking to check ID for residency is a perfectly reasonable request.

As well, if someone declines to show ID when attempting to purchase something that has age and residency requirements, a person can deduce that the individual likely has a reason he/she is unwilling, and it is highly probably that the reason would preclude them from legally purchasing.

Your prerogative, but being hard nosed about that is a bit silly, IMO. I can see having a problem with them recording the info from your ID, but a glance at birthdate and state of issuance is totally reasonable for a FTF transfer.

 

[SunnySlopes]

My state, in a face to face transaction, requires nothing other than buyer=cash; seller=gun.

I go a bit beyond that. Each of us will receive a hard copy of the transaction. Buyer's and seller's name on both copies. Both copies signed by both parties. Gun description and serial number recorded. I simply look at his driver's license to make sure he's a resident of my state. He does likewise.

It just seems prudent to do the above. If I sell a gun that winds up at a crime scene, it might be handy to have a piece of paper to show law enforcement who I sold the gun to.

If I wind up buying a stolen gun, it might be handy to have a piece of paper showing who I bought the gun from.

Again, none of the above is necessary. It's just to help me sleep at night.

So in answer to the OP's question, yeah, I guess I do have some feelings of responsibility. But not concerning what the buyer (if in fact, I'm selling a gun) does with it. My feeling is to try to cover myself.

 

[CajunBass]

I buy, sell, swap and trade guns all the time. I've never felt any obligation or need to do anything more than I have too. Probably because all the people I've ever dealt with were what I judge to be "regular people." We always seem to stand around shooting the breeze, talking guns, cars, kids, drinking coffee...you name it. I think the only time I ever just said "Here's the gun, gimmie the money" was one day when it was pouring rain, like a cow xxxxxx on a flat rock. We both wanted to get back in the car ASAP that day.

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

I had a friend back in the '80s who was a FFL.
This was before BATF made it more and more difficult/disadvantageous for the little guy to be an FFL.
He ran a little business out of his house on the side - it was not his main source of income.

He made it a practice not to sell to anyone who was not personally known to him, because he never wanted to see a news story in which a firearm he had sold was used in a crime.

One point in libertarian theory is that when you impose a 'standard' (e.g. a building code) the 'minimum' also becomes the rule or de-facto maximum.

Certainly one should prudentially obey the law, but maybe we should obey our personal judgment as well.

Of course today, one would probably be accused of discrimination and hauled into court for that.

 

[Field Tester]

I think another issue here is that we're automatically assuming that said firearms are going to be used in a crime? What are the actual odds of that?
If we're going for the emotion response then I offer the opposite view. What if that .22 rifle is going to be taught a child the safety, fun, and history of the 2nd Amendment? What if that AK went on to defend someone's life? What if that AR goes on to be donated to the Wounded Patriot shoots?

The odds of a firearm being sold privately and lawfully, to be used in the commission of a crime, has to be extremely low.

 

[Mauserguy]

A fellow learns things in life. Once, when I was in college, I worked in a bookstore. We had a rash of thefts and returns of art books, the most expensive books sold. One day, I was ringing up a sale and the guy was really nervous as he handed me his check. I went over to the manager, an older guy who had been there and done that, and he didn't like the situation. When we returned to the register, the guy was gone. It turned out it was a stolen check. Had we just accepted it, some poor schmuck would have gotten hit in his bank account. Responsibilities exist in all business deals.
Mauserguy

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

To each his own.

Personally, I feel an obligation to be within the law for any business transaction. I do NOT feel an obligation to act as moral police upon any parties I may consider doing business with.

That said, I also reserve the right to refuse any business transaction for any reason.

 

[Sam1911]

But if there are reasons to think the sale will have a bad result, even if technically legal, then (some of us argue) there is an ethical and moral duty on you to take some additional actions or refuse the sale. Madcap_Magician gave some excellent examples.

Ok, but that is not really the point. If you have ANY reason to think the sale will have a bad result -- DON'T SELL. No one here is, has, or would say you should ever sell the gun to someone you think will misuse it. The question is do you have a responsibility TO PERFORM A BACKGROUND CHECK because a weapon is especially dangerous?

If you think things are going to go wrong, don't sell the gun -- ANY gun! A background check might tell you NOTHING at all about the guy. It certainly cannot give you a promise that he won't go rob his first liquor store or shoot up his first movie theater or school (those guys are NEVER repeat offenders!). If you feel hinkey, don't sell.

Presumably no one would. SO therefore, the question is really, if you feel perfectly comfortable with the buyer, do you feel morally required to go do a background check on him anyway.

Demonstrably, NO.

 

[csmallo]

Since there should be no such thing as a "prohibited person", no I don't feel any responsibility. I have done face to face sales. They hand over the cash and I hand over the firearm.

If a person cannot be trusted with a weapon, then they should not be walking the streets.

 

[Sam1911]

Not explicitly, but since the seller would be committing a felony to sell to a non-resident, asking to check ID for residency is a perfectly reasonable request.

Not quite. The seller would be committing a felony to KNOWINGLY sell to a non-resident. The law says, "...know, or have reason to know..."

That's a big difference. Personally, I have a moral opposition to that law, and will do nothing whatsoever to deliberately take one step over the required line in following it. I may show mine if asked, but I don't want to and would rather not see his/hers.

 

[Warp]

Not sure if this is the right sub-forum for this, but here goes:

Let's say you have a reasonably 'dangerous' weapon, ie. not a .22 bolt action single shot but say an AK or AR rifle that you want to sell. Certainly we have all seen that these guns in the wrong hands can result in tragedy.

Do you feel any sort of responsibility to get a background check on the individual you are selling to (provided you don't already know them) when dealing with a modern carbine or high capacity handgun?

I know the legal aspect in many places is face-to-face = no background check, and I respect the rights of people to conduct their business how they choose. I'm merely asking if any of you have felt a 'responsibility' above and beyond what the law requires?

I ask this because a close friend of mine just sold some of his guns, and his AK he wanted a background check on, while his .22 pistols he sold FTF.

Curious the forum's thoughts?

No, I do not.

Others may choose differently.

BTW: Keep in mind that hammers are used to commit more murders than AR or AK type rifles. By far. Oh, and .22lr as well.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Not quite. The seller would be committing a felony to KNOWINGLY sell to a non-resident. The law says, "...know, or have reason to know..."

A nuance I'd personally rather not argue with a federal prosecutor.

I don't agree with the law either, but I'm not willing to be a martyr over that one. And as I inferred, willingness to show ID is also a good faith gesture that tells me you're not trying to buy from me because you can't buy from an FFL.

 

[Akita1]

Always just used my judgement. If the buyer seemed on the up and up, was friendly, had no problem showing me ID to verify age and residency, I never declined the sale. If the buyer seemed nervous, didn't have or wouldn't show ID or acted in any other manner that conveyed to me the individual shouldn't or legally couldn't own a gun, then the sale did not go through.

Echo that, plus a fully-executed bill of sale detailing the firearm make, model, serial number and date of sale. Otherwise, no joy.

 

[il.bill]

...Do you feel any sort of responsibility to get a background check on the individual you are selling to ... ?

I live in the State if Illinois, so a background check since the first of the year is as simple as a quick visit to the State Police web site to fill in the buyer's birthdate and FOID Card number. There follows a waiting period (24 hours for a long gun and 72 hours for a handgun) before the actual transfer of the firearm can take place. Illinois then requires that I keep some transaction information on every firearm I sell for a period of ten years.

I personally have no problem exchanging information with the other party in the FTF transaction, whether I am buying or selling. However, I do understand the true believers who want to buy and sell with individuals where the transaction simply consists of: "here is your money - here is your gun". I myself am just not comfortable with that.

 

[zdc1775]

Besides the fact that I have never sold a gun, if I was going to I would like to treat it no differently than selling any other high dollar item. Because of the way laws are written I would ask if they could legally own it and if they were residents of the same state. If both answers are yes then it's done. All this is assuming I didn't know the person beforehand of course and in that case I would probably ask how them and their family were doing or their plans for the weekend while they looked over the gun before taking their money and leaving.