Taking People Shooting And Firearm Sales

[ObsidianOne]

I've often taken friends and family members shooting with me and a discussion with my girlfriend's stepdad lit the fuse on this thought.
What kind of responsibility do I have to assure the person I am allowing to fire my weapon is not a felon or an individual with a misdemeanor of domestic violence?
What is a defense of my lack of knowledge, should the friend or family member provide me with false information, if a LEO were to be involved?

Also, how does one know the person he/she is selling a firearm to is not qualified to own a firearm?
Again, what responsibility do I have to find out this information?
What legal backlash could be involved and what is a defense, as stated above, for this situation?

 

[Bubbles]

The legal answer:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/unlicensed-persons.html#gca-unlicensed-transfer
A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.

Morally is a bit trickier. Some people won't sell to anyone without a CHL or voter registration card, as in many states people who don't qualify for one have also lost their RKBA. Others will only sell or trade with close friends or family.

If you were truly worried about it, you could sell or consign the gun with a dealer.

 

[Sam1911]

Also, how does one know the person he/she is selling a firearm to is not qualified to own a firearm?
Again, what responsibility do I have to find out this information?
What legal backlash could be involved and what is a defense, as stated above, for this situation?

Here's the quote from the ATF's FAQ:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

That's it. You must not know, or have any reason to believe, that the person is prohibited from owning firearms.

You don't have to perform a background check, you don't have to know them personally, you don't even have to have met them.

Pretty simple, really.

What is a defense of my lack of knowledge, should the friend or family member provide me with false information, if a LEO were to be involved?

You don't have to defend your lack of knowledge. If someone lies to you, and you don't have some very demonstrable -- and provable -- reason to know that they're lying, you are cleared.

If it's your brother and he's a convicted killer and you testified in his trial ... yeah, the police are probably going to charge you if you sell him a gun.

If it's some guy who called about your classified ad, and you don't know him at all -- you can't be held responsible for knowing about some past legal trouble he didn't tell you about.

But, if anything ever sets off your "spidey sense" and you don't feel comfortable making a sale: DON'T. You never have to sell a gun to anyone.

 

[ObsidianOne]

Interesting.

In regards to taking someone shooting and being approached by a police officer/BLM Officer, though?
I've been told if you are unfortunate enough to be in that situation you lose your RKBA.
Smoke up the tailpipe or a definite possibility?

And could anyone clarify this?

A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

I'm reading this and seeing "You cannot sell a anything other than a C&R to a licensed collector, but Average Joe from Montana can buy your 12 gauge".
This doesn't sound correct to me.

 

[Sam1911]

In regards to taking someone shooting and being approached by a police officer/BLM Officer, though?
I've been told if you are unfortunate enough to be in that situation you lose your RKBA.
Smoke up the tailpipe or a definite possibility?

Smoke up the tailpipe. Unless that officer can somehow prove that you knew this is a prohibited person, you have no liability.

If your girlfriend's stepdad wasn't known to you to have a felony record, the liability is entirely on him.

 

[rromeo]

A common thing around here for private sales is to ask for a voter ID card or Concealed Handgun Permit. That goes above the requirement, but it's a little more solid.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm reading this and seeing "You cannot sell a anything other than a C&R to a licensed collector, but Average Joe from Montana can buy your 12 gauge".
This doesn't sound correct to me.

No, that's not correct. See the word "licensee." What it is saying is that you can sell TO A DEALER (that's a Type 001 FFL) in any state. But you cannot sell a 'modern' (non-C&R) firearm to a Type 003 FFL (C&R Collector's license) in a different state.

 

[cskny]

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.

Don't forget though, there are potential STATE level restrictions. Some states have more requirements.

Morally is a bit trickier. Some people won't sell to anyone without a CHL or voter registration card, as in many states people who don't qualify for one have also lost their RKBA. Others will only sell or trade with close friends or family.

If you were truly worried about it, you could sell or consign the gun with a dealer.

This is the issue with the current laws and tools. It makes the pro-gun community look foolish IMO. Without background checks, and a method for a seller to perform them, is there a realistic way you can know your for sure you are not selling to a prohibited person in a private sale? Short of that person being honest and indicating that they are prohibited, not really. As the seller, it's legal because the prohibited buyer is really committing the crime.

Some do things like the above quote to try and make sure they don't sell to prohibited people. I assume because their personal sense of morality goes beyond the current legal requirements. However, some don't care because it's legal as long as they don't 'have reason to believe'.

It is what it is right now. And 'it' seems awful goofy to me.

 

[Sam1911]

However, some don't care because it's legal as long as they don't 'have reason to believe'. ... It is what it is right now. And 'it' seems awful goofy to me.

1) There is a strong element of pragmatism involved: i.e. 'we' are not law-enforcement agents with a duty -- or the authority, or the ability -- to perform investigations and to stop crime from being committed. We cannot vet a private buyer with absolute certainty, and we really don't cherish the idea of having that kind of access/control over one another anyway (see 2).

2) There is also a "bigger picture" issue: that of citizens being allowed to conduct their affairs without further regulations, restrictions, or "gotchas" of legislation that threaten the generally law-abiding person with great risk.

While 'we' don't want to go arming criminals with guns -- any more than we want to sell them knives, poisonous chemicals, sranglin' rope, a nice used getaway car, or any other piece of private property that might be used for nefarious purposes -- 'we' also don't want to see our ability to dispose of (buy, sell, trade, give, loan, lend, or, heck, lose) our property without government constraints, licensing, tracking, restrictions, and control. Further, we cherish the idea of personal privacy, and don't necessarily want to give carte blanche to anyone else to look into our private lives in order to ensure that they trust us enough to sell us a toaster, crowbar, knife, or gun.

Through the commerce clause, the federal government has established its 'right' to control most aspects of sales of goods -- not the least of which: guns. But there are still places, most states, actually, where sales between private citizens are still handled as they traditionally have been: on a handshake, as a simple exchange of cash for goods.

The "goofiness" comes in the FFL dealer system which is so much more restrictive than that traditional exchange still practiced by many people.

As far as I can see, that goofy dichotomy will endure until we get GCA '68 stricken from the books.

 

[NavyLCDR]

This is the issue with the current laws and tools. It makes the pro-gun community look foolish IMO. Without background checks, and a method for a seller to perform them, is there a realistic way you can know your for sure you are not selling to a prohibited person in a private sale? Short of that person being honest and indicating that they are prohibited, not really. As the seller, it's legal because the prohibited buyer is really committing the crime.

And that is exactly why we do NOT need background checks for private sales! Punish the criminals, not law abiding citizens! :banghead:

I think the law is perfect the way it is.... it's a crime to KNOWINGLY sell a firearm to a prohibited person with the iNTENT to provide a prohibited person a firearm. That is a criminal act.

If the person lies to me and tells me he is OK to possess firearms, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then he has committed a criminal act... again, punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.

If I want to sell a gun to my brother, or to my next door neighbor who is an 80 year old retired pastor who probably hasn't even gotten a traffic ticket in 20 years, then leave me alone, the government needs not be involved in that at all.

It's time we quit trying to impose limits and requirements on law abiding citizens and just started punishing the criminals!

 

[cskny]

If the person lies to me and tells me he is OK to possess firearms, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then he has committed a criminal act... again, punish the criminal, not the law abiding citizen.

We already did punish them. They are not LEGAL to own the gun. Problem is, in that scenario they break the law again and still walk away with the gun. Hum.. reminds me of a story about listening to a tree fall in the forest.

Trouble is, a lot of us don't want them to STILL be able to walk away with the gun.

It's time we quit trying to impose limits and requirements on law abiding citizens and just started punishing the criminals!

We do. Criminals have their rights to firearm ownership removed. Background checks are an ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. How do you otherwise propose to enforce that removal (other than the suggested "honor system")? If you have an alternate enforcement idea, suggest it.

However, don't be disingenuous. If you PUNISH a criminal by REMOVING their rights, but don't have a way to ENFORCE that...how does that "punish" them again?

We cannot vet a private buyer with absolute certainty

Ok. So agree to put a system in place that lets you, use an FFL, or don't sell privately. Otherwise, accept that you may be putting firearms in the hands of criminals. Yes, because the criminal was a bad person again and lied to you. Legal it is (for you), moral...that's a personal call.

There is also a "bigger picture" issue: that of citizens being allowed to conduct their affairs without further regulations, restrictions, or "gotchas" of legislation that threaten the generally law-abiding person with great risk

I respect that for YOU, your bigger picture issue is:

'we' also don't want to see our ability to dispose of (buy, sell, trade, give, loan, lend, or, heck, lose) our property without government constraints, licensing, tracking, restrictions, and control

However, Some of us don't want law abiding citizens (like ourselves) to accidentally (or complacently) be providing firearms to criminals. To us, that may be the BIGGER picture issue. That's why we don't agree.

No one is asking you to agree. Just pointing out that 'all of us gun owners' already don't.

 

[Sam1911]

We cannot vet a private buyer with absolute certainty

Ok. So agree to put a system in place that lets you, use an FFL, or don't sell privately. Otherwise, accept that you may be putting firearms in the hands of criminals. Yes, because the criminal was a bad person again and lied to you. Legal it is, moral...that's a personal call.

Hey, I don't want to sell a felon a firearm. Or a baseball bat, knife, or getaway car, or can of gas either. And if I feel that this person is up to no good, or know them to be a criminal, I won't. But I don't ask the government to force me to check into any potential buyer's background before I do so.

However, Some of us don't want law abiding citizens (like ourselves) to accidentally (or complacently) be providing firearms to criminals. To us, that may be the BIGGER picture issue. That's why we don't agree.

So don't do private sales. But, if this is a "moral" issue, don't dicate that same morality on other citizens.

If this is a "control" issue, then I comlpetely see where you are coming from, and disagree with your intents.

 

[HankR]

Gotta agree w/ Sam1911. If I sell a car, I don't have the buyer prove that they've never had a dui, or that they are not a felon, or whatever. If I'm selling any other tools (including a gun) the same logic applies. I'll ask if they are legally allowed to own a gun, and if their answer feels wrong, I won't complete the sale.


I am legally permitted to buy guns, but if I buy a gun from a private party I typically do NOT want to "register" it by letting the seller copy down my license or CCW number. Some sellers ask to see ID (we're 10 miles from a state border). I don't mind that. Normally money and firearms change hands, hands are shaken (shook?), and one party drives away. Sometimes I end up talking with them (about guns, hunting, good places to hunt/shoot locally) and make a new friend (small town). I called about a gun that was advertised the other day, and the SELLER gave me a bad vibe. I opted to not even go look at it.

 

[cskny]

So don't do private sales. But, if this is a "moral" issue, don't dicate that same morality on other citizens.

It's a 'moral' issue as things exist today, because it's legal (for the seller).

However, the structure for enforcing criminal punishments (like the removal of firearms rights) is a legal and social issue. A criminal was punished and that punishment is being executed. In fact, a poll here at THR showed that a majority of voters in our community AGREE that felons should have their gun rights removed.

But, if there's not a process in place to ensure that punishment happens, there seems to be an ENFORCEMENT ISSUE.

Taken to a silly extreme, If a criminal can simply "lie" to a private seller and buy a gun, why not just let them buy it at a dealer (and collect sales tax at least)? Dealer background checks become seemingly useless anyway if you make it that simple for a dishonest person to avoid them. And based upon their criminal convictions, they have shown a propensity to be dishonest, right? Seems like a 'process' breakdown to me.

Again, I respect that we don't agree and won't.

I agree that felons should have gun ownership removed as part of their punishment. I recognize that in order to enforce that, there has to be a process in place. A background check on private sales would not infringe on my right to own the gun, I'm not a criminal. It doesn't infringe on MY right to dispose of that gun, I'm not a criminal. It may add a level of inconvenience, but in the end, I can own and sell it because I'm not a criminal.

It would infringe on the ability of a criminal to commit another criminal act and buy the gun. It would also keep the gun out of their hands if they try to commit that criminal act. Hopefully, that would make it more difficult for them to commit a future criminal act.

 

[Sam1911]

It would infringe on the ability of a criminal to commit another criminal act and buy the gun. It would also keep the gun out of their hands if they try to commit that criminal act. Hopefully, that would make it more difficult for them to commit a future criminal act.

Really? You believe that? We may be farther apart than I'd thought.

If that was the case, then private sales of any kind certainly would be a ... perhaps the ... glaring reason violent crime (that bit committed with firearms, anyway) continues to exist.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, or to have ever been the case. Gun control puts limits on the law-abiding. It doesn't affect the dishonest and criminal much at all.

 

[cskny]

Gotta agree w/ Sam1911. If I sell a car, I don't have the buyer prove that they've never had a dui, or that they are not a felon, or whatever. If I'm selling any other tools (including a gun) the same logic applies. I'll ask if they are legally allowed to own a gun, and if their answer feels wrong, I won't complete the sale.


I am legally permitted to buy guns, but if I buy a gun from a private party I typically do NOT want to "register" it by letting the seller copy down my license or CCW number.

YET...If you buy that car from a dealership or from a private party you insist on a bill of sale, title, and lien release documenting all the information about that seller and buyer to protect yourself in case it has a lien, it's stolen, or somehow otherwise unfit for use. And why do you do that? Because YOU have to register and use it. If it has these problems the ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM (the DMV process) will stop you. If they still let you register it, even if it was stolen, would that make sense?

I don't know if that applies actually, it sounded better when I first thought about it.

I think I just jumped the shark

 

[Sam1911]

Yikes. Why not register the guns before we can use them? That'd be a killer enforcement mechanism!

Heck, I've got nothing to hide.

 

[cskny]

Quote:
It would infringe on the ability of a criminal to commit another criminal act and buy the gun. It would also keep the gun out of their hands if they try to commit that criminal act. Hopefully, that would make it more difficult for them to commit a future criminal act.
Really? You believe that? We may be farther apart than I'd thought.

Be honest SAM1911. By definition, it accomplishes the first 2 things. It's only the last one that's debatable.

But that doesn't seem to be the case, or to have ever been the case. Gun control puts limits on the law-abiding. It doesn't affect the dishonest and criminal much at all.

Ok. Let's get rid of them all.

 

[Sam1911]

By definition, it accomplishes the first 2 things. It's only the last one that's debatable.

It accomplishes the first two things -- for that gun. But ownersip/possession of an object is not the great evil we're trying to eliminate.

A felon purchasing a firearm is malum prohibitum: "wrong because we say so."
Murder is malum in se: "inherantly wrong or evil."

If the proposed infringement can't eliminate number three, I don't give a rat's patootie about numbers 1 & 2.

Ok. Let's get rid of them all.

Someday. Someday.

 

[NavyLCDR]

However, the structure for enforcing criminal punishments (like the removal of firearms rights) is a legal and social issue. A criminal was punished and that punishment is being executed. In fact, a poll here at THR showed that a majority of voters in our community AGREE that felons should have their gun rights removed.

But, if there's not a process in place to ensure that punishment happens, there seems to be an ENFORCEMENT ISSUE.

Where does this "enforcement" stop? There are registered sex offenders out there. Should you have to present an ID card anytime you enter a school (if you have kids) and have them check you against the sex offender list? Where's the enforcement to keep sex offenders from the schools?

There are kidnappers out there. If you show up at McDonald's with a couple kids in tow, should you have to swipe your ID card and the cash register will run a check on you to verify you have children?

There are drunk drivers out there everyday. Should every driver have to blow in a breathalyzer attached to their vehicle before driving?

If this felon is such a dangerous person that we feel like we have to do background checks on every gun sale, including private, to keep a gun out of their hands, then maybe we should further regulate the felon instead of the guns.

 

[Remo223]

It accomplishes the first two things -- for that gun. But ownersip/possession of an object is not the great evil we're trying to eliminate.

A felon purchasing a firearm is malum prohibitum: "wrong because we say so."
Murder is malum in se: "inherantly wrong or evil."

If the proposed infringement can't eliminate number three, I don't give a rat's patootie about numbers 1 & 2.

Someday. Someday.

trying to eliminate?

NO NO NO

There is no such thing as trying to eliminate. There is only justice AFTER THE FACT. As soon as you start empowering a government to "try to eliminate", you invariably are led by the nose down a path of destruction of basic human freedoms.

I'm sorry sam, but I cannot allow that comment of yours to stand without expressing my displeasure.

 

[Remo223]

Where does this "enforcement" stop? There are registered sex offenders out there. Should you have to present an ID card anytime you enter a school (if you have kids) and have them check you against the sex offender list? Where's the enforcement to keep sex offenders from the schools?

There are kidnappers out there. If you show up at McDonald's with a couple kids in tow, should you have to swipe your ID card and the cash register will run a check on you to verify you have children?

There are drunk drivers out there everyday. Should every driver have to blow in a breathalyzer attached to their vehicle before driving?

If this felon is such a dangerous person that we feel like we have to do background checks on every gun sale, including private, to keep a gun out of their hands, then maybe we should further regulate the felon instead of the guns.

If the laws made sense, the only felons that would be barred from firearms are the ones that actually used a firearm to commit their felony.

 

[Sam1911]

There is no such thing as trying to eliminate. There is only justice AFTER THE FACT. As soon as you start empowering a government to "try to eliminate", you invariably are led by the nose down a path of destruction of basic human freedoms.

I'm sorry sam, but I cannot allow that comment of yours to stand without expressing my displeasure.

I think you might be arguing my point for me.

The proposal forwarded by cskny certainly does seek to eliminate a problem, proactively. (Either the prohibitum posssion by felons issue, or the in se murder issue ... perhaps even both.)

However, I'm no fan, so don't tar and feather me!

 

[cskny]

Ah... deleted. I think constructive points may be fleeting.

 

[Remo223]

I think you might be arguing my point for me.

The proposal forwarded by cskny certainly does seek to eliminate a problem, proactively. (Either the prohibitum posssion by felons issue, or the in se murder issue ... perhaps even both.)

However, I'm no fan, so don't tar and feather me!

I don't think you understand me sam. I'm telling you, you are not objecting strenuously enough to that person's dangerous (treasonous imo) ideas. I will not address that person directly because doing so would get me a stern message from you in my private messages inbox.