Personal transfer of firearms

This is a discussion on Personal transfer of firearms within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; There is quite a bit in the news recently regarding the woman who purchased the guns that were used by a 2nd party in the ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
Like Tree74Likes

Thread: Personal transfer of firearms

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616

    Personal transfer of firearms

    There is quite a bit in the news recently regarding the woman who purchased the guns that were used by a 2nd party in the shooting of the firefighters. Clearly she broke the law by purchasing firearms with the intent to transfer them to another person. I know in Massachusetts you have to "swear under penalties of perjury" that you will be the intended owner when you make such a purchase. However, the personal sale of firearms is common and as far as I know (although I've never bought or sold a gun in a personal transaction), such sales can occur without the normal paper work.

    I am curious as to how people here would feel about a law that required that all personal sales go through an FFL? I know that would incur a transaction fee ($20-$30), but it would ensure that the buyer is legally able to own/possess the gun being sold. I'm in 100% support of the 2nd amendment but I do think that to avoid draconian "banning" laws, it is going to be necessary to take stronger action to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
    BigCityChief likes this.
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array GetSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    332
    Already the law is some states like mine. People that don't follow laws wont. You will never keep guns out of the hands of people that want to do harm.

    Will more gun regulation be comming. I would bet so. Will it lower crime or these senseless acts, I think not. Our law makers will act to "protect" us from ourselves. How about enforcing the laws on the book and punishing lawbreakers to the FULL extent rather than make more laws.

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    1,221
    BATFE Form 4473 asks if you are the actual buyer. This doesn't mean you can never give it as a gift or sell it. It just means you are not purchasing it in the stead of another buyer (straw purchase). Don't confuse the poor kid at Walmart by saying, "it's for my wife." If you are purchasing the gun, you are the buyer, even if it will be a gift for your kid. I'm not surprised MA law is much more strict.

    Did Nancy Lanza transfer ownership of her firearms to her son, or did he just take them? If she did transfer ownership, how is that illegal? Can't a parent give their adult child a firearm for Christmas anymore?
    bmcgilvray likes this.

  5. #4
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    I'm in 100% support of the 2nd amendment but I do think that to avoid draconian "banning" laws, it is going to be necessary to take stronger action to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
    Clearly, you are not in 100% support of the 2nd Amendment. If you are, then explain to me how you interpret "shall not be infringed" as being OK with even more laws to limit our rights.

    Then, explain to me why you think passing another law is going to work against people that don't follow the laws. Do you really think that a mentally ill person knows or cares about firearms laws?

    It could be argued that anyone that murders another person is "mentally ill" because that murder wouldn't have occurred if they were normal, clear thinking people right?

    Please explain to me how paying another 25-30 bucks for a transfer is not an infringement of a right that clearly includes bearing arms? I realize that you people in Massachusetts are used to giving up your rights, for touchy feely good solutions, but please don't expect everyone else in this country to feel the same way.

    And just so you know, I am an FFL. I do not want the government to have even more say in our daily lives. To my way of thinking it is completely ridiculous for two people to have to contact an FFL so that they can purchase or sell their private property just because it shoots and makes loud noise.

    Remember the quote: "those that would give up essential freedoms for safety deserve neither"? You Sir, are one of the ones that quote addresses if you think that placing more limitations on my freedom is going to make us all safer.

    A better alternative would be to arm the teachers that would be to keep our children safe from wackos. Anything less than that is mere window washing.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by KoriBustard View Post
    There is quite a bit in the news recently regarding the woman who purchased the guns that were used by a 2nd party in the shooting of the firefighters. Clearly she broke the law by purchasing firearms with the intent to transfer them to another person. I know in Massachusetts you have to "swear under penalties of perjury" that you will be the intended owner when you make such a purchase. However, the personal sale of firearms is common and as far as I know (although I've never bought or sold a gun in a personal transaction), such sales can occur without the normal paper work.

    I am curious as to how people here would feel about a law that required that all personal sales go through an FFL? I know that would incur a transaction fee ($20-$30), but it would ensure that the buyer is legally able to own/possess the gun being sold. I'm in 100% support of the 2nd amendment but I do think that to avoid draconian "banning" laws, it is going to be necessary to take stronger action to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
    Such a law would not have prevented the murders in Sandy Hook or the murders of the firefighters. In the former, the killer killed his mother and took the guns. In the latter, it appears (yet to be proved) the buyer willfully lied on the form, and thus I doubt she would have gone through an FFL to comply with a private transfer law.
    bmcgilvray likes this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Array whoppo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southern Maine
    Posts
    1,174
    I have purchased firearms that have been gifted to family members and close friends... I currently have a revolver on order that will be a gift for my mother's 86th birthday. The notion that I should expect my mother to fill out a 4473 for her birthday gift is absurd... no sir... I would never support such a thing!
    bmcgilvray and StarPD45 like this.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    The Second Amendment *IS* Homeland Security
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------- Μολὼν λαβέ ----------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array KoriBustard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Clearly, you are not in 100% support of the 2nd Amendment. If you are, then explain to me how you interpret "shall not be infringed" as being OK with even more laws to limit our rights.

    Then, explain to me why you think passing another law is going to work against people that don't follow the laws. Do you really think that a mentally ill person knows or cares about firearms laws?

    It could be argued that anyone that murders another person is "mentally ill" because that murder wouldn't have occurred if they were normal, clear thinking people right?

    Please explain to me how paying another 25-30 bucks for a transfer is not an infringement of a right that clearly includes bearing arms? I realize that you people in Massachusetts are used to giving up your rights, for touchy feely good solutions, but please don't expect everyone else in this country to feel the same way.

    And just so you know, I am an FFL. I do not want the government to have even more say in our daily lives. To my way of thinking it is completely ridiculous for two people to have to contact an FFL so that they can purchase or sell their private property just because it shoots and makes loud noise.

    Remember the quote: "those that would give up essential freedoms for safety deserve neither"? You Sir, are one of the ones that quote addresses if you think that placing more limitations on my freedom is going to make us all safer.

    A better alternative would be to arm the teachers that would be to keep our children safe from wackos. Anything less than that is mere window washing.
    Please read my post carefully. I never said I supported such a law; but rather, I asked for opinions on such a law. I think I know yours. This is a question about how to keep firearms out the hands of those intent on committing crimes with them, or the mentally ill whose behavior is unpredictable. I see you're a 2a guy as am I, and I respect your views on my post. But since we gun owners are in a full-fledged political battle to preserve our rights, what are we willing to support legislatively (and in line with the 2a) to reduce these highly publicized acts of violence that threaten our rights? So let me ask you this. Would you prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of your 2a rights are abridged, or would you be willing to take some logical steps (not necessarily the one I asked about) to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals? Or, would any measure to do so be perceived by you as an "infringement?"
    NRA Member
    GOAL Member
    Certified NRA RSO
    EDC: M&P 9c

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array sensei2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    893
    i just don't see that requiring FFL involvement in personal firearms transfers would do much, if anything, to curb the flow of guns into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to have them. from my understanding, most hardcore criminals steal their guns or buy stolen guns from others criminals.

    while i would never knowingly sell a gun to a felon or mentally unstable person, it might happen unknowingly, or the legal buyer of my gun might give or sell it to someone who shouldn't own one, or have it stolen from him/her.

    my guns are my legally acquired personal property, and so far as i'm concerned, i ought to be able to sell, trade, or give them away as i choose, without having to pay someone else to fill out more paperwork.

    there are states (California?), where all transfers must go through an FFL. i can't see that this has done anything lower crime. if anyone has good evidence to the contrary, i would be happy to examine it, and i'm willing to change my mind if the data justifies it.
    bmcgilvray likes this.

  10. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    .
    Would you prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of your 2a rights are abridged, or would you be willing to take some logical steps (not necessarily the one I asked about) to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals? Or, would any measure to do so be perceived by you as an "infringement?"
    Let me make it clear.

    Criminals already have unfettered access to firearms. No amount of law will hinder them whatsoever.

    I am not willing to compromise my rights so that more laws that do not work can be passed.

    Lets look at the existing infringements that we already have. Not one of them prevented a senseless killing.
    Not one.
    So, since I already know that passing laws to prevent something from happening do not work, why would I be willing to give up more and make it more difficult for myself?

    As a Deputy Town Marshal, I can testify to the fact that the criminals laugh at your laws and your proposals. They'll get guns no matter what gets passed. In most cases its already illegal for them to possess one anyway, so how is infringing on a right going to make it any better?

    Don't you think the 2nd Amendment has been "infringed" enough? I mean, really, its the only Amendment with the clause in it" shall not be infringed" and it gets abused more than any other. So tell me, how is passing yet ANOTHER law not an infringement?
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,162
    Quote Originally Posted by sensei2 View Post
    i just don't see that requiring FFL involvement in personal firearms transfers would do much, if anything, to curb the flow of guns into the hands of those who are not legally permitted to have them. from my understanding, most hardcore criminals steal their guns or buy stolen guns from others criminals.

    while i would never knowingly sell a gun to a felon or mentally unstable person, it might happen unknowingly, or the legal buyer of my gun might give or sell it to someone who shouldn't own one, or have it stolen from him/her.

    my guns are my legally acquired personal property, and so far as i'm concerned, i ought to be able to sell, trade, or give them away as i choose, without having to pay someone else to fill out more paperwork.

    there are states (California?), where all transfers must go through an FFL. i can't see that this has done anything lower crime. if anyone has good evidence to the contrary, i would be happy to examine it, and i'm willing to change my mind if the data justifies it.
    Responding only to the part in bold--- there are some things which are your personal property which you can not
    sell, buy, or trade without paperwork. Your home. Your car. Most equities, and yes--- even gold purchases
    and sales require record keeping for the IRS on capital gains.

    So, I'm going to ask Mr. Rock and Glock our tax guru, if one would (in theory at least) not need
    records on the sale of a gun, and need to report the sale on Schedule D? Because, if the answer is yes,
    then existing law already requires lots more paperwork and documentation than any of us want to even think about,
    and none of it has a thing to do with 4473s or FFLs. Hi there R&G. Your turn.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #11
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,418
    "I am curious as to how people here would feel about a law that required that all personal sales go through an FFL? I know that would incur a transaction fee ($20-$30), but it would ensure that the buyer is legally able to own/possess the gun being sold."


    Such a law wouldn't ensure anything but it would be a disservice to Americans as it would be a shameful cop-out on the part of those who govern this nation. It would be of very little actual value in deterring gun crime. Such a law would only be effective as an additional control on the already law-abiding citizen. Lawbreakers would not be thwarted because they don't care about the law. Besides, it should be considered an outright affront for this nations' government to presume that the citizen, either as a buyer or a seller, is guilty until proven innocent. And then there's that pointless, money-grubbing fee mentioned. Upright, productive Americans shouldn't pay any sort of fee, the promotion of which could, and would be used to restrict American rights. It's an ugly business to enlist FFL holders as agents of the U.S. government for the purpose of controlling private transactions between individuals.


    "...to avoid draconian "banning" laws, it is going to be necessary to take stronger action to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."

    No! It is not going to be necessary! How about instead just reviewing the laws we already have, keep the effective ones that do not infringe on the Second Amendment, toss the rest of the bureaucratic, muddled "gun law" mess, and administer proper retributive justice to those who persist in breaking laws?! Leave law-abiding citizens alone and stop bedeviling them with politically motivated restrictions! If one intends to deliberately descend into lawlessness it matters not if a single law stands in his way or 100 laws bar his actions. He can break 100 laws with no more effort than it takes to break one. Murder itself is, and always has been, against the law here. Get the point?

    We have exactly as much crime as we, as a nation, are willing to tolerate. Isn't it apparent that we are willing to tolerate a lot? We need to become very intolerant of law-breakers and not intolerant towards our law-abiding fellow citizens by bludgeoning them with "draconian banning laws" and further restricting their liberty. Lawbreakers need to be made to feel consequences for their actions against society. Innocent citizens do not need to be made to feel consequences for abiding within laws. The thought of giving up additional freedom ought to make us all want to puke! Instead we find that we are now a generation of mostly thoughtless people who who willingly accede to ineffective and contrived laws, fostered on us by our feckless leaders, which won't accomplish the stated purpose of protecting us but will accomplish the manipulation of wresting our rights from our possession. Are you willing to give up possessions for nothing?

    As far as the mentally ill: My mind is vague on it at this point but didn't we, as a nation, push for the closing of homes for the mentally ill back in the early 1970s, under the premise of infringing on the homes' residents' rights? Seems like it was batted around in the news of the day.

    If so, then apparently we saddled ourselves with the "right" to deal with the inevitable results of incorporating these ill individuals into our society. Let's take 'em back out of mainstream society and place them back into appropriately designed care facilities. Better to navigate the minefield of the legalities of restricting the mentally ill than to do nothing that actually protects the citizens of this nation while restricting the Constitutional rights of all in the process. Because restricting the Constitutional rights of all citizens is using a sledge hammer to drive a carpet tack. Not an appropriate fix at all!

    Or, why does "freedom" include the necessity of bending over backwards to tolerate excessive crime? Does it have to be so?


    Enough is enough! No additional gun control! Under no circumstances! No more! By no means! None! Never!

    I'm against any laws requiring personal sale and transfer of firearms to be handled through an FFL in case you couldn't tell.
    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  13. #12
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 35,670'
    Posts
    11,620
    I'm going to ask Mr. Rock and Glock our tax guru, if one would (in theory at least) not need records on the sale of a gun, and need to report the sale on Schedule D?
    Thank you, Mr. Hopyard, for the overly generous introduction.

    Gains on the sale of property of any type are reportable on IRS Form Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses if not otherwise reportable elsewhere (i.e. Form 4797). This would include gains on firearms. Personal (i.e. not held for investment purposes or for a trade or business or as inventory) gains are taxable. Personal losses are not deductible.

    Generally some record keeping would be preferred with the purchase cost and possible selling price. Very minimal. Typically a purchase receipt and a sales receipt or document of some type. Personally, in the very few cases I sold a gun (two Skyy's - POS) I prepared a "Sales Receipt" complete with serial numbers and Buyer and Seller names and addresses complete with Texas CHL number, signed by both buyer and seller.

    In a sane world, guns, much as automobiles, depreciate rather than appreciate. This is to the exclusion of "Collectible" type guns. This is also to the exclusion to the current environment.

    I am totally against requiring a 4473 or Background check for personal transactions.

    I see no merit whatsoever to using anything as a 2A bargaining chip in a proposed AWB negotiation to be totally honest. The AWB has no merit whatsoever, and one cannot negotiate in good faith when ones position has no merit.

    To put it another way, the AWB is not even a colorable argument to prevent further gun violence. Therefor, there is no merit to the argument, hence negotiation is futile.

    Additionally, the current resident of the White House is shopping for issues with which to whip the honorable opposition in the 2014 Mid-Term Election. No one can possible be ignorant enough to not consider the possibility that the Mid-Terms are not important in the political calculus going into every action, announcement, speech or utterance for said residency. That of itself makes negotiation totally useless. Reference: Fiscal Cliff negotiations.
    Richard

    NRA Life Member

    "But if they don't exist, how can a man see them?"

    "You may think I'm pompous, but actually I'm pedantic... let me explain the difference."

    "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything."

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array aus71383's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    2,543
    Quote Originally Posted by KoriBustard View Post
    ...But since we gun owners are in a full-fledged political battle to preserve our rights, what are we willing to support legislatively (and in line with the 2a) to reduce these highly publicized acts of violence that threaten our rights? So let me ask you this. Would you prefer to see criminals have unfettered access to firearms so that no aspect of your 2a rights are abridged, or would you be willing to take some logical steps (not necessarily the one I asked about) to keep arms in the hands of law-abiding citizens yet reduce access by criminals? Or, would any measure to do so be perceived by you as an "infringement?"
    My answer is:

    I will support nothing legislatively, because the "2a" is enough already. Everything else is an infringement. Existing laws on the books are not "in line" with the 2nd Amendment.

    To your loaded question about criminals - I would rather they be armed. It is their right. Even a criminal is a person, and although they may use weapons to commit crimes, it is also possible that they use them in legitimate self defense.

    I hate this crap.

    Austin
    Rock and Glock likes this.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,095
    I have purchased firearms that have been gifted to family members and close friends
    Immediate Family members is one thing,but if you fill out the 4473 to buy a gun knowing that you will be giving it to a "Close Friend" then you have lied on the 4473 and committed a STRAW PURCHASE.Back when the FN 5.7 was all the rage, down here they had a lady that bought 10 in a short period of time,when the ATF showed up requesting to see the guns, she couldn't produce one nor did she know where they went.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,620
    It is a straw purchase if the person you buy the firearm "for" is unable to legally purchase or possess the firearm.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

commission lgs forum gun %
,
defensive carry forum - firearm transfer form
,
powered by mybb back in his arms
,
powered by mybb beauty society
,
powered by mybb business legal advice
,
powered by mybb define support systems
,
powered by mybb definition of legal system
,
powered by mybb definitions
,
powered by mybb gas station
,
powered by mybb mental abuse
,
powered by mybb party rentals
,

transfer firearm to family member

Click on a term to search for related topics.