Private Handgun Purchase Bill Of Sale

[Wedge1]

Didn't you state in a different thread that if circumstances were right you would sell FA weapons to anybody?
Or did I read it wrong?

You’re mixing two topics. This is under NORMAL sales. The other was if I were told 100% I was DYING. try not to mix conversation and make things confusing for others please.

 

[Wedge1]

From the second link.

"However, court rulings have set a precedent that says a person could sell as few as one or two guns and still be considered a dealer, depending on the circumstances. For instance, Lynch explained, if an individual sells a gun clearly for profit, ..."

Wouldn't that make anyone that for example sold a rare or old piece, that went up in value while in their possession, a dealer?

In that case I would have to agree. If you sold and the value went UP then yes under the guidelines portrayed under Lynch ruling you’re a dealer.

Yikes. That’s scary.

Guess that means the 20 gauge single shot H&R I got for my 11th birthday can not be sold. Cause I’d clearly make money.

 

[majormadmax]

18 U.S. Code § 921 (a)(21)(C) defines “engaged in the business” as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”

 

[Charlie]

Bingo!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

You’re mixing two topics. This is under NORMAL sales. The other was if I were told 100% I was DYING. try not to mix conversation and make things confusing for others please.

Sorry, just trying to confirm wether or not in 2 different threads you were making polar opposite statements, that's all.
I'm not the one confusing people.

 

[benenglish]

... occasional sales ...

I love how specific that term is. Everybody knows precisely what "occasional" means, right?

Yes, the preceding language makes it clear that someone must be trying to make an actual put-food-in-your-mouth business out of their dealing to be guilty but that doesn't prevent maliciousness from some LEO quarters.

I'll never forget when the head of the Boston field office of whatever agency did the ATF's job, after the passage of the 1968 GCA, went publicly on the record with his intention to prosecute as a dealer anyone who personally sold more than one gun per year.

 

[majormadmax]

But other than the idiot former FBI Special Agent, how many other true collectors have been taken to court for selling too many of their firearms? One extreme example where the culprit was clearly acting beyond what he knew was legal (you cannot convince me he didn't know what he was doing) does not make a trend. This stupidity is an anomaly, and his problem wasn't poor record keeping but an obvious and intentional attempt to skirt the law. He got what he deserved...

 

[Renegade]

733 convictions in the past 10 years.

 

[majormadmax]

733 convictions in the past 10 years.

Of whom?

 

[Wedge1]

Sorry, just trying to confirm wether or not in 2 different threads you were making polar opposite statements, that's all.
I'm not the one confusing people.

Yawn.......,,,

 

[Wedge1]

But other than the idiot former FBI Special Agent, how many other true collectors have been taken to court for selling too many of their firearms? One extreme example where the culprit was clearly acting beyond what he knew was legal (you cannot convince me he didn't know what he was doing) does not make a trend. This stupidity is an anomaly, and his problem wasn't poor record keeping but an obvious and intentional attempt to skirt the law. He got what he deserved...

Agreed. He had clear mens rea.

 

[Wedge1]

What I question is the scary part of which side is more dangerous...The Dems who openly state « we want all guns and prosecute all gun owners » or the Republicans who state « prosecute all existing gun criminal statute that are on the books cause if we do that then we don’t need any new gun laws. ».

Here’s my problem with both scenarios: One means they want to prosecute and take all guns away (this is a well known montra for the Dems) and the other wants all gun crimes prosecuted. But if you are so bound and determined to prosecute « all existing gun laws we already have » then there are going to be people with zero criminal intent on selling a small amount of their collection that get caught up in all this cause “we are being tough on crime”.

So where does all this really end? I’ll tell you....with gun owners getting screwed. That my friends you can always count on. Be it the Dems who don’t want you to ever have any guns (well known fact) or the Republicans who want prosecutions for ALL existing gun laws (no matter how meaningless). We shall always be the drawer of the short straw boys.

 

[Shady]

I assume this was written before The Obama Executive Order so which wins in a court battle.

18 U.S. Code § 921 (a)(21)(C) defines “engaged in the business” as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms”

 

[Wedge1]

Shady, you’re 100% right on the US Code. Sadly, the feds do not care about rightfullness

 

[schmellba99]

I typically don't sell guns, but if I did, a BOS would be required. Nothing more than cheap insurance for me, because we don't do background checks for private sales and even if the person I'm selling to gives me zero outward appearance that they might be a bad guy, the fact of the matter is that the .gov can and will track down whomever purchased a firearm in the event it was involved in some type of crime.

Should I be the one that bought it from a dealer and subsequently sold it at some point after, I want proof of whom I sold it to and when. I expect the same for any firearm I buy from somebody else - to me it's just being smart and cheap insurance.

For those of you that worry about ID theft or the like - how often does that happen? Do you have the same fears when you hand your credit card to some 19 year old server at a restaurant who takes it completely out of your sight and runs it? How do you know that the server didn't swipe it through a scanner while they were in the back and out of your sight? All of the same information can be gleaned from the internet, your cc, hell your license plate for that matter if the person is industrious enough. Paranoia is a good thing, but there is something as way too much of it IMO.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I've had my CCs compromised many times in the last 15 years.
I just had $2500 at an Austin hotel charged against my CC about 8 months ago.

 

[AustinN4]

I just had $2500 at an Austin hotel charged against my CC about 8 months ago.

Yeah, but that was for your "date".

 

[easy rider]

Yeah, but that was for your "date".

I thought he said it was his niece.

 

[Wedge1]

I thought he said it was his niece.

If it was in Austin could also have been his nephew. Lol.

 

[AustinN4]

If it was in Austin could also have been his nephew. Lol.

Not cam, no way.