Fishing_Cabin
New member
This is a non-issue to myself. I am sure I am not alone either, or else many FFL dealers would be out of business. To each their own.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Face to Face Sale & NICS
- Thread starter BarryLee
- Start date
This is a non-issue to myself. I am sure I am not alone either, or else many FFL dealers would be out of business. To each their own.
Just curiosity, but someone had mentioned running the sale through an FFL just in case the firearm had been illegally altered or was stolen; how would running the transaction through an FFL help that other than providing the authorities with an alternate suspect should the problem with the firearm be discovered by the authorities?
I mean, the FFL is only running a background check on the buyer, not the firearm, right? It is my understanding (after some really bland emails to/from the state AG and the batf) that only a LEO can run the firearm's numbers to see if it is stolen. The agent at batf recommended buying through an FFL in his email.
So, would the FFL simply document that the firearm was transferred, without inspection, from the buyer to the seller? Wouldn't a signed bill of sale do the same, as far as preventing purchase of a stolen/modified firearm? It seems to me the only thing the FFL check does is cost money, document a transfer, and insure that the buyer is not federally unfit to purchase a firearm at a FFL (and give some buyers an excuse to pass).
Each to his/her/its own.
I mean, the FFL is only running a background check on the buyer, not the firearm, right? It is my understanding (after some really bland emails to/from the state AG and the batf) that only a LEO can run the firearm's numbers to see if it is stolen. The agent at batf recommended buying through an FFL in his email.
So, would the FFL simply document that the firearm was transferred, without inspection, from the buyer to the seller? Wouldn't a signed bill of sale do the same, as far as preventing purchase of a stolen/modified firearm? It seems to me the only thing the FFL check does is cost money, document a transfer, and insure that the buyer is not federally unfit to purchase a firearm at a FFL (and give some buyers an excuse to pass).
Each to his/her/its own.
I am sure I am not alone either, or else many FFL dealers would be out of business.
You chose to get an FFL.
There are a hell of a lot more gun owners than FFLs.
I choose to keep my firearm 'signature' as limited as possible.
I am in data bases for every agency that granted me a TS/SCI clearance.
Since the day I turned 18.
They have enough on me without my allowing them to capture more.
dogtown tom
New member
FFL's can only run a background check on the buyer. We do not have access to the NCIC to check if a gun was stolen. Access to NCIC is limited to LEO on official business.orangello ..... how would running the transaction through an FFL help that other than providing the authorities with an alternate suspect should the problem with the firearm be discovered by the authorities? I mean, the FFL is only running a background check on the buyer, not the firearm, right? It is my understanding (after some really bland emails to/from the state AG and the batf) that only a LEO can run the firearm's numbers to see if it is stolen.
Of course he would. ATF would love for every gun transaction to come under their regulation.The agent at batf recommended buying through an FFL in his email.
It would insulate the seller from responsibility. The dealer would have the buyer complete a 4473 and NICS.So, would the FFL simply document that the firearm was transferred, without inspection, from the buyer to the seller?
Nope. A bill of sale is worth the paper its printed on and who knows if the seller uses fake ID.Wouldn't a signed bill of sale do the same, as far as preventing purchase of a stolen/modified firearm?
For some sellers thats exactly why they want to run the sale through a dealer. Thats their option....but they should make this clear when they list the item for sale.It seems to me the only thing the FFL check does is cost money, document a transfer, and insure that the buyer is not federally unfit to purchase a firearm at a FFL (and give some buyers an excuse to pass).
I am a legal gun owner and have my CCW . But if I was going to buy from a private person and not a LGS or pawn shop I would not want to do a FFL (seeing how in Oklahoma it is not required) unless that type of weapon required it. Does it make me shady? I say no. And if you don't trust the person you are selling it to then maybe you should not be selling it at all. Why give more to the gubermint than what they already have?
Dogtown, i appreciate your response. I had not considered that the seller was basically paying the FFL to take the seller's place in line should the police start looking for a firearm thief. That seems like a short-sighted plan for an actual thieving seller, as the FFL would have a record of who sold him the firearm in question, should the police inquire. A professional thief would surely know to use an actual "fence" for better insulation from the authorities.
I'm sure the mirage of safety/legal status given to a firearm by passing it through a FFL is well worth a reasonable fee to many buyers.
I'm sure the mirage of safety/legal status given to a firearm by passing it through a FFL is well worth a reasonable fee to many buyers.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
I think you misinterpret my response.orangello Dogtown, i appreciate your response. I had not considered that the seller was basically paying the FFL to take the seller's place in line should the police start looking for a firearm thief. That seems like a short-sighted plan for an actual thieving seller, as the FFL would have a record of who sold him the firearm in question, should the police inquire.
I'm sure the mirage of safety/legal status given to a firearm by passing it through a FFL is well worth a reasonable fee to many buyers.
Using a dealer to transfer the firearm insulates the seller from a buyer who may be a prohibited person.....it does not insulate a "thieving seller" from the police. I doubt any seller who knows a gun is stolen is going anywhere near a licensed gun dealer.
I don't know of any firearm that I would want bad enough to withstand the insult of insisting on using an FFL for what could be a FTF transaction.
I am a collector, and I have paid new for used for a firearm that is unique for some particular reason (that one actually was from an FFL)...that part I don't have a problem with. what I have a problem with is normal human trust...If you tell me you are not a prohibited person, I will believe you, not becasue I am stupid, but because I am honest, and I assume you are also.
Off topic example: I owned my own small business and I never checked anything when I accepted a personal check...I just put them in the bank. Guess what in over 15 years (I'm retired now) I had 2 checks bounce, and one was a bank error. That with thousands of checks...
The one check that never was paid, I expect those people needed the money more than I did and forgave them.
I am a collector, and I have paid new for used for a firearm that is unique for some particular reason (that one actually was from an FFL)...that part I don't have a problem with. what I have a problem with is normal human trust...If you tell me you are not a prohibited person, I will believe you, not becasue I am stupid, but because I am honest, and I assume you are also.
Off topic example: I owned my own small business and I never checked anything when I accepted a personal check...I just put them in the bank. Guess what in over 15 years (I'm retired now) I had 2 checks bounce, and one was a bank error. That with thousands of checks...
The one check that never was paid, I expect those people needed the money more than I did and forgave them.
Fishing_Cabin
New member
While I can not say how other FFL holders deal with used, or pre-owned firearms. I can say to how I, in the past as an FFL holder dealt with them. Any firearm for which I did not order "new" from a dist, or a wholesaler, was checked by the sheriffs office. I did have an agreement with the local sheriff's office that when I asked them to check the status of a firearm, that it was not only in my possession as an FFL, but also available to be surrendered to them if it came back stolen. While I do not have my records in front of me, I can not remember a time when a firearm came back stolen.
Depending on the local jurisdiction, and how the FFL and the locals work together, it can be iffy at best, or it can be as I said above. How many folks have we had on here who were a victim, and wanted to recover their property (firearm) but yet, as firearm owners know it may go through one or two, or maybe more hands before it is even checked. I can not see how this is an infringement on our rights, except to maybe exclude a person victimized, and who reported it stolen, but yet has been unable to have their property (firearm) returned to them.
I would hope that we, as responsible firearm owners, and also potential buyers, or sellers, would like to ensure the right thing is done. If property(firearm(s) are stolen, I hope you would like them returned if possible. Otherwise, who would know?
Perhaps I am wrong. It wont be the first time.
Depending on the local jurisdiction, and how the FFL and the locals work together, it can be iffy at best, or it can be as I said above. How many folks have we had on here who were a victim, and wanted to recover their property (firearm) but yet, as firearm owners know it may go through one or two, or maybe more hands before it is even checked. I can not see how this is an infringement on our rights, except to maybe exclude a person victimized, and who reported it stolen, but yet has been unable to have their property (firearm) returned to them.
I would hope that we, as responsible firearm owners, and also potential buyers, or sellers, would like to ensure the right thing is done. If property(firearm(s) are stolen, I hope you would like them returned if possible. Otherwise, who would know?
Perhaps I am wrong. It wont be the first time.
Last edited:
Ok, so my buddy called the potential buyer yesterday and discussed the possibility of doing a formal transfer through a FFL holder. The guy said that although he understood the motivation he would prefer not to go through a formal transfer process and declined to buy the gun.
To the OP: You did the right thing.
ANY gun buyer should have no problem doing any type of legal transfer. Yes, I know the law can be overbearing and problematic. But until it is changed, it IS the law.