Feds Unable to Illegally Purchase Guns Online

For answers you can count on, you need a lawyer. Common sense and the law are not always 100% congruent.

I would point out that if the buyer cannot take delivery of the gun, then no sale has taken place. (common sense) If that is the case, legally, the FFL must ship your gun back to you (for which he can charge you) and you should (common sense) return the attempted purchaser's money.

HOWEVER, since the attempted purchase might be a crime, different legal rules might apply. Both commercial law and firearms law are involved and if you are facing this situation, you absolutely need QUALIFIED legal advice, not well intentioned internet advice.

Good Luck!
 
Things always get complicated. Some felons can legally own a firearm. I shoot with a convicted felon who has had civil rights restored but not been pardoned.
 
44 AMP said:
I would point out that if the buyer cannot take delivery of the gun, then no sale has taken place. (common sense) If that is the case, legally, the FFL must ship your gun back to you (for which he can charge you) and you should (common sense) return the attempted purchaser's money.

HOWEVER, since the attempted purchase might be a crime, different legal rules might apply. Both commercial law and firearms law are involved and if you are facing this situation, you absolutely need QUALIFIED legal advice, not well intentioned internet advice.
Click to expand...
Some of these questions are probably very dependent on individual circumstances. As to the seller, the law prohibits making a sale to someone the seller knows or has reason to believe is a prohibited person. However, as far as I know (I am not an attorney) the law doesn't spell out that a seller must make any particular proactive effort to determine this. If the seller makes the sale contingent on transferring through an FFL, then I think the seller would be presumed to have proceeded subject to the belief that the buyer expected to pass the background check and complete the transaction.

As to what would happen to the gun if the seller doesn't pass the NICS, what we know is that the gun is not the FFL's property. Presumably, if he can't transfer it to the [former] buyer, he should then ship it back to the seller. Properly, I think the would-be buyer is the party who should be responsible for the return shipping cost. However, since the would-be buyer probably won't be willing to pay for that, the seller would likely end up having to eat that cost if he wanted to get his gun back. I think the seller would then be justified in deducting that cost from any refund he sends to the would-be buyer.

But, as noted ... I am not a lawyer.
 
When a firearm is sent to an FFL, is that not a 'transfer' of the physical item that would essentially mean that the FFL at that point is now the owner? When an online transaction occurs, would this mean that the seller gets their money from the FFL? Perhaps only after the firearms is then resold (re transferred) to the intended buyer?

I have only purchased from FFL's and have never sold or transferred through them like this, so I'm not really sure how that part of it works.
 
44AMP


You said:
"And your guys would spend a bunch of bucks, and get a bunch of guns, without getting the sellers to break any laws. If the task is to catch people selling guns in violation of the law, that's not the way to go about it."

OH yes sir I totally agree if the sting was designed to CATCH sellers to prosecute for selling to prohibited persons

BUT ----if they (BATF) were simply trying to establish the premise that Any Prohibited Person can EASILY buy a firearm; ON Line, or at a Gun show, or from some guys garage....

I think the answer is obvious... at least to me it is
 
When a firearm is sent to an FFL, is that not a 'transfer' of the physical item that would essentially mean that the FFL at that point is now the owner?
Click to expand...

This is a yes and no kind of thing, because of the way the laws are written. Yes, in the physical possession sense, and no in the legal ownership sense.

Words matter. Between the seller (owner) and the buyer, it's a sale. But through the FFL it's a transfer, both ways. And like everything else it seems, the words sale and transfer have definitions in law that may not be exactly the same as those used in daily conversation.

The buyer doesn't pay the FFL, the price of the gun. He pays the seller (owner) of the gun.

The FFL gets paid for performing the transfer. Who pays the FFL is between the buyer and seller, but somebody pays the FFL dealer's fee for the use of his license and time. The law requires it, so the FFL dealers fee is part of the cost, along with paying the shipping company.

Like a warehouse, the FFL is responsible for the gun while it is in his possession, but doesn't own the gun in the legal sense. If there was a fire, and the gun was destroyed, the insurance wouldn't pay the FFL for that gun, because he didn't own it. They would pay the owner.

There's a significant difference between "ownership by possession" and legal ownership (legal title to the property). Which of these and their attendant regulations is applied, and in what degree is dependent on the circumstances of the specific situation.

Next time you're in a shop that does the transfers, ask them about their roles and responsibilities. I'm sure they'll explain the best they can.
 
Any rational person knows that firearms are purchased every day from private sellers, on line or person to person by prohibited persons.
Click to expand...

How on line? Let's say I give you the person to person thing done by "private individuals" who look an awfully lot like dealers but are selling a "personal collection". This does not apply to on line sales.
 
Prndll said:
When a firearm is sent to an FFL, is that not a 'transfer' of the physical item that would essentially mean that the FFL at that point is now the owner?....
Click to expand...

No. The word "transfer" includes a change of possession, and possession is not the same as ownership. One may have physical possession, i. e., control of something, without being the legal owner.

When I use valet parking, the valet has possession of my car, but I retain legal title.
 
I am reasonably certain that I received a message in this effort on this very forum.

I had several guns listed in the WTS locally section of the classifieds in Wisconsin and got a message from a potential buyer in Illinois regarding an 870. They wanted to meet and have sale cross state lines, expressly stating to avoid the FFL. There was no mention to my recollection of a statement that would suggest "prohibited person." The forum message was well written and I remember thinking it may well be a law enforcement effort. I did not get similar offers on two other items.
 
I, too, was approached by a former member in regards to the sale of an 870. The would-be buyer asked me to ship him the gun across state lines without involving an FFL. Preferably in several small packages, ostensibly because the FFL local to him charged too much.

I contacted my local BATFE office, and tried to report it. The agent perked up a bit when he thought I'd actually sold the shotgun. Once I explained that I had not done so because I knew that doing so was a federal crime, he lost interest. BATFE was not interested, because I hadn't gone through with the deal. Apparently, solicitation of a federal firearms crime wasn't sexy enough for them.
 
The agent perked up a bit when he thought I'd actually sold the shotgun. Once I explained that I had not done so because I knew that doing so was a federal crime, he lost interest. BATFE was not interested, because I hadn't gone through with the deal. Apparently, solicitation of a federal firearms crime wasn't sexy enough for them.
Click to expand...

This is, unfortunately, all to common, and not a new thing, nor is it limited to just the ATF.

I remember one administration that bragged how their gun control laws (background check) had kept "thousands of prohibited people from getting guns". When asked how many of those prohibited people were prosecuted, the answer was a softly spoken "43". and NONE of those had, at that time been convicted. I doubt any actually ever were...
 
I remember one administration that bragged how their gun control laws (background check) had kept "thousands of prohibited people from getting guns". When asked how many of those prohibited people were prosecuted, the answer was a softly spoken "43". and NONE of those had, at that time been convicted. I doubt any actually ever were.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt the prosecution levels for this stuff will ever get serious. They seem more concerned with entrapment than actual prosecution of a prohibited person trying to illegally buy a firearm. Like a lot of laws, they only effect those of us that choose to obey them.
 
For what it is worth, in 2010, NICS referred 76,142 denials to ATF. ATF referred 4,732 of those denials to field offices for investigation. Of those, 509 were not prohibited people. For various reasons, 1,923 cases were further investigator and 1,164 firearms were retrieved. 62 cases were referred for prosecution.

Of the 62 cases referred for prosecution: 18 were declined by a prosecutor, 13 were dismissed via plea agreement, 13 pled guilty and 12 were still pending when the study was published.

76,142 denials. 1,164 firearms retrieved. 26 guilty pleas.

Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top