dogtown tom
New member
What was your dad doing with his bound book still in his possession?
When your license expires Federal law requires that all FFL records be sent to ATF.
No more ftf gun sales/trades
- Thread starter Hoss Fly
- Start date
When your license expires Federal law requires that all FFL records be sent to ATF.
I took an extra mis-matched 24/47 to the Richmond VA gun show a few years ago. While waiting in line to get in a young guy approached me, asked to look at it, and after a minute we made a deal for $150.....he didn't even really bargain. As he's pulling money from his pocket I tell him that I have my C&R and that I need to copy some info from his drivers licenses for my records. He immediately aborts the deal and walks off. My spider sense goes off a little but I let him walk, he was with in his rights and I didn't label his behavior as suspecious enough to further question him, especially given the venue (I'm a cop). Flash forward a week.....a buddy that was standing in line with me that day calls me at home and tells me we're TV stars instructing me turn to to the cable channel where 20/20 was airing. Turns out this young man was a brother of a VA Tech student and was working with 20/20 to film a segment highlighting the gunshow loophole in VA.
Ironically the video shows me and the two friends I was with but the voice over says that I approached him with in minutes and insinuates he bought a firearm from me.
Here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745
You can see us talking at about time hack 1:10 into the 6 minute video.
Aside from learning I was balder and fatter than I thought (especially from behind) and that my two gun buds where more villinious looking than the average criminal I learned that Murphy's Law is still active......whenever you do something always look down the road for how you can get screwed and act accordingly.
Ironically the video shows me and the two friends I was with but the voice over says that I approached him with in minutes and insinuates he bought a firearm from me.
Here's the link: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7297745
You can see us talking at about time hack 1:10 into the 6 minute video.
Aside from learning I was balder and fatter than I thought (especially from behind) and that my two gun buds where more villinious looking than the average criminal I learned that Murphy's Law is still active......whenever you do something always look down the road for how you can get screwed and act accordingly.
Sold one here ftf at a gun show. person had a valid drivers license, valid ccw license. All info matched on both, did bill of sale duplicates, sheriff shows up at my house, gun was used in robbery in NJ and linked back to me through the LE agencies and ATF. The guy that purchased the gun told the NJ police he had no recollection of the purchase. Last I knew his local sheriff and ATF are involved. It is the last gun I will sell on a private sale. Just glad I had a bill of sale to cover me backside.
Anything I sell face to face, and the buyer looks the least bit suspicious, I start asking for CCW info, NRA membership, etc. Ever try selling an SKS or AK at a gunshow in AZ? It gave me great pleasure to turn the gangbangers away, telling them I would only sell to an NRA member..
So I sell a car to a guy who gets drunk and kills somebody with it - whats the point? The issue isn't the gun, its the crime committed. The gun is just a tool. Too easy to get carried away and end up like Britain - now they're trying to restrict/control knives. They're trying to prevent bad guys from doing bad things by controlling tools - stupid.
FrankenMauser
New member
I don't know that it was, or wasn't in his possession. All I know is that an error was discovered, and it made hell rain down upon him.
This all depends upon the 2nd FFL, and that when you need them, you can find them, etc. and the paperwork.
They track the gun to whom it was distributed, then who they sold it to, which is all going to lead to you anyway. The 2nd FFl , used when you sold the gun, is there only to verify 1) that you didn't own it and didn't have it, and 2) who it went to after that.
Now, they contact you...... your gun was "used" in a crime. Now, you only hope that FFL is still around, willing to back it up with their records, and can show who it went to.
If not, then.... it never did any good in the first place.
They track the gun to whom it was distributed, then who they sold it to, which is all going to lead to you anyway. The 2nd FFl , used when you sold the gun, is there only to verify 1) that you didn't own it and didn't have it, and 2) who it went to after that.
Now, they contact you...... your gun was "used" in a crime. Now, you only hope that FFL is still around, willing to back it up with their records, and can show who it went to.
If not, then.... it never did any good in the first place.
Heck, I've done that before...
The walking off part, I mean.
To make many of you feel better, I am a stickler for following the law.
I always make absolutely sure that the person I'm selling to is not known to me to be prohibited, and when buying, I make absolutely sure that the seller has no reason to believe I am prohibited.
Being such a straight-down-the line, by-the-book legal guy has never failed me.
Have fun with it.
p
You guys seem very naive about what happens when law enforcement really wants answers. Think about your position if a gun traced to you had been used in an incident in Texas in 1963. Think your bluster about lawyers and your smug statements that you obeyed the law would have kept you out of trouble?
Jim
Jim
Please note that I cannot know that you are prohibited and sell you a firearm.
If I don't know, I don't know...
When buying, I don't tell the seller that I am prohibited.
There ya have it.
It's fairly simple.
Please, what are you implying? Waterboarding?
My "position" is that I am not guilty.
Lawyers and abiding by the law are not "bluster", pal.
What a joke.
p
You are rahter pitiful.
The only thing you need to say to law enforcement is "I want my attorney."
They are prohibited from asking you any more questions at that point.
It would not have worked in 1963.
Miranda v. Arizona was decided in 1966.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana