Question for Colorado Gun Law Mavens

L

LewSchiller

New member
Hypothetical Question:
Guy has a collection of over 5,000 guns.
Guy dies
Family member inherits the collection which I believe they can do directly without a BGC.
Family member accepts an offer from a collector to buy the whole lot. The collector isn't an FFL.
Does current Colorado law require a BGC for each and every firearm? Over 5,000 BGC's?
Or does this purchase fall under some sort of U.N.Arms treaty provision? :rolleyes:
 
I know here in Washington state, the probate attorney for a local gun estate required a NICS check on the buyer of the collection, a family friend. No law required it, but he felt it was a good idea. So do I. There was just one check, as it was one transaction. No point in doing an additional 4,999 NICS checks for your 5,000 gun collection sale.
 
[Initial post withdrawn, realized I was incorrect]

I believe that the "One Transaction = One Check" rule applies. However, CO law requires the FFL to conduct the transaction "in the same manner as a sale, rental, or exchange at retail..." [118-12-112(2)(b), C.R.S.]. Therefore, the FFL is required to fill out and retain the Form 4473's, and make bound book entries where applicable.
Tom Servo said:
...I can't imagine any dealer willing to log 5,000 guns in and back out of his books for ten bucks.
Click to expand...
I believe that the fee would be $10 x 5,000 = $50,000(!), but yeah, that's Wrinkle #1. See subsequent post!

Wrinkle #2 is that AFAIK the family member is not permitted to inherit any high-capacity magazines under CO law. If the collection includes any such magazines, I'm honestly not sure what would happen to them. (Curiously, unlike the restrictive laws recently passed in several Eastern states, the CO magazine law does not contain any provisions exempting antique or C&R magazines.)
 
Last edited:
Right - It would not surprise me to learn that this would be considered 5,000 separate transactions.
Hadn't thought about Hi-Caps but indeed - they would not be transferable would they?
 
Hadn't thought about Hi-Caps but indeed - they would not be transferable would they?
Click to expand...
No, they are not, unless the transfer is to one of the entities permitted to own one under 18-12-302(3), C.R.S.- basically LE, military, gov't agencies, manufacturers, and FFL's, and employees thereof who possess the magazines during their employment duties.

The issue is that, as I read it, the law does not clearly address what happens when an "non-permitted" individual comes into ownership of one or more large-capacity magazines by bequest. Although IMHO he or she is clearly allowed to transfer the magazines to one of the above entities, he or she is technically in violation of the law until the transfer occurs.
 
The hypothetical transfer from deceased collection owner to family member could have been done under a Gun Trust which are being promoted here as of late. That might cover the hi-caps. But the sale of the collection to a non-family buyer wouldn't come under that umbrella - or at least I wouldn't think so.
 
If the firearms were owned by a trust, and the family member was named in the trust, then there wouldn't be any transfer at all, the guns would still be owned by the trust.

Conversely, if the deceased was the sole beneficiary of a trust, then the trust would terminate with his death and the firearms would be transferred anyway.
 
Right - but the core of the hypothetical is the sale of the collection to an outside buyer.
How would that look in view of the new Universal BGC law under which we now live here in Colorado.
 
I believe that the fee would be $10 x 5,000 = $50,000
Click to expand...
That would be if 5,000 checks were done individually. If it's one transaction, it's one check. Therefore $10, for who knows how many hours' labor that would be.

This is how Colorado has all but outlawed private sales.
 
Yep. I don't see any way it could practically happen to a private buyer. The lot would have to sell to an FFL to make it even possible.

It's really a lot like liquor. If that were 5,000 bottles of wine it couldn't sell to an individual. It would have to sell to a licensed Wholesaler - who would have to sell to a licensed Retailer - and then it could sell to an individual.
 
That would be if 5,000 checks were done individually. If it's one transaction, it's one check. Therefore $10, for who knows how many hours' labor that would be.
Click to expand...
I realized this a few hours after I wrote that post. A FFL would be skating on thin ice if he or she were to classify this hypothetical 5,000 gun transfer as one transaction for the purposes of making the NICS phone call, but 5,000 different transactions for the purposes of charging the $10 fee. It's either one transaction or 5,000 transactions- it can't be both. I believe that a court would find that the law requires a single $10 fee per transaction.
This is how Colorado has all but outlawed private sales.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, however, that it may be possible to transfer the (hypothetical) long guns at an out-of-state FFL without having to mess with the $10 nonsense. I don't believe that CO restricts its residents from buying long guns out-of-state, but I could be wrong.
 
Tom Servo said:
That would be if 5,000 checks were done individually. If it's one transaction, it's one check. Therefore $10, for who knows how many hours' labor that would be.

This is how Colorado has all but outlawed private sales.
Click to expand...

Is there a law preventing the [person for whom these guns are intended] from giving the FFL a 50,000$ gratuity? Could they work out a contract on the side, in order to make it legally binding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top