So what are people in Colorado doing about FTF Background checks

[Brian Pfleuger]

Sounds like the dealers needs an agreement that all parties sign that says something like:

Dealer agrees to conduct NICS check on Purchaser B for sale of Firearm X from Seller A. Purchaser B understands that a denial from NICS will result in Dealer's inability to transfer the Firearm X to Purchaser B. Seller A understands that should Purchaser B be denied by NICS, Dealer will be required to conduct a NICS check on Seller A in order to transfer the Firearm X back to Seller A. Seller A agrees that should Seller A also be denied by NICS, Dealer will purchase Firearm X from Seller A for $Y

The dealer should basically set the sale price at about 50% of the retail value. He gets good deals, in the rare event of a double denial, and he discourages sellers who know they would be denied from coming to him.

 

[LewSchiller]

That's one way - but he'd have to draft that...have it gone over by his legal counsel...have it signed...keep it on file forever and then run the BGC with all of its paperwork all... for $10.

 

[carguychris]

The dealer should basically set the sale price at about 50% of the retail value.

That's one way - but he'd have to draft that...have it gone over by his legal counsel...have it signed...keep it on file forever and then run the BGC with all of its paperwork all... for $10.

In addition to what Lew said, what happens when Johnny the Denied Seller decides that Joe Ed's Gun & Junk Shop has ripped him off with this arrangement, and convinces his sister, the headline-grabbing DA of Podunk County, to bring Joe Ed up on charges that he violated CRS 18-12-112(2)(d) on the grounds that the other 50% of the retail value constitutes a "fee... exceed[ing] ten dollars"?

Remember... Joe Ed may be prohibited from possessing a firearm for up to 2 years after violating CRS 18-12-112, effectively putting him out of the gun business.

Speaking of being put out of the gun business, what if the gun is a Krieghoff Luger, and Joe Ed cleaned out his entire piggy bank paying the first half?

I agree with Lew; if I were a CO FFL, I would find the CBI website statement regarding consignments to be cold comfort, as the CO Revised Statutes (presumably) don't address non-returnable consignments.

If I were a CO FFL, I also wouldn't touch these transfers with the proverbial 3.05m pole. The risk-benefit analysis just doesn't stack up.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't see that happening. The negotiation for the price of the gun is completely separate. It's not like the dealer would say "Because this is a private sale and I can only charge you $10, I'm only going to pay you 50% of the fair price to make up for it." He's going to negotiate the price he's willing to pay for the gun, just like he negotiates the price of every other gun that he buys from a private party... which is probably little more than 50% of retail.

 

[orangello]

It seems like this situation would be easier for all concerned if there were a way for a seller to run a background check on a buyer through an online service, perhaps even an app on a mobile device. Of course, following this line of thought, I would have to wonder why the ATF won't allow public access to their records of stolen firearms to reduce the number of stolen firearms being sold on the secondary market.

Because the boss likes holding all the cards, that's why.

 

[kkb]

I hope you'll forgive an aside here.

It seems those buyback programs are having a problem complying with this law! The troubles they are running into is the cost of transfers and getting the
equipment set up at a convenient locations.

http://www.denverpost.com/colorado/ci_23721182/gun-buyback-canceled-over-new-colorado-gun-laws

 

[Tom Servo]

It seems like this situation would be easier for all concerned if there were a way for a seller to run a background check on a buyer through an online service

Unfortunately, making any of the process easy is counter to the point of laws like this. Ever since the NFA, the antis have realized that encumbrances like permitting and taxes can have nearly as much of a chilling effect on gun ownership as outright bans.

The troubles they are running into is the cost of transfers and getting the equipment set up at a convenient locations.

That's what we call unintended consequences.

 

[44 AMP]

the law of unintended consequences..or the unintended consequences of the law?

And, are they so unintended?

As I read it, While I found requirements for the seller to obtain a back ground check, on the buyer, through an FFL, I find no requirement for the FFL to DO the background check.

If they do "obtain a background check", the FFL has to provide a copy of it to both seller and buyer AND can only charge $10 for this service.

SO, we have a govt mandated fixed price, and a requirement for the seller to have it done before they can transfer the gun, BUT no requirement for the dealer to do it for a private sale.

Dealers must, by law, lose money on the check, leaving completely aside liability issues, that alone is enough to stop dealers from doing the checks if they are not required by law to do them.

Net result, no legal way for private sale of guns. Perhaps it was not so unintended after all?

 

[LewSchiller]

Bingo!
But it is entirely possible that the people who wrote this crap didn't foresee a problem. We are talking about people on par with our beloved Congresswoman Diana DeGette who said, regarding magazines,

"These are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

These are the same people who passed a law banning High Capacity magazines. That law also banned virtually all magazines because they equated a removable base plate with the ability to expand the capacity of the magazine. That was just recently addressed by the state AG.

They've - by and large - never operated in the real world. It's not a stretch to say that they believed they were being accommodating by pegging the fee at $10. Heck - all the dealer has to do is enter the data and wait for an answer. Besides it will bring people into their store. It's a win-win...in their eyes.

No clue. It's like having your state and therefore your life run by a cabal of third grade teachers and strident 17 year old girls.

But then we must remember that Bloomberg threw a bunch of money at Magpul's lobbyist firm and hired them away just when Magpul needed them the most. So there were nefarious forces at work as well.



No matter where you live be vigilant. The people behind these laws are heading your way.

 

[0351A]

Well, doing a simple background check is easy. Just type "cbi background check" in Google. The first result is the website. It costs almost seven bucks and is done pretty quickly. The question of course is whether that qualifies for weapons sales. That is what I have used for several jobs, and it apparently lists arrest records, though I don't have one so I haven't seen it listed.

 

[44 AMP]

Having a website that does "background checks" would be useful for an employer (assuming its accuracy is unquestionable), but might not qualify for firearms transfers.

Lists of arrests (or even just one) might give you an indication of the person's character, or temperament, BUT is it CONVICTIONS that matter in determining if someone is a prohibited person.

Are those on the website?

you or I might decline to sell to someone with an arrest history, its our choice. We are required to refuse a sale to a prohibited person, and it is conviction of a crime in the listed category(s) that determine that, NOT arrests.

 

[carguychris]

Well, doing a simple background check is easy. Just type "cbi background check" in Google. The first result is the website. It costs almost seven bucks and is done pretty quickly. The question of course is whether that qualifies for weapons sales.

There's no question; it doesn't qualify.

The CO statute plainly requires a licensed gun dealer transfer including the standard NICS/CBI background check as prescribed by state law.

 

[Strafer Gott]

I think it's plain that the standard 4473 NICS checks aren't happening, and it's also plain what the real intent is. The real question is what can be done about this nasty state of affairs. How do you get this thing rectified, if no one in government cares to listen?

 

[AF FAL]

Stumbled on this post looking for dealers that are actually sticking to the $10 rule. You see, these laws only affect those inclined to follow the law. While I don't agree with the law, I am inclined to follow the law, and this one I am following just to prove in my own mind how much of a miserable failure it really is.

That said, I have done a FTF sale with the required BGC since the law went into effect. It is near impossible to find a dealer that will touch these transfers, let alone stick to the $10(transfer fee) + $10(BGC) pricing set forth in the law. I did manage to find one, they tried saying it was $25 over the phone, however when I pointed out their website stating it was $10 they accepted the $10, then immediately changed the website to say $25, thus violating the law anyway.

I also contacted the CBI on how exactly this is supposed to happen, as I was concerned about having to pay another BGC fee if the buyer was denied. The CBI officer said the FFL does not enter the firearm in their book until they have received an approval for the transfer, so the firearm never really leaves your possession until the BGC is approved and the FFL must enter it in their log. The dealer I used for my transaction seemed to understand this process just fine, and had independently verified it with CBI. Yes, the dealer must still include the serial # of the intended transfer on the 4473 during the paperwork process, but this does not constitute a transfer according the the AG.

Having worked for more than one FFL and done entries in the log, and conducted multiple BGC I find it odd that any FFL would say it isn't worth their time. Heck, before the law went into effect I was getting $10 transfers anyway from a few dealers, now it isn't worth their time? The whole process on the part of the FFL takes roughly 3 or 4 minutes of ACTUAL work. Extrapolated out, that is still $150 an hour at the $10 mandated fee cap.

Now is a time when we need MORE gun owners in our ranks. And no matter what the anti's do to try to impede that from happening, we as the gun community need to do whatever it takes to make our numbers grow. Sure the law is stupid, couldn't agree more that it will serve no purpose other than to hamper the law abiding while falling flat on it's "advertised" purpose of affecting criminals in any way. But how many would be first time lawful gun owners trying to go about this the legal way will miss out because we as the gun community succumbed to the anti's tactics, and whine "it isn't worth our time"? Maybe we need to think of the big picture rather than whine about the brush strokes until we can get the law repealed.

Just my $.02 worth

 

[Aguila Blanca]

All of the gun shops I frequent have adopted similar policies. I am unaware of any way for 2 citizens to do a CBI BGC without an FFL holder.

Our brilliant Colorado legislators have written and enacted some of the most poorly thought out and worded laws ever conceived.

If their intent was to reduce the number of face-to-face transfers, it would seem to be working rather splendidly.

I need to look into this as well, as my father informed me that his firearms will be willed to me, we were discussing how to make that work under these terrible laws.

You're already out of the woods. Firearms that are inherited as a bequest are exempt from federal laws regarding transfers through FFLs. The executor can just hand 'em over. It appears the new CO law follows that philosophy:

(6) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO:
(a) A TRANSFER OF AN ANTIQUE FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C.
SEC. 921(a) (16), AS AMENDED, OR A CURIO OR RELIC, AS DEFINED IN 27CFR
478.11, AS AMENDED;
(b) A TRANSFER THAT IS A BONA FIDE GIFT OR LOAN BETWEEN
IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS,
CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS, GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS,
FIRST COUSINS, AUNTS, AND UNCLES;
(c) A TRANSFER THAT OCCURS BY OPERATION OF LAW OR BECAUSE
OF THE DEATH OF A PERSON FOR WHOM THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEROR
IS AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ESTATE OR A TRUSTEE OF A TRUST
CREATED IN A WILL;
(d) A TRANSFER THAT IS TEMPORARY AND OCCURS WHILE IN THE HOME OF THE UNLICENSED TRANSFEREE IF: ...

 

[Tom Servo]

If their intent was to reduce the number of face-to-face transfers, it would seem to be working rather splendidly.

Honestly, I don't think it was the intent, but it's certainly an unintended consequence.

This is what happens when people pass legislation in the heat of the moment because they feel compelled to "do something." When people pull the guilt & shame card on us for defeating the post-Sandy Hook federal proposals, this situation is a good example to give them.

 

[carguychris]

I need to look into this as well, as my father informed me that his firearms will be willed to me, we were discussing how to make that work under these terrible laws.

Firearms that are inherited as a bequest are exempt from federal laws regarding transfers through FFLs.

While I believe that Aguila is 100% correct regarding transfers of firearms, be aware that the new law (HB 13-1224) regarding large-capacity magazines (LCM's) does NOT contain such language.

As I read the new law, a person receiving one or more LCM's after the effective date is instantaneously guilty of a misdemeanor under 18-12-302(1) CRS, regardless of how he or she got the LCM(s). IMHO the law plainly allows him or her to transfer the magazine(s) to one of the entities allowed to possess them in 18-12-302(3)- in short, FFL's, LE, military, and gov't agencies- but this does not help the person before the transfer occurs.

Hopefully the CO legislature or the courts will address the issue fairly, and soon. Until that point, my not-so-legal IANAL advice to persons inheriting LCM's is "Call An Attorney". [EDIT TO ADD: I imagine there must be CO case law addressing instances where people inherited contraband without foreknowledge, but I don't know anything about this topic.]

 

[doofus47]

Personally, I've not sold anything locally since. And when I sell online, I specify no sales to california nor colorado nor ny. As much as I might want to sell something, I refuse to have my buyer donate an extra $10 to stupidity. Plus there's the additional bs for me if the buyer is rejected by the BGC.

If anyone wants to know, I feel safer....

 

[carguychris]

Personally, I've not sold anything locally since. And when I sell online, I specify no sales to california nor colorado nor ny.

doofus47, are you a CO resident?

I don't believe that the law affects transfers that occur from an out-of-state FFL, to a CO FFL, and thence to a CO resident, provided that everything is conducted as prescribed by federal law.* As I read it, the law applies only to "...any person who is not a licensed gun dealer... [18-12-112(1)(a) and 18-12-112(2)(a) CRS, emphasis mine].

IOW if a CO resident buys a gun on GB, and the out-of-state seller ships via his/her FFL to a CO FFL (which is usually the cheapest and easiest way to lawfully ship a handgun anyway), no laws are broken* and the $10 nonsense doesn't apply. Hence, I see no good reason for an out-of-state seller to refuse to sell to CO.*

In fact, it's been my prediction since the law was passed that it's ironically going to cause an increase in GB and Armslist traffic to and from CO, as the law greatly limits the lawful venues for in-state sales of used guns. CO buyers may have to go out-of-state to find that scarce used gun they want, and many CO sellers will likely choose to sell out-of-state to access a larger pool of potential buyers. These factors may be exacerbated by CO FFL's who are now likely charge more for used guns and give less on trade-ins due to lessened price competition.

Additionally, I don't believe that this law affects long gun transfers to and from CO residents conducted at an out-of-state FFL. I cannot find anything in CO law prohibiting CO residents from accepting long guns from an out-of-state FFL; CO experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.

*DISCLAIMER: These statements assume that no LCM's are involved...

 

[doofus47]

carguychris

IOW if a CO resident buys a gun on GB, and the out-of-state seller ships via his/her FFL to a CO FFL (which is usually the cheapest and easiest way to lawfully ship a handgun anyway), no laws are broken* and the $10 nonsense doesn't apply.

Yes, I"m in the conflicted state of Colorado. I've bought two handguns off of GB since July. I've used two local FFLs. Both charged me an additional $10. Unfortunately, local FFLs seem to think the rule applies.

I was just pointing out (in a poorly written way) that as with "no sales to Cali/NY", I won't sell locally either via GB or Armslist, since I don't believe in the new system.

It might increase sales from out of state, simply because the old system of trading with your buddies on a whim or buying from friends or cousins at the range or family reunion is now verboten.

....or maybe there's no good way to measure how many transactions are happening on a tailgate. Which was the point that I made as I wrote to my (and other) Colorado legislators: "if this often-quoted '40% of transactions are 'off book' sales between private citizens' is true, then we (coloradans) do about 140K of private transactions a year. If the number of felonious firearm use is as low as it is in colorado [here I would quote a figure that I don't remember off the top of my head at this moment], then we don't have a problem that requires a universal background check law."

I haven't found anyone in the legislature who likes it when you point out they're solving a problem that doesn't exist.