FFL transfers for all good standing citizens and gun shows

[Texasrpbrock]

Please don't flame me.monly asking this from an educational point of view. I'm just curious if this is feasible or if it tramples 2ndA rights in any way?

When I purchase a firearm, I walk in with my CHL, pay the price and leave with my newly purchased firearm. So if a good standing citizen with no CHL has to do the waiting period and then if background checks out comes and picks up his firearm.

Couldn't the gov. Work the same way and allow individuals who want to sell their firearms to their neighbor, friend, etc., go find a local FFL with a reasonable transfer fee and handle the transfer from person to person? Would this increase State revenue and also keep the original owner from being responsible if something tragic went wrong? I've sold firearms over state lines using a FFL to send the firearm to the buyers FFL in the past. And I've sold firearms in the past to local CHL holders that I personally knew like I'm sure many other here have.

So in theory, couldn't the gun show loop be altered by having FFLs on site that would offer a service to transfer and do the paperwork for a nominal fee at a gun show? Wouldn't this address the "getting in the wrong hands" issue? When we buy our firearms the Powers to be on the other side of that phone determine if we are legally capable of of allowing the sale. So I would think if the loophole issue is such a problem in this country, why or why would we not endorse a plan like this. I would pay a FFL service fee of $10-$20 dollars to make sure my butt was cleared and the future owner was clear to make the purchase. Maybe the FFL agent could hold the firearm until everything clears at an additional fee. If it was to make gun purchases safer and easier, I myself would do it.

Can someone in the know explain why this would be a bad or good idea? It seems like a way to add more commerce to Texas. And if other states could create a universal background check like we have in Texas it just seems to me like it would make a lot of the anti's happy and we could officially say gun show loop closed. I'm very reluctant to purchase from an individual I don't know in the first place no matter how good the deal is.

Thanks and looking forward to your comments. Like I said, I would just like to know for educational purposes so please don't think I'm all about gun control. I'm about people control. And if it worked maybe at some point it could become nation wide for states that recognize our CHL and we recognize theirs. No for NYC and IL and the other gun hating states but I'd love to be in AZ, TN, KT, OK and get to come home with my firearm I just bought in one of those states without having to send it to a FFL if this was ever a reality. Or is this really treading on 2A rights? Has this been brought up in the past?

Please educate me. Thanks for your responses in advance.

[Andrew]

Won't work that way. The FFL would have to buy the gun, do the paperwork to satisfy BATFE and the sell the gun and do the NICS and fill out a 4473. You are talking about a lot of someones time for $10.
Here's the BATFE memo advising FFLs on the Presidents proposal, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; once again a federal mandate with no funding.
And yes, this was sent out within hours of the Presidents speech, quick work by any standard.

[Texasrpbrock]

So in point, it would require a ton of paperwork making the transfer process very costly and involve a lot of people that would need to be paid for ther services. Okay then, I'm content to keep what we already have in place. Don't want to end up paying 4-5 times the amount to get the paperwork done unless it was maybe 10k Barrett BMG.

Thanks for the reply.
Texasrpbrock

[AEA]

Won't work that way. The FFL would have to buy the gun, do the paperwork to satisfy BATFE and the sell the gun and do the NICS and fill out a 4473. You are talking about a lot of someones time for $10.
Here's the BATFE memo advising FFLs on the Presidents proposal, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; once again a federal mandate with no funding.
And yes, this was sent out within hours of the Presidents speech, quick work by any standard.

Not true. FFL's currently "Receive" (NOT Buy) guns bought by individuals online and when received, they enter them into their book. They have control then. They simply "Transfer" (NOT Sell) to the purchaser by doing the 4473 and call in NICS check. If all good they complete the transaction.

Most Texas FFL's do this now for 10-20 bux for CHL holders and others (LEO's, etc) and there is no call to NICS required for CHL holders.

As long as it remains that there is no call for CHL holders, there is no change to what they are doing now for us.

[Excaliber]

The two most likely effects of this rule would be:

1. It (like NY's background checks to buy ammunition) will be a great starting point to compile a national registry of who owns guns. It's not necessary to know which guns - just who owns any guns. Confiscation will cover all. A list of where to find them would come in mighty handy. Does anyone think that "Fast'n Furious Holder" and the lawless Obama administration aren't keeping permanent records of NICS checks now?

2. The numbers and prices of guns sold privately without background checks will go through the roof.

[Ericstac]

I can pretty much guarantee that the Obama supporter out there slanging dope will not use an FFL to sell his gat to his homie. He can barely spell FFL.

These new Obama laws are awesome.

[Andrew]

Won't work that way. The FFL would have to buy the gun, do the paperwork to satisfy BATFE and the sell the gun and do the NICS and fill out a 4473. You are talking about a lot of someones time for $10.
Here's the BATFE memo advising FFLs on the Presidents proposal, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; once again a federal mandate with no funding.
And yes, this was sent out within hours of the Presidents speech, quick work by any standard.

Not true. FFL's currently "Receive" (NOT Buy) guns bought by individuals online and when received, they enter them into their book. They have control then. They simply "Transfer" (NOT Sell) to the purchaser by doing the 4473 and call in NICS check. If all good they complete the transaction.

Most Texas FFL's do this now for 10-20 bux for CHL holders and others (LEO's, etc) and there is no call to NICS required for CHL holders.

As long as it remains that there is no call for CHL holders, there is no change to what they are doing now for us.

If that's true great. I read the info at the bottom off the first page that directs FFLS to acquire, receive and record the firearm. Without buying the gun how do they establish control when dealing with non-licensees?

[olafpfj]

So in point, it would require a ton of paperwork making the transfer process very costly and involve a lot of people that would need to be paid for ther services. Okay then, I'm content to keep what we already have in place. Don't want to end up paying 4-5 times the amount to get the paperwork done unless it was maybe 10k Barrett BMG.

Thanks for the reply.
Texasrpbrock

This is already how it is done in California. You need to fill out a form 4473 for every firearm being transferred and pay a transfer fee to the state. The FFL also charges a transfer fee and it is up to them how much that is. You only pay one transfer fee for long gun transfers, no matter how many, but you must pay a separate fee for each individual handgun. I believe the fee is $25 to the state and most FFL's charge $25 as well. Many FFL's will waive their fee if you are selling a firearm through their store on consignment as an incentive to use them. On top of all these financial and paperwork hurdles you still have to wait 10 days to pick up the firearms from the FFL. If you wait too long and 30 days pass since you filled out the paperwork, the paperwork expires, you forfeit all fees and you get to start all over again...

Annoying as all get out but it hasn't really slowed anyone down in California.

[Wes]

According to this interview the NRA suggested something along these lines years back to BATFE and they said they weren't interested in that. Setting up a table for optional nics at reasonable prices wouldn't be a bad thing IMO but what problem does it solve besides being a feel good measure? I've asked Mr Cotton in another thread for more background on the NRAs background on this so hopefully he will chime in.

[Keith B]

FFL's currently "Receive" (NOT Buy) guns bought by individuals online and when received, they enter them into their book. They have control then. They simply "Transfer" (NOT Sell) to the purchaser by doing the 4473 and call in NICS check. If all good they complete the transaction.

This is what's going to potentially bite some of the people who have AR's and AK's on consignment in some of the gun shops. If for some reason they would initiate an instant overnight assault weapons ban, then the store would not be able to legally transfer the firearm back to the rightful owner.

[The Annoyed Man]

So in point, it would require a ton of paperwork making the transfer process very costly and involve a lot of people that would need to be paid for ther services. Okay then, I'm content to keep what we already have in place. Don't want to end up paying 4-5 times the amount to get the paperwork done unless it was maybe 10k Barrett BMG.

Thanks for the reply.
Texasrpbrock

This is already how it is done in California. You need to fill out a form 4473 for every firearm being transferred and pay a transfer fee to the state. The FFL also charges a transfer fee and it is up to them how much that is. You only pay one transfer fee for long gun transfers, no matter how many, but you must pay a separate fee for each individual handgun. I believe the fee is $25 to the state and most FFL's charge $25 as well. Many FFL's will waive their fee if you are selling a firearm through their store on consignment as an incentive to use them. On top of all these financial and paperwork hurdles you still have to wait 10 days to pick up the firearms from the FFL. If you wait too long and 30 days pass since you filled out the paperwork, the paperwork expires, you forfeit all fees and you get to start all over again...

Annoying as all get out but it hasn't really slowed anyone down in California.

And, "California is doin' it" is the BEST reason NOT to do it.

Why should I be required to pay an FFL a fee just to sell something that I bought legally without paying such a fee? Or, why should the buyer have to pay it?

I am categorically opposed to data collection in a private party gun transaction unless either or both parties WANT to do that. But if government is requiring me to give them my information, you can bet that it isn't for MY best interest. People argue, "well the 4473 stays with the seller; it does not go to the government." Maybe so, but the BATFE can demand to see a FFL's 4473 files anytime they want to, and the fact of the matter is, in the event of a sudden national confiscation, BATFE agents are going to walk into gunstores, demand to see the 4473s, grab them all and walk out with them. What's the store owner going to do about it? Shoot a federal agent? I don't think so. Those 4473s exist for that purpose, and that one alone. They supposedly are an alternative to registration, but they actually constitute de-facto registration because the records are available to the feebs anytime they want to see them.

IF I had ever purchased or sold a firearm by private transaction, I would MUCH prefer to leave the gummint out of it. They are NOT your friend, and all of this is about controlling US, not controlling guns. Resistance to that control is the right thing to do.

[AEA]

Won't work that way. The FFL would have to buy the gun, do the paperwork to satisfy BATFE and the sell the gun and do the NICS and fill out a 4473. You are talking about a lot of someones time for $10.
Here's the BATFE memo advising FFLs on the Presidents proposal, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2013/ ... iduals.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; once again a federal mandate with no funding.
And yes, this was sent out within hours of the Presidents speech, quick work by any standard.

Not true. FFL's currently "Receive" (NOT Buy) guns bought by individuals online and when received, they enter them into their book. They have control then. They simply "Transfer" (NOT Sell) to the purchaser by doing the 4473 and call in NICS check. If all good they complete the transaction.

Most Texas FFL's do this now for 10-20 bux for CHL holders and others (LEO's, etc) and there is no call to NICS required for CHL holders.

As long as it remains that there is no call for CHL holders, there is no change to what they are doing now for us.

If that's true great. I read the info at the bottom off the first page that directs FFLS to acquire, receive and record the firearm. Without buying the gun how do they establish control when dealing with non-licensees?

They enter it into their "Bound" Book. They have control of it after that and when they do the 4473, that is also recorded in their book to show the disposition of the gun.

If they receive the gun from a non-licensee they take information from their Drivers License to enter into their book. If they receive it from another FFL, they record the FFL's information. If they receive it from a CHL, they enter the CHL information (and confirm with DL).

FYI - Acquire does not necessarily mean Buy. More correctly it should have said "Receive".

[OldCannon]

This is simple. If private parties want to have an FFL manage the transfer, they've ALWAYS been able to do this.

Transfer 1: Seller transfers the firearm to the FFL. FFL charges whatever fee they set. Firearm is recorded in A&D log.
Transfer 2: Buyer acquires the firearm. Buyer completes 4473 and background check if necessary. FFL records in A&D log and charges whatever transfer fee they require.

There is absolutely no guidance from the ATF that changes this matter. This is no more of a precursor to making a national "registry" any more than any other new firearm purchase that is made. There is a custodial chain on new firearms from the manufacturer to the original "non-licensee" that takes the firearm.

People argue, "well the 4473 stays with the seller; it does not go to the government." Maybe so, but the BATFE can demand to see a FFL's 4473 files anytime they want to, and the fact of the matter is, in the event of a sudden national confiscation, BATFE agents are going to walk into gunstores, demand to see the 4473s, grab them all and walk out with them. What's the store owner going to do about it? Shoot a federal agent? I don't think so.

Well, that's confiscation by force. That can happen at ANY time, can't it? Right now, if an ATF agent wanted to collect up my A&D logs and 4473's (outside of a normal inspection), they better show me a search warrant. More importantly, they're just stacks of paper. If the ATF suddenly started "raiding" FFLs, you can be certain that a LOT of dealers are going to suffer "catastrophic administrative breakdown" and suddenly have issues about misplaced paperwork, etc. You should give us more credit, we're on the front line between federal overreach and protecting the rights of citizens, and I GUARANTEE you that every FFL I know will do whatever they legally can to protect those rights. There won't be any shootouts either. The best way to guard against bureaucracy is with bureaucracy

Those 4473s exist for that purpose, and that one alone. They supposedly are an alternative to registration, but they actually constitute de-facto registration because the records are available to the feebs anytime they want to see them.

No, the A&D log does that, it is the chain of custody. The 4473 is a structured document to determine whether the non-licensee certifies they can legally own the items they are acquiring. And a fed can't just walk in and say "I want to see the 4473 for Mr. Jones" without a warrant. Generally speaking, the ATF is WAY too understaffed for that stuff anyway. Most times that stuff happens, it's a trace request on a firearm from the local police, we cooperate with those requests all the time.

[fickman]

Here's a hypothetical example:

I own a Springfield XD subcompact .40.
My neighbor owns a Springfield XD compact .40.
My hands are too big for the subcompact, I want a slightly larger gun.
My neighbor has trouble concealing his gun and wants something slightly smaller.
We decide they're worth about the same and we'll do an even swap.

In the beginning, we both owned one firearm. In the end, we both owned one firearm. Why do we need the government involved? In fact, involving them can lead to some bad outcomes.

In the OP's scenario, we would need two background checks or FFL transfers to complete this transaction.

Suppose the feds showed up and wanted proof that we did a background check and FFL transfer. I need paperwork. Or the FFL needs the paperwork. Or BATFE needs the paperwork. It's not enough for them to know I have a gun, they have to know which guns I have to enforce this law.

The ONLY way to enforce a background check for all private sales is to create a full gun registry.

That's not acceptable for most of us.

[OldCannon]

[quote="fickman"
That's not acceptable for most of us.[/quote]

I'd say it's not acceptable to all of us on this forum.

However, I don't see this happening, ever, in Texas. It's already required in CA, PA, and NY.