Been dealing with a lot BS from Armslist

[Stomper]

The reason is.... the buyer is attempting to defraud the seller of $4,600 by making the claim through the payment service that the buyer never received the purchased goods that were paid for.

Since the items sold were firearms, and the fact that it's an interstate transaction puts it SQUARELY within the jurisdiction of the BATFE, as well as the FBI, and any other relevant jurisdiction such as AG offices in both the State of origin and the State of destination.

If the seller has documented proof that the buyer did in fact receive the purchased firearms via a FFL dealer then submission of said proof will ensure he doesn't get back-charged from PayPal, regardless of their firearms policy or not.

He can however expect (or not be surprised by it) his account to be closed by PayPal once resolution has been completed.

 

[Goosebrown]

PayPal is going to hit you with the no firearms rule. They won't back you up if it's a gun. That's my guess and it's in their TOS.

what I'd suggest is contact the local da in SC and file a fraud complaint. The FFL will have records and the guys license.

Good luck. I hate to see people scammed.

 

[Stomper]

If they play that note, then PP will also hit the "buyer" with the no firearms TOS and not back the buyer either....

 

[RVTECH]

I don't fault PayPal.

I don't either and have use it for years (buying and selling stuff - no guns) with no problems.
I NEVER use it for purchases over a couple hundred dollars.
Firearm - were you aware of the no-firearms policy with Pay Pal?

first time using paypal and last.

Aside from the infraction This was a very large and complicated transaction for a first time use of Pay Pal. Pay Pal takes a little experience and 'tuning' to be able to understand and use it effectively.

 

[justcuz]

The reason is.... the buyer is attempting to defraud the seller of $4,600 by making the claim through the payment service that the buyer never received the purchased goods that were paid for.

Since the items sold were firearms, and the fact that it's an interstate transaction puts it SQUARELY within the jurisdiction of the BATFE, as well as the FBI, and any other relevant jurisdiction such as AG offices in both the State of origin and the State of destination.

If the seller has documented proof that the buyer did in fact receive the purchased firearms via a FFL dealer then submission of said proof will ensure he doesn't get back-charged from PayPal, regardless of their firearms policy or not.

He can however expect (or not be surprised by it) his account to be closed by PayPal once resolution has been completed.

With the utmost respect Stomper, as previously stated, anyone who legitimately uses a credit/debit/or whatever to pay for retail merchandise may challenge the charges - civil contractual law is in effect, not statutory, either Federal or State statutory law!

The sale and it's handling of the sale material met Federal/State mandates through a third party FFL - who I am sure did due diligence and has the appropriate ATF 4473 completed, etc., so what do you propose to Federally or State laws charge the buyer with violating?

Please also consider this fact, the OP's own admission through a posted statement on this public forum, HE RECEIVED payment which is in his pocket/bank/spent, Buyer received their merchandise via sanctioned Federal/State level mandates, end of story!

Again, Stomper, et al., just like any other citizen's payment challenge the 'normal' process is to submit a rebuttal statement to the receiver of funds that there is a payee challenge - for whatever reason, please respond with rebuttal information, if that request is ignored, then the receiver is billed for the funds.

All civil contractual law which unless the transaction was illegal by statutory laws, was handled appropriately.

Stomper, et al., I believe if pressed you will find the OP ignored the initial rebuttal notice from paypal?

 

[DirectDrive]

With the utmost respect Stomper, as previously stated, anyone who legitimately uses a credit/debit/or whatever to pay for retail merchandise may challenge the charges - civil contractual law is in effect, not statutory, either Federal or State statutory law!

The sale and it's handling of the sale material met Federal/State mandates through a third party FFL - who I am sure did due diligence and has the appropriate ATF 4473 completed, etc., so what do you propose to Federally or State laws charge the buyer with violating?

Please also consider this fact, the OP's own admission through a posted statement on this public forum, HE RECEIVED payment which is in his pocket/bank/spent, Buyer received their merchandise via sanctioned Federal/State level mandates, end of story!

Again, Stomper, et al., just like any other citizen's payment challenge the 'normal' process is to submit a rebuttal statement to the receiver of funds that there is a payee challenge - for whatever reason, please respond with rebuttal information, if that request is ignored, then the receiver is billed for the funds.

All civil contractual law which unless the transaction was illegal by statutory laws, was handled appropriately.

Stomper, et al., I believe if pressed you will find the OP ignored the initial rebuttal notice from paypal?

 

[jbett98]

PayPal has the "Gift" option way of transferring funds and that is the only way I would accept payment from a stranger.
It's not refundable and there's no credit card fee. Just make sure the sender doen't mention firearms in a message.

 

[Stomper]

Yeah..... righ? He must work for Capitol One... seen him in those commercials on TV.

 

[DirectDrive]

Yeah..... righ? He must work for Capitol One... seen him in those commercials in TV.

Ah, so he's Jennifer Garner.
I get it now.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Firearm - were you aware of the no-firearms policy with Pay Pal?

I wasn't... until this thread.
oops

PayPal has the "Gift" option

That's the way I always go. I buy much more than sell, but have never had any issues in either direction.

Seems kinda crazy for the buyer to make false claims when there's a third party (the FFL) involved who can easily debunk them.

 

[Dirt Sample]

PayPal can suck, I once sold a Leather Bombers Jacket on Fleabay, and when the guy received it, he filed for a refund from PayPal, saying that it wasn't as described, and that it was actually vinyl. Since I had a no return clause on my listing, they took $350 out of my acccount, and payed him back, AND let him keep the jacket.

 

[DirectDrive]

PayPal can suck, I once sold a Leather Bombers Jacket on Fleabay, and when the guy received it, he filed for a refund from PayPal, saying that it wasn't as described, and that it was actually vinyl. Since I had a no return clause on my listing, they took $350 out of my acccount, and payed him back, AND let him keep the jacket.

Yikes, that's bad.
I had no idea that the return option could backfire like that.
Must be why a lot of them do a 3 day just to cover that base.

 

[FireArm]

The FFL told me to contact the ATF and FBI if paypal tries to stick me with the bill. He said its a fraudulent firearms purchase, and he deals with people who buy firearms and receive them only to try and cancel payment through their bank. Which is basically whats happening here. I setup my paypal account and received the funds, paypal held them for 24hrs per their policy for transactions this large. I had asked for USPS MO but buyer insisted on Paypal. Its a PITA forsure. Dudes a scammer

 

[Kruel J]

With the utmost respect Stomper, as previously stated, anyone who legitimately uses a credit/debit/or whatever to pay for retail merchandise may challenge the charges - civil contractual law is in effect, not statutory, either Federal or State statutory law!

The sale and it's handling of the sale material met Federal/State mandates through a third party FFL - who I am sure did due diligence and has the appropriate ATF 4473 completed, etc., so what do you propose to Federally or State laws charge the buyer with violating?

Please also consider this fact, the OP's own admission through a posted statement on this public forum, HE RECEIVED payment which is in his pocket/bank/spent, Buyer received their merchandise via sanctioned Federal/State level mandates, end of story!

Again, Stomper, et al., just like any other citizen's payment challenge the 'normal' process is to submit a rebuttal statement to the receiver of funds that there is a payee challenge - for whatever reason, please respond with rebuttal information, if that request is ignored, then the receiver is billed for the funds.

All civil contractual law which unless the transaction was illegal by statutory laws, was handled appropriately.

Stomper, et al., I believe if pressed you will find the OP ignored the initial rebuttal notice from paypal?

The "purchaser" acquired the firearms in a fraudulent way. You damn skippy the ATF would be interested.

 

[Diamondback]

Shoulda stuck to your guns, OP. "NO PAYPAL, money order or wire transfer ONLY, no shipment until payment clears."

 

[FireArm]

Shoulda stuck to your guns, OP. "NO PAYPAL, money order or wire transfer ONLY, no shipment until payment clears."

The payment funds cleared, but on Paypal you have 180days to dispute a transaction. which is BS I can understand 30days but six months is a joke. Yep be careful of thr scammers they find a way. Waiting to hear back from P.P. currently hopefully get this wrapped up and close my account with them.

 

[FireArm]

Paypal says they wont be giving the money back to the buyer and it will go back into my account in the next 24-48hrs

 

[Kruel J]

Paypal says they wont be giving the money back to the buyer and it will go back into my account in the next 24-48hrs

Excellent, good on them!

 

[Member 34319]

Damn that was a rough read. @FireArm having met and done business with you this hit a heartstring. You don't deserve this crap man.

It sounds like you have in fact won the attempted scam.

I swore off PayPal recently as well, what a bunch of asshats that company is.

Not that it is your fault, but this is a damn good lesson for everyone here, FTF gun sales only! At an agreeable FFL that is reputable.

 

[Kruel J]

I'd still reach out to the local PD there at very least and let them know what this guy is up to. Who knows who else he might try and pull this on.