FFL won’t hold my firearm anymore.

[raftman]

I don't have experience working for an FFL so maybe I'm off base but on the question of holding or not, I think one should consider it from the FFL's side. What happens in this scenario?:

-Seller sells $900 gun to buyer, leaves with the money.
-Buyer goes into queue for 4 days.
-Seller has already spent the money and can't return it even if they wanted to.
-Buyer fails BGC.
-Is the seller legally obligated to return the money?
-FFL has headache of angry guy who is out $900 and can't take possession of gun and a seller who can't/won't return money.
-Law enforcement probably has to get involved in some capacity.

I could understand why the FFL might take the stance that nothing changes hands until and approval.

 

[arakboss]

I don't have experience working for an FFL so maybe I'm off base but on the question of holding or not, I think one should consider it from the FFL's side. What happens in this scenario?:

-Seller sells $900 gun to buyer, leaves with the money.
-Buyer goes into queue for 4 days.
-Seller has already spent the money and can't return it even if they wanted to.
-Buyer fails BGC.
-Is the seller legally obligated to return the money?
-FFL has headache of angry guy who is out $900 and can't take possession of gun and a seller who can't/won't return money.
-Law enforcement probably has to get involved in some capacity.

I could understand why the FFL might take the stance that nothing changes hands until and approval.

No the seller does not have to return the money. The seller could return the money but would have to do a background check to get the gun back. Otherwise buyer will have to work it out with the FFL.

If buyer is denied he is not likely to raise a big stink with the FFL.

 

[drstrangelove]

It would seem best if the BRC starts and finishes, with or without proceed, before money changes hands. Buyer can give the seller a refundable deposit, but the gun remains with seller until proceed. Would this be legal? Would this be acceptable to everyone?

 

[arakboss]

The current system of the FFL holding the firearm works fine. It is rare that it presents a problem. If I am buying a gun from someone, I would prefer the FFL holds on to it rather than the buyer.

 

[ma96782]

RE : Delays with BGCs.

Thanks to the Govt. (read as : stupid Politicians and some stupid Voters) both parties now gets to visit the FFL twice. Where as, one visit would have been enough. But then, as some of us may remember......the good old days, of FTF (non-FFL involvement).

Cough, cough.....
What about the BGC?

Yeah. I bet that some people will actually feel safer and will sleep better at night KNOWING that I needed to wait for APPROVAL for my 14th firearm.

Rrrrrright......
May I have permission to exercise my RIGHTS? Well......you'll also need to pay us a fee (for the privilege). Yeah.....PROGRESS? Oh and never mind......that spent you time and you traveled X miles to get to the FFL's place of business (twice).

Aloha, Mark

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Another sad byproduct of these BS laws in this state.

Which most of the same FFLs didn't lift a finger to oppose. No sympathy.

Customer acquisition cost is something most small businesses don't pay enough attention to. Doing private party transfers is a way to get new customers through the door for the first time for free. Customer service is worth something on both sides of the deal.

 

[Mikej]

Which most of the same FFLs didn't lift a finger to oppose. No sympathy.

Customer acquisition cost is something most small businesses don't pay enough attention to. Doing private party transfers is a way to get new customers through the door for the first time for free. Customer service is worth something on both sides of the deal.

That's what I always thought?

 

[FireArm]

i call BS, hes upset about getting a gun that then is free to him? thats all that is happening. that place has been shady, and now continues to be more shady. good to know, I would not be doing any private party transfers there ever again, I think that is their goal with this new policy.

 

[drstrangelove]

The current system of the FFL holding the firearm works fine. It is rare that it presents a problem. If I am buying a gun from someone, I would prefer the FFL holds on to it rather than the buyer.

That works if the FFL will play ball; if they put it into their books as inventory however, they would need to BRC the seller to give it back if Denial occurs... The whole process is messy and makes an argument for things not discussed on NWFA.

 

[raftman]

No the seller does not have to return the money. The seller could return the money but would have to do a background check to get the gun back. Otherwise buyer will have to work it out with the FFL.

If buyer is denied he is not likely to raise a big stink with the FFL.

Assuming it's true that legally the seller wouldn't be obligated to pay back the money is no guarantee that the buyer will see it that way, and suppose (like in the outlined scenario) the seller no longer even has the money anyways. I do kinda doubt someone that's out several hundred dollars will just brush it off with a "oh well, my bad, no harm no foul!"…and it will have to be a several hundred loss: the FFL isn't gonna pay the buyer retail for it.

 

[FireArm]

Google sees many FFL's.

All but two don't do transfers?.

Bend ffl

www.google.com

Bruce

people are morons when it comes to these sort of things.

 

[FireArm]

I don't have experience working for an FFL so maybe I'm off base but on the question of holding or not, I think one should consider it from the FFL's side. What happens in this scenario?:

-Seller sells $900 gun to buyer, leaves with the money.
-Buyer goes into queue for 4 days.
-Seller has already spent the money and can't return it even if they wanted to.
-Buyer fails BGC.
-Is the seller legally obligated to return the money?
-FFL has headache of angry guy who is out $900 and can't take possession of gun and a seller who can't/won't return money.
-Law enforcement probably has to get involved in some capacity.

I could understand why the FFL might take the stance that nothing changes hands until and approval.

the person put out money for an item they legally cant have, the seller is not required to give back the funds. but you know common decency is not so common any more.

 

[drstrangelove]

the person put out money for an item they legally cant have, the seller is not required to give back the funds. but you know common decency is not so common any more.

Which is why I suggested the new norm should be payment in full occurs when BRC proceed comes in.

 

[raftman]

the person put out money for an item they legally cant have, the seller is not required to give back the funds. but you know common decency is not so common any more.

In principle that's true and makes sense but in practice it probably does mean the FFL does have a headache to deal with.

 

[FireArm]

In principle that's true and makes sense but in practice it probably does mean the FFL does have a headache to deal with.

How so, it's a private party transfer and the buy failed the background. It's not on the FFL at all.

 

[Ginocide]

he said because people are apparently failing background checks and because you have to complete a transfer back to the original owner

That... doesn't make sense to me? If the background check is denied, then the transfer is also denied, so the original owner stays the owner. You woudn't need to "transfer back" the the original owner because legally speaking, the owner never changed.

Another sad byproduct of the BS laws in this state.

Byproduct? Sadly no, this is the laws working as intended, to drown in red tape what they cannot ban outright. Total disarmament and death by 1,000 cuts has always been the goal.

 

[FireArm]

That... doesn't make sense to me? If the background check is denied, then the transfer is also denied, so the original owner stays the owner. You woudn't need to "transfer back" the the original owner because legally speaking, the owner never changed.


Byproduct? Sadly know, this is the laws working as intended, to drown in red tape what they cannot ban outright. Total disarmament and death by 1,000 cuts has always been the goal.

Because he is charging transfer fees to both parties. While the firearm is in his possession, he has to put it on his books, it's his firearm until someone clears a background check to get it.

 

[FireArm]

I'm ready to stop doing Bgc With people who I have already done them with, the state doesn't have a registration system so no gun is directly linked to any person, it's just the last person who had to do a BCG to get the gun. If I give a gun to family then they give it to family and so on there is no trail. And the state isn't even supposed to be keeping the records on bgc's. It's just another tax for what is supposed to be an instant background check and the state failed us in that. No point in using the failed system, you all are my family in one way or another, we all came from Adam and Eve. That makes us all family. I love you Brothers

 

[Xmark1]

I don't have experience working for an FFL so maybe I'm off base but on the question of holding or not, I think one should consider it from the FFL's side. What happens in this scenario?:

-Seller sells $900 gun to buyer, leaves with the money.
-Buyer goes into queue for 4 days.
-Seller has already spent the money and can't return it even if they wanted to.
-Buyer fails BGC.
-Is the seller legally obligated to return the money?
-FFL has headache of angry guy who is out $900 and can't take possession of gun and a seller who can't/won't return money.
-Law enforcement probably has to get involved in some capacity.

I could understand why the FFL might take the stance that nothing changes hands until and approval.

This very scenario happened to me. I was the seller.

 

[raftman]

How so, it's a private party transfer and the buy failed the background. It's not on the FFL at all.

It's not the FFL's fault, but they're the ones left holding the gun and the ones who have to deal with the person they just told "we're sorry but you can't have the gun you've already paid $900 for."