Firearms Laws and Questions

[Nwcid]

If we are going by your link then I sure hope the people of the jury are ones that find it "reasonable" to follow the written law and not rules they add.

 

[Nwcid]

I have been searching to try and find ANY case of someone being charged with "knowingly" selling a gun and not having any luck. Basically every "link" I went to had the same quoting of the law and the same beating of the dead horse we have here. Half follow the law and half want whatever makes them feel good.

The only thing I did come up with is this, <broken link removed> which also adds to the confusion. How about a alien with a state DL? They have valid ID but are still not legal buyers......

 

[fd15k]

I have been searching to try and find ANY case of someone being charged with "knowingly" selling a gun and not having any luck. Basically every "link" I went to had the same quoting of the law and the same beating of the dead horse we have here. Half follow the law and half want whatever makes them feel good.

The only thing I did come up with is this, <broken link removed> which also adds to the confusion. How about a alien with a state DL? They have valid ID but are still not legal buyers......

I actually found a couple of cases that contradict my statement, but I still maintain my opinion it is better to do your best checking out your buyer

Franco v. Bunyard, 547 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1977)
In this case the Arkansas supreme court reverses a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who sold a handgun to a prison escapee, who used the gun th next day to kill hostages as a grocery store he was robbing. The court decides that as the defendants violated the federal Gun Control Act in making the sale, by not requiring the buyer identify himself, and by not making him complete a 4473 form, they were negligent, and that negligence was a legal cause of the shooting.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/franco_v_bunyard.txt

Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (1979)
In this case the Mississippi supreme court rejects a suit brought against a store that sold a 20 year old a handgun, which he later used to kill his ex-girlfriend. The court finds that the fact that the sale may have been illegal was not a proximate cause of the death, the intentional act of the killer was the cause, and not the store's negligence in selling the gun.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/robinson_v_howard.txt

 

[hermannr]

The LAW...states you must not sell any firearm to a prohibited person,,,"...knowing them to be such...". What is A prohibited person is set out in the law. like must not be convicted of a violent felony, have a restraining order, or DV conviction..., on a FTF transaction in OR, they need to be a Resident of OR and 18 years old or older. They DO NOT need to be licensed to drive a car, or have a CHL...that is someone's own requirement, not LAW.

How the seller goes about meeting that requirement is strictly up to him/her. There are no other requirements.

As to the fear of being persecuted (sic) for selling a legal weapon to someone...only if you know they are a prohibited person. All the garbage you hear is just that, garbage. Federal law states you MAY NOT be prosecuted for the actions of something someone else did with a firearm you sold to them...as long as you did not know they were a prohibited person.

Now, for my own personal opinion: IF you have never handled a firearm of any type before...Start with a .22LR, (Marlin, Savage, Mossberg, CZ, Henry, H&R...etc) not an SKS. Join a gun club, get some instruction, shoot enough to get very comfortable with safe handling of the weapon, and be able to accurately "hit the target". (that is what "gun Control" is all about)

Once you are safe and competent with a .22lr...then think about moving on to something else. Just my not so humble opinion.

 

[hermannr]

I actually found a couple of cases that contradict my statement, but I still maintain my opinion it is better to do your best checking out your buyer

Franco v. Bunyard, 547 S.W.2d 91 (Ark. 1977)
In this case the Arkansas supreme court reverses a summary judgment in favor of the defendants, who sold a handgun to a prison escapee, who used the gun th next day to kill hostages as a grocery store he was robbing. The court decides that as the defendants violated the federal Gun Control Act in making the sale, by not requiring the buyer identify himself, and by not making him complete a 4473 form, they were negligent, and that negligence was a legal cause of the shooting.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/franco_v_bunyard.txt

Robinson v. Howard Brothers of Jackson, Inc., 372 So.2d 1074 (1979)
In this case the Mississippi supreme court rejects a suit brought against a store that sold a 20 year old a handgun, which he later used to kill his ex-girlfriend. The court finds that the fact that the sale may have been illegal was not a proximate cause of the death, the intentional act of the killer was the cause, and not the store's negligence in selling the gun.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/robinson_v_howard.txt

If you will note in the "franco v bunyard" case the seller "not making him (the purchaser) complete a 4473"

This requirement is only pertinent to licensed dealers (FFL's). Private sellers are not required by federal law to fill out a 4473. Yes, I would assume that an FFL that sold a weapon without a 4473 could be convicted and loose his FFL minimum.

The Mississippi court is speaking about personal liability...and as I said, there is a federal law (also) that protects the seller...in the case of a legal sale, Mississippi here says, even if the sale was not legal, the seller was not liable.

Private sales are not "licensed" sales, that takes an FFL. Different states have different rules for private sales...and in OR, WA, and ID they state you cannot sell to a prohibited person, define what that prohibited person is, and then say "Knowing them to be such"

This means, if you know the person is an illegal alien, if you know the person is a convicted felon, if you know the person has a restraining order...etc..

The US goes by the assumption of innocence that is "innocent until proven guilty". Simply asking a person "are you a prohibited person and a resident of .." is totally sufficient according to the law. Requiring proof assumes that the person is "guilt of lying unless proven otherwise" Myself, I would take great personal exception to being assumed a lier.

 

[fd15k]

If you will note in the "franco v bunyard" case the seller "not making him (the purchaser) complete a 4473"

This requirement is only pertinent to licensed dealers (FFL's). Private sellers are not required by federal law to fill out a 4473. Yes, I would assume that an FFL that sold a weapon without a 4473 could be convicted and loose his FFL minimum.

The Mississippi court is speaking about personal liability...and as I said, there is a federal law (also) that protects the seller...in the case of a legal sale, Mississippi here says, even if the sale was not legal, the seller was not liable.

Private sales are not "licensed" sales, that takes an FFL. Different states have different rules for private sales...and in OR, WA, and ID they state you cannot sell to a prohibited person, define what that prohibited person is, and then say "Knowing them to be such"

This means, if you know the person is an illegal alien, if you know the person is a convicted felon, if you know the person has a restraining order...etc..

The US goes by the assumption of innocence that is "innocent until proven guilty". Simply asking a person "are you a prohibited person and a resident of .." is totally sufficient according to the law. Requiring proof assumes that the person is "guilt of lying unless proven otherwise" Myself, I would take great personal exception to being assumed a lier.

I maintain that the circumstances of the cases (FFL vs private) are irrelevant, since my statement was about the question of Criminal Negligence being raised when possibly no criminal act was otherwise committed.

 

[Swedish K]

If you will note in the "franco v bunyard" case the seller "not making him (the purchaser) complete a 4473"

This requirement is only pertinent to licensed dealers (FFL's). Private sellers are not required by federal law to fill out a 4473. Yes, I would assume that an FFL that sold a weapon without a 4473 could be convicted and loose his FFL minimum.

I knew a guy (FFL) who had tables at the big Reno gun show. In NV private sales are allowed at gun shows, or at least were a few years back. His buddy had inherited a stack of guns that he had no interest in keeping so he had an adjoining table at the show to "private party" sell them. The FFL was watching the guys table for him while he went to get lunch for them and a customer (read ATF undercover) wanted to buy one of the private party guns. He told the guy it wasn't his table and the guy said he was on a schedule so he wanted to pick it up now full price no haggling. He made the error of accepting cash and getting a copy of the guys state issued fake DL for his buddy. ATF pulled his license but not until after they threatened him to set up other FFLs for stings or be prosecuted beyond having the license pulled. Word got out after 3 others in his circle were busted after he vouched for ATF undercover people. For the next 4-5 years that show was heavily flooded with ATF trying to get people to slip up and turn them to roll on others. In the end, even though it was proven that the gun in question was a private party's weapon the guy lost his license for completing the transaction without running the transaction through his business.
My personal opinion is the guy kinda got what he deserved for setting up others to take a fall regardless of their level of stupidity in not making sure they followed the rules. If he had told them to get bent and not participated in the setups I'd have more issue with his loss of license.

 

[aboveandbeyond]

How do I (resident of Oregon) sell to a friend in Washington? Ship to his FFL- even if it is just across the bridge in Vancouver? can I take the gun(s) to his FFL? Can he take the guns from me in Oregon, drive across the bridge to his FFL?? Thanks for the advice offered-

 

[fd15k]

How do I (resident of Oregon) sell to a friend in Washington? Ship to his FFL- even if it is just across the bridge in Vancouver? can I take the gun(s) to his FFL? Can he take the guns from me in Oregon, drive across the bridge to his FFL?? Thanks for the advice offered-

You can take or ship to his FFL in WA, just double-check that they will be willing to do a transfer for you. No idea about the last one, I think something similar was asked not so long ago.

 

[retiredgal]

I am wondering if anyone can tell me how to give a handgun to a relative in Idaho while I still live here ? As a gift, do I need a FFL ?

If I move to Idaho soon, and then give to him there is it any different ?

Thanks for any informed replies on this .

 

[fd15k]

I am wondering if anyone can tell me how to give a handgun to a relative in Idaho while I still live here ? As a gift, do I need a FFL ?

If I move to Idaho soon, and then give to him there is it any different ?

Thanks for any informed replies on this .

If you are to give it permanently to a person in another state, you would have to go via FFL in that state. Federal law allows to lend firearms to persons you know in other states. If you move to Idaho, then you can transfer it in accordance to Idaho laws - if Idaho doesn't require FFL for FTF, then you can give the firearm directly to your relative.

 

[fd15k]

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons

 

[hermannr]

I am wondering if anyone can tell me how to give a handgun to a relative in Idaho while I still live here ? As a gift, do I need a FFL ?

If I move to Idaho soon, and then give to him there is it any different ?

Thanks for any informed replies on this .

If you do not live in ID and the recipient of the gift does, to legally transfer the pistol you would have to go through an FFL IN IDAHO.

If you live in Idaho, and the person you are gifting the pistol to also lives in ID, you just give it to them, no paperwork of anything required. (this is compliments of the ATF and GCA68 both of which need to be repealed/eliminated IMHO. The requirements are for any pistol that moves between states..the interstate commerce clause)

If you will the pistol to someone in another state, and you die; the person can come to where you live, and just pick it up, no FFL or state residency required.

 

[jordanka16]

Are FTF sales of receivers permitted across state lines? I would not, but since they are not complete firearms I'm not sure.

The part with the serial number on it is considered the firearm, so a pistol slide could be, but a pistol frame could not. An AR upper could be but a lower could not, etc.

 

[Misterbill]

Unless you have "Attorney At Law" after your name, you have no business giving legal advice to anyone. On the matter of self-defense law or firearms law in particular, most LAWYERS won't touch it. They will refer you to a specialist.

This is a VERY complicated area of law with a thousand different variables.

RCW 9.41 covers Washington firearms law in general (there are other state laws which affect Washington).

RCW 9A.16 defined justifiable use of force.

All of the above comes with the caveat that they are affected by case law, not present in the statute. All of them are affected by precedent.

REALLY, I consider myself something of an expert in this area and *I* won't give any definitive answers on this stuff. There are just too many unknowns and variables.

Spouting off laws is easy. Defining how those laws are practiced, how they are interpreted and what it means for any of us is frankly the job of a professional. I personally check out everything with a practicing criminal attorney with wide experience in the area. I would advise anyone reading this thread to do the same and until confirmed, to treat every note on the forum with RE: to laws as highly suspect. No worries. I mean hey, it's only YOUR BUTT!

 

[bdpdx]

Are private party handgun sales between two Oregon residents required to have a background check on the recipient? ORS 166.436 states:

"Prior to transferring a firearm, a transferor other than a gun dealer may request by telephone that the department conduct a criminal background check on the recipient..."​

Generally speaking, the word "may" in legalese means "optional" whereas the word "shall" means "required"

Does anyone know for certain that a background check between private parties (both Oregon residents) is not required?

 

[jordanka16]

Are private party handgun sales between two Oregon residents required to have a background check on the recipient? ORS 166.436 states:

"Prior to transferring a firearm, a transferor other than a gun dealer may request by telephone that the department conduct a criminal background check on the recipient..."​

Generally speaking, the word "may" in legalese means "optional" whereas the word "shall" means "required"

Does anyone know for certain that a background check between private parties (both Oregon residents) is not required?

No, not required, as long as you have no reason to believe the person is not allowed to own firearms. You still could if you wanted, although I've never heard of anyone doing that. Some people require that the other person have a CHL before they will sell to them though, I've never done that but it is nice when they do have one.

 

[hermannr]

Are private party handgun sales between two Oregon residents required to have a background check on the recipient? ORS 166.436 states:

"Prior to transferring a firearm, a transferor other than a gun dealer may request by telephone that the department conduct a criminal background check on the recipient..."​

Generally speaking, the word "may" in legalese means "optional" whereas the word "shall" means "required"

Does anyone know for certain that a background check between private parties (both Oregon residents) is not required?

I cannot believe you quoted the published LAW and do not believe it...In plain ENGLISH...NO...in a FTF transaction in OR, WA, or ID with another resident of your state not known to you to be a disqualified person, you do not need to go through a BGC.

You might also remember, that in English Common Law, and American law, that it is not incumbent that the accused PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. The accuser must prove guilt. BGCs assume you are guilty until proven innocent and are repugnant to American jurisprudence.

 

[bdpdx]

I cannot believe you quoted the published LAW and do not believe it.

It's not that I don't believe it so much as I'm not an attorney and am prudent enough not to have interpreted the law as if I were one.

I did contact my attorney on this just to verify. Here's what he said:

I read the statute the same as you do&#8212;you may but do not have to get a background check. To be absolutely sure, without providing anyone with your name, I called the Oregon Department of State Police (503-378-3720), who directed me to the Portland ATF (503-331-7830), who confirmed that you do not need to do a background check for the in-state private party sale of a GCA (Gun Control Act) firearm, although you have the option to do so by calling the Oregon Department of State Police (503-378-3070). Of course, the person you are selling to must not be otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm (e.g., because they are a felon, mentally disabled, etc.). I'm not sure how you figure that out absent a background check. Nevertheless, both the Portland ATF and I recommend that (1) you have a background check run; and (2) that you fill out a bill of sale, listing the type of gun, its serial number, the date of the sale, etc., signed by both parties, and you keep a copy of the same.
​

 

[hermannr]

It's not that I don't believe it so much as I'm not an attorney and am prudent enough not to have interpreted the law as if I were one.

I did contact my attorney on this just to verify. Here's what he said:

I read the statute the same as you do—you may but do not have to get a background check. To be absolutely sure, without providing anyone with your name, I called the Oregon Department of State Police (503-378-3720), who directed me to the Portland ATF (503-331-7830), who confirmed that you do not need to do a background check for the in-state private party sale of a GCA (Gun Control Act) firearm, although you have the option to do so by calling the Oregon Department of State Police (503-378-3070). Of course, the person you are selling to must not be otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm (e.g., because they are a felon, mentally disabled, etc.). I’m not sure how you figure that out absent a background check. Nevertheless, both the Portland ATF and I recommend that (1) you have a background check run; and (2) that you fill out a bill of sale, listing the type of gun, its serial number, the date of the sale, etc., signed by both parties, and you keep a copy of the same.
​

RECOMMENDED! That is fine, they can RECOMMEND anything they want..it is NOT LAW.