FTF Transactions

[RVTECH]

I believe I have this correct but I just want to be sure. FTF transactions can only be made between current Oregon residents right?

Read More

 

[deadeye]

yes

 

[FORKLIFT252]

Yes....I like to get a DL and write down info.
Better yet a CHL....But not necessary.

 

[Redcap]

I believe I have this correct but I just want to be sure. FTF transactions can only be made between current Oregon residents right?

That is correct.

 

[AudibleEnforcer]

Yup. You have to prove they were a current resident and legally able to own a firearm at the time of the transaction to the BEST of YOUR ability. That's why valid chl's work best. You could just ask them, but judges like a paper trail.

 

[pchewn]

Yup. You have to prove they were a current resident and legally able to own a firearm at the time of the transaction to the BEST of YOUR ability. That's why valid chl's work best. You could just ask them, but judges like a paper trail.

Not quite correct. You don't have to PROVE anything (as seller or as buyer). You don't have to look at a license, a CHL, etc. You don't have to write a bill of sale. You cannot proceed with the sale as a buyer (or a seller) if you know that the buyer (or seller) is prohibited. (i.e. Not from the same state, felon, drug-addicted, etc.....)

 

[AudibleEnforcer]

pchewn: Yes, that is correct.

However,

While you don't have to have any paperwork what-so-ever in a ftf firearm transaction in the State of Oregon (which is rad), if the situation ends up in court, you're going to have to PROVE something, hence my use of the word. I guess my ability to prove someone is or is not allowed to possess a firearm is a bit more advanced than others. I personally wouldn't want to stand in court saying, "well, he said he was legit".

If all you have to do is refrain from selling to someone you KNOW who is prohibited from owning a firearm, then how do you KNOW if someone is prohibited from possessing a firearm unless you can PROVE it? He said vs. She said very seldom works out well in court, trust me.

Ultimately, the burden lies on the seller, which is why I do CHL's and check for trackmarks on my bill of sales. (j/k about the trackmarks, but that might be a good idea, come to think of it.)

 

[pchewn]

Ultimately, the burden lies on the seller, which is why I do CHL's and check for trackmarks on my bill of sales. (j/k about the trackmarks, but that might be a good idea, come to think of it.)

No: Ultimately, the burden is on the state to PROVE that A) the buyer (seller) is prohibited from firearms and B) The seller (buyer) KNEW that they were prohibited. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant is NOT GUILTY until proven otherwise.

 

[Malibu38368]

No: Ultimately, the burden is on the state to PROVE that A) the buyer (seller) is prohibited from firearms and B) The seller (buyer) KNEW that they were prohibited. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant is NOT GUILTY until proven otherwise.

I believe AE was referring to the parties to the transfer, not the parties to a prosecution resulting from an illegal transfer. In other words, if you sell a firearm to a felon in the FTF transfer and are later prosecuted for it, "I didn't know he was a felon" is not an affirmative defense.

 

[Kimber Custom]

"I didn't know he was a felon" is not an affirmative defense.

Forgive me for stiring the pot here but why not? Near as I can tell my obligation as a seller is to believe that I'm transfering to an in state resident.

As a gun owner who doesn't want guns in the hands of felons it is in my best interest 'not' to sell to a felon and therefore I may ask for some sort of proof (CHL/background check) but I'm not seeing a legal mandate that says I have to. If the buyer is a felon, as far as I can tell, that's on the buyer (felon in posession).

Just my opinion YMMV

 

[Malibu38368]

I'm not aware of any legal mandate, but the burden lies on the seller, I think, in order to catch someone who knowingly transfers a firearm to someone who shouldn't have one (by which I really mean felon, or other violent type) and later gets caught from successfully pleading ignorance. Even if you sell to a felon (or even just someone from another state), but nonetheless exercise due diligence (for example, you might ask for a CHL and confirm that you're shown one from Multnomah County, but have never actually seen one before and therefore don't know what it actually looks like) then you're probably not going to be prosecuted. If that makes sense.

The buyer has a whole different set of obligations, including not circumventing federal law by knowingly purchasing from an out-of-state seller, or buying a firearm at all if they're a felon.

In short, you [probably] have an affirmative duty to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the person to whom you are selling is a resident of your state and is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

 

[Kimber Custom]

I'm not aware of any legal mandate, but the burden lies on the seller,

Isn't that a contradiction? If there's no legal mandate how can the burden be on the seller?

 

[Nwcid]

I believe I have this correct but I just want to be sure. FTF transactions can only be made between current Oregon residents right?

That is not quite correct. It has to be between residents of the same state.

So an OR resident can only FTF with another OR resident.


The information can be found in the same ATF link I posted in your other post on transfers, ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - Unlicensed Persons

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]

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person's own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

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

Q: May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-State source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser's own State?
A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-State source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's State of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3)]

Red highlights is for the others talking about requirements

 

[Malibu38368]

Isn't that a contradiction? If there's no legal mandate how can the burden be on the seller?

No, no contradiction. You have an affirmative duty to not violate laws with respect to the transfer of a firearm and as with other areas of the law, ignorance is no excuse. You may still inadvertently sell to someone from out of state, but if you check their ID and are given a realistic fake, you're probably OK: there is only so much background checking that a private citizen can realistically engage in.

Quick edit: don't misunderstand, the buyer also has an obligation to ensure that they are buying from someone from their state. It works both ways. I was speaking with the scenario where someone who can't legally buy a firearm from you attempts to do so.

 

[Nwcid]

There is NO responsibility on the sellers part to be sure. There is no requirement to check ID, some people dont have ID and this does not make them unable to buy a firearm. The law literally says...."if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law".

No one has been claiming ignorance. Say I have a gun for sale and put an ad in the local paper. I get a call from a guy that says he wants it and will give me what I am asking and we make arrangements to meet. He shows up and gives me cash, I give him gun and there is no reason to to "if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law" and the deal is done. Now if during the conversation he is acting sketchy, or says things that might lead me to believe he can not buy one at an FFL, he has out of state plates on his rig, ect and I sell it anyhow then I would be guilty of breaking the law it if he is from out of state or can not legally possess a firearm.

 

[Just Jim]

Yes but, if the person is from out of state and has a dealers lic you may sell the gun to them. However you must know that states transfer policy and if that dealler is legal to own the type of weapon you are selling. ie is he from Commiefornia where they can't have certian guns.

If you lived in Vancouver Washington and wanted to sell a gun at the Portland gun show then you could sell face to face to any lic dealer or pay a dealer to do a transfer if the states effected allow those guns to be transfered. Washington isn't part of America so they are not allowed NFA weapons in a purchase today.

jj

 

[Malibu38368]

There is NO responsibility on the sellers part to be sure. There is no requirement to check ID, some people dont have ID and this does not make them unable to buy a firearm. The law literally says...."if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law".

No one has been claiming ignorance. Say I have a gun for sale and put an ad in the local paper. I get a call from a guy that says he wants it and will give me what I am asking and we make arrangements to meet. He shows up and gives me cash, I give him gun and there is no reason to to "if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law" and the deal is done. Now if during the conversation he is acting sketchy, or says things that might lead me to believe he can not buy one at an FFL, he has out of state plates on his rig, ect and I sell it anyhow then I would be guilty of breaking the law it if he is from out of state or can not legally possess a firearm.

Correct.

But say you do this, and he happens to be a felon. And he happens to be buying your firearm so that he can use it in the commission of a crime. You don't know any of this, and you're probably shielded from accomplice liability. However, he gets caught and gives you up as the guy who sold him the firearm. Now you have an overzealous AUSA trying to to make a name for himself by going after you. You probably come through this OK, because you're right, the law doesn't require checks.

But do you really want to go through that? It's a CYA thing, and it wouldn't take a lot for a creative prosecutor to point out just a couple things that should've given you "reasonable cause." There's also a factual question about when someone "should have known" this-or-that. I don't much like that state of affairs, but that's how it is. My fault for being less than clear in the point I was trying to make.

 

[Nwcid]

Yes but, if the person is from out of state and has a dealers lic you may sell the gun to them. However you must know that states transfer policy and if that dealler is legal to own the type of weapon you are selling. ie is he from Commiefornia where they can't have certian guns.

If you lived in Vancouver Washington and wanted to sell a gun at the Portland gun show then you could sell face to face to any lic dealer or pay a dealer to do a transfer if the states effected allow those guns to be transfered. Washington isn't part of America so they are not allowed NFA weapons in a purchase today.

jj

Well FTF is generally considered between 2 unlicensed persons. So selling to a dealer is not normally considered a FTF........ When was the last time you walked out of a gun store and called it a FTF transfer?

The second part of that is there are 6 NFA items; SBS, SBR, DD, AOW, MG and silencers. In WA half of those are legal so saying NFA items are not allowed in WA is also not true.

 

[Just Jim]

Well FTF is generally considered between 2 unlicensed persons. So selling to a dealer is not normally considered a FTF........ When was the last time you walked out of a gun store and called it a FTF transfer?

The second part of that is there are 6 NFA items; SBS, SBR, DD, AOW, MG and silencers. In WA half of those are legal so saying NFA items are not allowed in WA is also not true.

FTF is any deal without doing paperwork on your side. If you want to say private party face to face then you are right however you can sell a gun without doing the state instant background check if you sell to a dealer.

LOL so you get half of what the other 38 states get, does that make Washington half American??LOL It would be nice if the people in Washington would claim their rights that other Americans have.

jj

 

[U201494]

See what happens when you ask a question here?
You need to keep them very basic, i.e., "What color is green grass?"
"Is water wet?", "If I continue to eat will I eventually sh+t?", "Did Pete Rose bet on baseball?".
See?