Gun transfer gone wrong - Would like your opinion.

[Brad in TC]

I traded a shotgun for a pistol in May. Did the legally required FFL transfer. No issues.

In August, I sold the pistol to a friend and again did the legally required FFL transfer. About 3 days later, my friend gets a call from the police saying the pistol he bought came back stolen in 2007. He contacts me and I agree to give him his money back. Police contact me and I give them the details and am free of any legal issues.

My question is, what are people's opinion on whether or not the guy I traded with has an obligation (not legal) to undo the trade with me?

Read More

 

[Stomper]

I'd let him know, and ask about the history of when he obtained it.... pre or post UBC requirement. If he obtained it via a FFL transfer and nothing pinged on it, then perhaps there's an error (like a typo) in the data entry during the UBC process.

If he obtained it through a private transaction pre UBC, sold it to you through the UBC procedure and all went well, his obligation is possibly legally minimal. Has the gun been 100% verified to be correctly identied stolen? Did the gun get returned to the rightful owner? This may take some legwork on your part to trace it back through the guy you bought it from.

 

[Kristina]

So a moral obligation and not a legal one? That, of course, depends on the person's morals. I'd be curious to find out why it ran okay in May, but popped as being listed as stolen in 2007 a few months later. I don't have any experience with this kind of stuff, but how is that even possible? Can a person retroactively declare it as stolen? A typo? Have you talked to the original owner about it?

 

[Brad in TC]

I have no idea who the "original" owner is. I only know who I traded with. The officer asked that I not contact the person I traded with until the investigation was complete. I am now pursing to confirm the case is closed.

In Washington, a second set of paperwork is completed for the transfer of a handgun. I believe it is this set of paperwork that gets run to determine if the gun is stolen. It's my understanding that the ATF for is a check on the person buying.

As for why it did not show up in May...yeah...a broken system would be a brief summary.

The pistol was verified as matching by serial no when processed by the police.

 

[ORYGUNHolsterCompany]

Bottom line ffl should have done a stolen gun check before ever letting the transfer go through any further process especially the actual transfer. If the gun was truly flagged stolen 2007 it makes me believe the initial check was not done either by the ffl, or the checker in a competent manner.

Sometimes serial numbers will get mixed up causing incorrect flags, not terribly uncommon but a pain and time consuming to get resolved.


Personally I would follow your example if I found myself in a similar situation and return any trades.

 

[The Heretic]

My understanding was that the justification for the state getting the serial number of the firearm in a private transfer is to check if the firearm is stolen or not.

You mean to tell me that the state didn't do that?

Just what are they doing with those serial numbers then??

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Certainly, it would be the police asking about the pistol that you traded for, from the previous owner! I'd pitch a fit until that happened!

 

[etrain16]

Bottom line ffl should have done a stolen gun check before ever letting the transfer go through any further process especially the actual transfer. If the gun was truly flagged stolen 2007 it makes me believe the initial check was not done either by the ffl, or the checker in a competent manner.

Sometimes serial numbers will get mixed up causing incorrect flags, not terribly uncommon but a pain and time consuming to get resolved.


Personally I would follow your example if I found myself in a similar situation and return any trades.

I know the FFL's I use check the background of the gun before the transfer - that's like step #1 in the process. Assuming they did that step, then I would have to assume the system itself failed.

I bought a gun from a guy once that he fully disclosed had been reported stolen at one point. It was recovered and the police returned it to him, clearing the 'stolen' record on that firearm. I later sold that gun to someone else and it came up clean again during the next check.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the 'stolen' aspect simply got missed the first time around. As for having the guy do something for you, I'm guessing that's probably a long shot unless you know him well. Chances are he didn't know it was stolen either, hard to say. You can always ask, just be prepared for no response.

 

[joken]

Maybe the FFL that did the transfer when you bought the gun put the money in his pocket and didn't actually do the BGC. Can't imagine someone needing $10 that bad, but who knows.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Some people have next to no foresight when it comes to being lazy and crooked, I imagine one gun dealer could fit that category.
I know of a couple colleagues who have lost their licenses for not performing work they contracted to perform.
Imagine my surprise.
About the topic at hand here, I'd advise keeping in regular contact with the investigating detectives and do what they asked; wait until they've followed the evidence to its logical conclusion before tipping off the person from whom you obtained the pistol.

 

[PaulB47]

My question is, what are people's opinion on whether or not the guy I traded with has an obligation (not legal) to undo the trade with me?

No moral obligation whatever. A gun is a tool, not a sentient being. It's actually silly and superstitious to worry about what a gun has been used for in the past. Think what surplus WWII Nazi guns were used for, most of the time. Yet we don't worry about that - with good reason.

Of course legally, as opposed to morally, it may lead to headaches to keep the gun.

But if for whatever reason it does matter to the buyer, than the seller probably ought to reverse the trade. Just to be a nice guy.