National How Does FFL Typically Handle Firearms When Transfers Are Denied?

[arakboss]

Let's imagine that OSP denied all transfers in the system whenever the effective date of M114 begins. What happens to the firearms the FFLs are holding? What does FFL typically do with firearms when a transfer is denied?

Read More

 

[TTSX]

I believe in normal times, if a transfer is denied, then it goes back to the original owner who has to fill out another 4473 which would not be possible in this climate sooooooooo it becomes dealer property? Must pay a storage fee? We're in uncharted waters Matey, AHOY!

 

[arakboss]

I believe in normal times, if a transfer is denied, then it goes back to the original owner who has to fill out another 4473 which would not be possible in this climate sooooooooo it becomes dealer property? Must pay a storage fee? We're in uncharted waters Matey, AHOY!

I agree about it being uncharted waters.

I don't see the downside for FFLs to keep doing transfers as long as possible. They get to keep the FFL fee regardless and potentially keep the firearm if neither the owner or buyer can complete the transfer? I guess if they don't have room to store them that would be one issue. Maybe they are concerned about private transfers clogging the system and preventing them from selling firearms from their inventory?

 

[Alexx1401]

Not sure how OR does it. Last couple I did up here after they made us use a dealer went like this. Both parties meet at FFL. Seller just shows ID. Buyer does the entire paper work as if they were buying from FFL. If proceed did not come through FFL sent both parties home with gun going with seller. FFL would call back when they had the proceed and both would meet up again.
The range I use I asked about selling on consignment. They said they would take gun, if I later decided I wanted to give up waiting for buyer I would have to have the gun transferred back to me.
So "best guess"? Suspect many FFL's will not want to be doing storage for guns while waiting for the proceed. If the FFL does not want to have to store the gun they would send buyer and seller home and tell them to come back when the FFL had the OK to let the gun walk. Again this is all going to be up in the air until this all shakes out in OR now.

 

[fmvolume86]

this will probably oopen up private parties to trade and sell with out FFL..... not the govt business what you buy and sell anyway. Everyone played by the rules and got screwed.

 

[Sporting Systems]

As a dealer, holding firearms after the implementation and not delivering them, I'd be concerned about civil lawsuits seeking recompense. If the courts don't put an immediate hold on this, (temporary retraining order with a permanent injunction to follow), the most dealers will shut down for the short term, and many more for the long term.

 

[fmvolume86]

As a dealer, holding firearms after the implementation and not delivering them, I'd be concerned about civil lawsuits seeking recompense. If the courts don't put an immediate hold on this, (temporary retraining order with a permanent injunction to follow), the most dealers will shut down for the short term, and many more for the long term.

They don't care, they have never cared. They literally let terrorists run around and destroy cities.... they do not care about the tax payer

 

[HotRodGuy]

this will probably oopen up private parties to trade and sell with out FFL..... not the govt business what you buy and sell anyway. Everyone played by the rules and got screwed.

This is what I see also. If the state government makes it impossible for people to sell and buy the "legal" way, more people will revert back to pre- private party bgc rules and sell/buy trusting the word of the other party that the gun is clean and the buyer is also.
Many will show a heavy preference to doing business with people who have an active CHL as that shows a clear record "at the time of application" and LE hasn't seized it due to legal issues. Plus CHL holders actively request LE to do a bgc on them every time they renew.
As for FFLs, I don't see many willing to go against unsupported laws as their risk is elevated. More might do as previously posted and not take possession of private party firearms, instead having the seller keep possession until approved. Holding onto firearms and refusing to release them to the legal owner poses civil liabilities, and possibly criminal.