Who are these folks that want to buy my guns?

[BATTERY]

I pretty much ignore new users or users with only 1 or 2 reviews. So many flakes on this marketplace. It's out of control.

I've had 3 buyers over the years ask me to sell with out a FFL transfer. Some of them have been on here for a while.

Next time I'm squaking to the mods. I'm getting sick of piles of garbage asking me to break a law for them. Comical to think anyone would.

 

[oldcorpgunny]

I pretty much ignore new users or users with only 1 or 2 reviews. So many flakes on this marketplace. It's out of control.

I've had 3 buyers over the years ask me to sell with out a FFL transfer. Some of them have been on here for a while.

Next time I'm squaking to the mods. I'm getting sick of piles of garbage asking me to break a law for them. Comical to think anyone would.

Yup! I'm right there with you. Now I'm thinking that since the antics pukes have so much money, they might be trying to arm themselves by overpaying on boards like this. I belong to the SW Firearms community ('cause I spend so much of the year there) and illegals have been buying guns on that site for some time, according to those in the know.

 

[Ringo]

Gunny, tell them to take a FLYING BITE AT A ROLLING DONUT !!!
Semper Fi

 

[Bushman]

As of 2014, Washington requires a BGC for all firearms transfers except those between immediate family members. Thanks, I-594 and the idiots that voted for it...

Yet somehow most here are acting in a way that would make Nancy Pelosi proud. What happened to all the 'I won't comply' people? I'll never give up my guns! Yet just a stupid law about transfers, even with a cpl, everyone's like, 'oh no that's illlll-eaggggggle (get it?) Haha...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

As far as where are the " I won't comply people" in regards to private sales and the need for a FFL to complete a sale...
It is not in your best interest to go around on the internet and announcing that one is not going to obey the law...Just sayin'.
Andy

 

[citizen a]

It might get to a point where that risk reward calculation makes sense, but I don't think this issue clears that hurdle.

 

[FourTeeFive]

The ATF doesn't care about local gun laws like RCW 9.41.113 (I-594).

Very few people have been prosecuted by the state for private sales without paperwork.

So I'm guessing these were people looking to intentionally circumvent the law for one reason or another (getting a gun quicker, not being able to buy a gun legally, etc.). Really doubt it was anything more than that.

Don't forget the genius in WA who knowingly sold a handgun to a Canadian years ago. The gun was then used in a murder and needless to say the seller has a much smaller home now, and not with his wife.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Had a guy on Armslist living in California want to buy my MPA30, then when that wouldnt work wanted to have his brother or brother-in-law buy it from me here in Oregon.
Had to explain the straw purchase rundown and all that.

 

[American123]

Just remember, before I-594 passed, private transfers without a state specific background check were very easy and completely legal and all (most responsible people) did was look at the ID and CPL and that was enough to prove the buyer wasn't a prohibited person.

Sadly, one more right/ability of free people has been lost to I-594 and there is no evidence that it has done anything to curb criminals from using guns.

 

[BillyJean]

Yup! I'm right there with you. Now I'm thinking that since the antics pukes have so much money, they might be trying to arm themselves by overpaying on boards like this. I belong to the SW Firearms community ('cause I spend so much of the year there) and illegals have been buying guns on that site for some time, according to those in the know.

I'm on that one too (for same reason) and I don't think ANYBODY is buying guns on there, haha

 

[billdeserthills]

Yup! I'm right there with you. Now I'm thinking that since the antics pukes have so much money, they might be trying to arm themselves by overpaying on boards like this. I belong to the SW Firearms community ('cause I spend so much of the year there) and illegals have been buying guns on that site for some time, according to those in the know.

Arizona doesn't require a background check between private parties & I certainly wouldn't buy a gun that has been registered--I already have tons of registered guns

 

[billdeserthills]

It might get to a point where that risk reward calculation makes sense, but I don't think this issue clears that hurdle.

In Arizona a used private sale gun is worth $100-$200 more than a new gun (registered)

 

[Tye]

Good for you, every venue for 2A and Firearms is being trolled by the very people who wish undo our Constitution and Rights and they'll use all methods to do so.

 

[CLT65]

In Arizona a used private sale gun is worth $100-$200 more than a new gun (registered)

Arizona has actual handgun registration?

 

[Knebel]

Opportunity is not Entrapment

In order to find and eliminate criminal behavior, law enforcement officers are allowed to engage in sting operations, whereby they create circumstances that allow individuals to take criminal actions that they can then be arrested and prosecuted for. These are considered "opportunities" for individuals believed to be involved in criminal behavior to commit crimes. An opportunity is considered very different from entrapment and involves merely the temptation to violate the law, not being forced to do so.


Unlike creating an opportunity, entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers urge, harass, or otherwise overly encourage an individual to commit a crime when he or she would not otherwise do so. Entrapment may result from the use of threats, intimidation, extended fraud, or any other means where the defendant was essentially forced to commit a crime.


For example, law enforcement officers could set up a sting operation for a suspected criminal to commit a burglary. This might involve a law enforcement officer pretending to be a fellow criminal and alerting the defendant of a warehouse shipment that will be arriving shortly and will not be protected by security. If the defendant completes the burglary on the basis of this information, this is not entrapment. The officers have merely created an opportunity for the defendant to commit the crime, and their efforts to do so were entirely legal. If however, the undercover law enforcement officer threatens that the defendant needs to commit the burglary for him, or he will be punished, or shows up every day and harasses the defendant to commit the burglary even though the defendant does not appear interested, this could amount to entrapment. It goes beyond providing an opportunity and involves efforts by law enforcement to force the burglary to occur.

That is effed up man. But somehow the Privatized Prisons have to make money!?

 

[revjen45]

1) "Law enforcement cannot initiate an act that is intended to entrap...legally."
"You can do anything you want. You just have to know what to say."
Retired LAPD Officer X, a classmate @ the Lassen College Gunsmithing program 1982.
Shot a participant in the Greater Los Angeles County Inter-Ethnic Summer Festival of 1965. #00s through a door.

2) We still have libraries...???
Well, the homelessbums need someplace to hang out.

 

[billdeserthills]

Arizona has actual handgun registration?

All guns purchased from a licensed dealer are registered with the ATF, via form 4473

Might that be the reason why a used, beat up gun costs more $$$ private sale than a brand new gun costs at a dealer?

 

[CLT65]

All guns purchased from a licensed dealer are registered with the ATF, via form 4473

I wondered if that's what you meant, or if Arizona had some kind of actual state registration.

This is a very common misconception. Technically, the 4473 form is NOT registration. Many consider it to be a form of de-facto registration, but it's actually very different from true registration.

With true registration, that gun is in your name, linked to you. If you no longer possess it, there better be a very good reason. With the 4473 record, that gun could be anywhere. Maybe you sold it to someone else. Maybe you moved out of state with it. Maybe you gave it to a relative, who sold it to a stranger, who moved out of state with it. All perfectly legal.

In states or localities with true registration, when you move there with firearms, you call the authorities and register your guns. In areas where only a federal transfer (4473) is required, if you call the authorities and ask about registering your guns, they will tell you, "We don't have a system for that here".

I've heard people talk about transferring a gun into or out of their name. That is NOT what a 4473 is for. Yes, there is a record that it was transferred, and to whom, but that is technically just a record of transfer, not a registration in any kind of real way. A mild form of de-facto "registration"- yes. Real registration- no.

I don't mean to be nit-picky and I definitely don't mean to offend, it's just that this is a common misconception so I thought I'd explain it, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[billdeserthills]

I wondered if that's what you meant, or if Arizona had some kind of actual state registration.

This is a very common misconception. Technically, the 4473 form is NOT registration. Many consider it to be a form of de-facto registration, but it's actually very different from true registration.

With true registration, that gun is in your name, linked to you. If you no longer possess it, there better be a very good reason. With the 4473 record, that gun could be anywhere. Maybe you sold it to someone else. Maybe you moved out of state with it. Maybe you gave it to a relative, who sold it to a stranger, who moved out of state with it. All perfectly legal.

In states or localities with true registration, when you move there with firearms, you call the authorities and register your guns. In areas where only a federal transfer (4473) is required, if you call the authorities and ask about registering your guns, they will tell you, "We don't have a system for that here".

I've heard people talk about transferring a gun into or out of their name. That is NOT what a 4473 is for. Yes, there is a record that it was transferred, and to whom, but that is technically just a record of transfer, not a registration in any kind of real way. A mild form of de-facto "registration"- yes. Real registration- no.

I don't mean to be nit-picky and I definitely don't mean to offend, it's just that this is a common misconception so I thought I'd explain it, to the best of my knowledge.

I was an FFL in Arizona for years--the ATF used to come into my shop once a year and they would take all my 4473 forms out of my shop and back to their lair for perusal and I will assume careful entering into their computers. This was 100% illegal but they came by and did it every year anyhow. I'm under no misconceptions as to what took place, at least in my shop

 

[RVTECH]

Yes, there is a record that it was transferred, and to whom, but that is technically just a record of transfer,

This brings up a question I have asked before and never got a clear answer so I'll try again.

If the 4473 is a record of transfer is/are the transfers maintained chronologically Somehow say in a database somewhere and if so could this reveal a 'break' in the chain' if a subsequent transfer of the gun took place illegally, then transferred legally later? I'll give an example:

I sell a gun FTF in Oregon LEGALLY via an FFL to John Doe. Some time later John Doe sells the gun ILLEGALLY without a record of transfer to owner #3. Some time later owner # 3 sells the gun LEGALLY via FFL.

Will this 'new', legal transaction reveal the last LEGAL transfer was to John Doe by rvtech, and will owner # 3 be
Questioned as to how he came into possession of the gun?