Will the buyer get in trouble for non 941 compliance, or just the seller?

[Koda]

When it comes to politics, finances are irrelevant. If someone in power really wants to take you down, or make a political point, they will run up a deficit, or find the money elsewhere, to do it.

yup, like Bloomberg....

if finances were a factor, they would throw their money at mental healthcare reform and family values and low income communities.... things that actually would make a difference in crime.

 

[wired]

I'm vaguely recalling a discussion here in this forum where someone claimed a local pawn shop was doing that on the seller. I still cant see any reason why that would be needed, and it sounds like a scam on the pawn shop side to keep the gun until a BGC cleared.

The problem is that in Washington and Oregon the law isnt clear on the subject so shops sometimes just do the CYA thing. I sent a letter in to the Washington State attorney general asking if a BCG for return to seller is required if the buyer fails the BGC and they refused to answer the question telling me to get an attorney to answer legal questions.

 

[The Heretic]

IMO the FFL running the BGC doesn't need to, and technically isn't, taking possession of the firearm (just because they are looking at it to get the serial number doesn't mean that they possess the firearm, and it isn't in their ledger), so they don't need to run the BGC against the seller.

If an FFL tried to do that to me as the seller, then I would take my firearm and walk out the door and I would make sure that everyone here knew what they tried to pull. What are they going to do - call the cops? It is my firearm.

That said, I don't think any FFL would do this, and it is hypothetical anyway as I no longer sell any guns - I have no need or desire to; and they were all lost in a boating accident anyway.

 

[wired]

The gun goes into their books before it goes out on a 4473 so if the buyer cannot pass a BGC the seller has a legitimate concern for disposition.

 

[The Heretic]

The gun goes into their books before it goes out on a 4473 so if the buyer cannot pass a BGC the seller has a legitimate concern for disposition.

But I would bet they don't put it into their ledger before the BGC passes. They shouldn't put it in their ledger until the BGC passes, because that causes a problem if it doesn't pass. I have not read anywhere in the law that this is required to do a BGC.

 

[Koda]

When it comes to politics, finances are irrelevant. If someone in power really wants to take you down, or make a political point, they will run up a deficit, or find the money elsewhere, to do it.

yup, like Bloomberg....

if finances were a factor, they would throw their money at mental healthcare reform and family values and low income communities.... things that actually would make a difference in crime.

 

[Koda]

I sent a letter in to the Washington State attorney general asking if a BCG for return to seller is required if the buyer fails the BGC and they refused to answer the question telling me to get an attorney to answer legal questions.

isnt it great they can ram these BS written laws down our throats then leave it up to us to learn the hard way if we will be charged with a crime or not.... for trying to follow the law.

 

[wired]

But I would bet they don't put it into their ledger before the BGC passes. They shouldn't put it in their ledger until the BGC passes, because that causes a problem if it doesn't pass. I have not read anywhere in the law that this is required to do a BGC.

They have to put it in their bound books to do a check for reference purposes..

 

[The Heretic]

They have to put it in their bound books to do a check for reference purposes..

Do you have a cite in any rule/reg or law for that assertion?

I know an FFL has to put a firearm in their ledger if they take possession of a firearm, but not if you hand it to them so they can look at it or repair it in your presence.

 

[wired]

They arent repairing it in their presence or looking at it. They are processing it for transfer. To do that it has to be entered into their bound books first. They cannot transfer out a gun that has not been transferred to them. From the dealer side its not just a background check. Its a normal in/out transfer.

 

[The Heretic]

That seems to make sense on the face of it, but I still don't see anything in a law or rule or regulation that requires them to treat the firearm that way.

 

[Koda]

They arent repairing it in their presence or looking at it. They are processing it for transfer. To do that it has to be entered into their bound books first. They cannot transfer out a gun that has not been transferred to them. From the dealer side its not just a background check. Its a normal in/out transfer.

if this is true can we clarify if this is a Washington law, or does it apply to Oregon too (all states doing "universal" background checks)? If the FFL must take posession of the gun before the BGC on the buyer, whey doesnt the FFL have to go thru a BGC?

also, can anyone share if tthey have had this happen to them when selling a gun?

essentially this means that the seller (owner) has to legally transfer ownership to the FFL at no cost and risk the NICS system is working plus the fee to get it back....

 

[The Heretic]

FFLs are exempt from BGCs if the "transfer" is part of their business.

I am not accepting that the firearm is transferred to the FFL until someone can show me a rule, regulation or law that requires that this be done in order to run a BGC.

 

[wired]

"General Process Changes under Oregon Firearms Safety Act: 1. Private-party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed firearm dealer while both parties (owner of the firearm and proposed recipient or purchaser) are present. a. If the transferor and the transferee reside over 40 miles from each other, the transferor may ship or deliver the firearm to a firearm dealer located near the transferee or a firearm dealer designated by the transferee, and the transferor need not appear before the firearm dealer in person. 2. A firearm dealer who agrees to complete the transfer shall request a background check on the transferee and shall comply with all requirements of federal law. 3. A firearm dealer may charge a reasonable fee for facilitating a firearms transfer. 4. A firearm dealer that requests a background check for a private party under this law is immune from civil liability for any use of the firearm by the recipient. 5. A private party transferring a firearm at a gun show must complete a background check through OSP or a firearm dealer prior to the transfer. (NOTE: This is existing statute, however is highlighted to show the private party has options, in these instances.)"


There is no provision in federal law to transfer a gun out without and in/out transfer through the books. Remember this isnt about background checks so much as it is about trace-ability. To have a record of transfers it has to be in the books.

If I were still a dealer I wouldnt transfer a gun back to the original owner if the sale fell through on BGC without a BGC of the original owner. I would let both parties know that beforehand.

 

[The Heretic]

"General Process Changes under Oregon Firearms Safety Act: 1. Private-party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed firearm dealer while both parties (owner of the firearm and proposed recipient or purchaser) are present. a. If the transferor and the transferee reside over 40 miles from each other, the transferor may ship or deliver the firearm to a firearm dealer located near the transferee or a firearm dealer designated by the transferee, and the transferor need not appear before the firearm dealer in person. 2. A firearm dealer who agrees to complete the transfer shall request a background check on the transferee and shall comply with all requirements of federal law. 3. A firearm dealer may charge a reasonable fee for facilitating a firearms transfer. 4. A firearm dealer that requests a background check for a private party under this law is immune from civil liability for any use of the firearm by the recipient. 5. A private party transferring a firearm at a gun show must complete a background check through OSP or a firearm dealer prior to the transfer. (NOTE: This is existing statute, however is highlighted to show the private party has options, in these instances.)"


There is no provision in federal law to transfer a gun out without and in/out transfer through the books. Remember this isnt about background checks so much as it is about trace-ability. To have a record of transfers it has to be in the books.

If I were still a dealer I wouldnt transfer a gun back to the original owner if the sale fell through on BGC without a BGC of the original owner. I would let both parties know that beforehand.

Thank you. I think those are regs/rules? If law, can you cite which one?

Here is the ORS on transfers:

ORS 166.435 - Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons - 2015 Oregon Revised Statutes

So here it the part of the law that mandates the FFL put it in their ledger:

Receives a unique approval number from the Department of State Police indicating that the transferee is qualified to complete the transfer, the gun dealer shall notify the transferor, enter the firearm into the gun dealers inventory and transfer the firearm to the transferee.

So - the FFL must put it into their "inventory" (I assume that means their ledger records).

That said, there is nothing that I see in the law that says the FFL has to perform a BGC on the seller if the BGC fails:

Receives notification that the transferee is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing or receiving the firearm, the gun dealer shall notify the transferor and neither the transferor nor the gun dealer shall transfer the firearm to the transferee. If the transferor shipped or delivered the firearm to the gun dealer pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the gun dealer shall comply with federal law when returning the firearm to the transferor.

Federal law does not require a BGC on a firearm that is sent to the FFL by the current owner of the FFL. I don't think state law requires that either - there is no mention of it in the law.

To answer the original question - who gets in trouble, the seller or the buyer:

A transferor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section commits a Class A misdemeanor.

(b)Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, a transferor who fails to comply with the requirements of this section commits a Class B felony if the transferor has a previous conviction under this section at the time of the offense. [2015 c.50 §2]

I see nothing in the law about the buyer getting into trouble for buying without a BGC.

 

[wired]

Federal law requires a BGC on a pawn transaction where the original owner transfers it into the pawn brokers books and receives his own gun back again. While the ATF hasnt weighed in on it yet I dont think theyre going to find it substantially different. The dealer has entered it into his 'inventory" by entering it into his "bound books" ( ledger ) . Once it goes out I believe the ATF will require the dealer to treat it no differently than if it were any other gun leaving the dealers books and require a BGC.. It just hasnt come up yet. It will.

 

[The Heretic]

Federal law requires a BGC on a pawn transaction where the original owner transfers it into the pawn brokers books and receives his own gun back again. While the ATF hasnt weighed in on it yet I dont think theyre going to find it substantially different. The dealer has entered it into his 'inventory" by entering it into his "bound books" ( ledger ) . Once it goes out I believe the ATF will require the dealer to treat it no differently than if it were any other gun leaving the dealers books and require a BGC.. It just hasnt come up yet. It will.

That is a different kind of transaction. A pawn shop is essentially taking the property - any property - into their inventory and after x number of days they can sell it. If the original owner comes in and pays off the loan then that is a transfer. Also, either way you look at it, that is a transfer between the pawn shop and the original owner, there is no third party involved in that transaction.

 

[wired]

The transaction as oulined in the Oregon law is between the dealer and the seller and the dealer and the buyer. The seller transfers it to the dealer who enters ot into his books and the dealer then transfers it to the buyer.There are no third parties in a transfer.Each is a seperate transaction. While the state may be OK with the seller getting his gun back I for one dont think the feds will be OK with it.

 

[The Heretic]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I don't see support for your assertions in the laws or in any policy or regulations or rules that anybody has provided a cite for.

 

[wired]

I dont see where it doesnt say it either and I have a realy good idea how the dealer/ATF interaction thing works.