Another new "rule" incoming? No more private sales without a ffl involved?

[chipbennett]

You obviously dont understand the scope of those charges. The charge was a straw purchase.

No, it wasn't. A Straw Purchase is a federal charge. The State of Wisconsin can't bring a federal Straw Purchase charge, IIRC. The State originally charged him under Wisconsin Statute 948.60, (2)(b) and (3)(c) - again, IIRC.

 

[Jaybird1980]

No, it wasn't. A Straw Purchase is a federal charge. The State of Wisconsin can't bring a federal Straw Purchase charge, IIRC. The State originally charged him under Wisconsin Statute 948.60, (2)(b) and (3)(c) - again, IIRC.

Oh I think you're right. I thought I remembered them trying to push it as a straw purchase originally as well. Along with selling across state lines or some other nonsense.

Either way it had nothing to do with selling to a prohibited person and it was in another state, Indiana Laws do not apply.

 

[Cameramonkey]

No, it wasn't. A Straw Purchase is a federal charge. The State of Wisconsin can't bring a federal Straw Purchase charge, IIRC. The State originally charged him under Wisconsin Statute 948.60, (2)(b) and (3)(c) - again, IIRC.

You're right. It was a straw purchase because he gave the dude the money to go buy the gun, but the state charged him.

 

[Creedmoor]

If I don’t have one, then no one needs one of those.

I have a grower myself.

 

[bwframe]

We should be careful here about "beating up" our otherwise like minded friends. We need all the players we can get in our fight to keep our 2A.

Our bill of sale required folks are entitled to do it and to their beliefs, (wrong as they may be. )

Discussion of this subject is great, but advertising the BOS as a way that other traders should do things is not helpful to our cause. It gives folks the false impression of individual personal security from the same big government we have to fight off.

Bits of advice...

- Sell and buy through the INGO classifieds.
- Vet your trading partners through the feedback system and post history.
- Don't overthink legal private sale responsibilities.

 

[Creedmoor]

We should be careful here about "beating up" our otherwise like minded friends. We need all the players we can get in our fight to keep our 2A.

Our bill of sale required folks are entitled to do it and to their beliefs, (wrong as they may be. )

Discussion of this subject is great, but advertising the BOS as a way that other traders should do things is not helpful to our cause. It gives folks the false impression of individual personal security from the same big government we have to fight off.

Bits of advice...

- Sell and buy through the INGO classifieds.
- Vet your trading partners through the feedback system and post history.
- Don't overthink legal private sale responsibilities.

To me, that's just another bias that really narrows the sales venue.
I vet, just like I would vet at a gun show parking lot or the lunch tables.
You a sound person? please show me your DL, no sir I don't want to see your badge.
Just your drivers license please.
And that's if I do actually sell something, and that doesn't happen often.

 

[bwframe]

...that's if I do actually sell something, and that doesn't happen often.

Doesn't sound as if you are very experienced at selling then?

I might have sold a item in recent times? All I needed to see was the INGOer's feedback. It showed he had traded with other INGOers, of whom I know well.

Vetting done before the meet. All we both needed at the meet was what was being traded.

 

[chipbennett]

You're right. It was a straw purchase because he gave the dude the money to go buy the gun, but the state charged him.

I still don't agree that it was a straw purchase, either in intent or as defined in the federal statutes. Rittenhouse was not a prohibited person; rather, he was merely too young to purchase a firearm. Their plan was for Rittenhouse to fund the purchase of the rifle, and then for Black to hold the rifle until Rittenhouse was old enough to be of lawful age to possess - IIRC, in Illinois, where the age requirements (21) are different from Wisconsin (14 - 18, in a convoluted statutory mess). So, the plan was never to skirt purchase/possession laws.

As for the statutory language, 18 USC 922 and 932 are applicable, I believe. 18 USC 922 provides the federal "prohibited possessor" criteria. Being under age is not one of them. So, the only thing that the feds could possibly get Black on would be lying on the Form 4473, question 21(a): "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of all of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring any of the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer any of the firearm(s) to you."

 

[Cameramonkey]

Chip, you dont have to be a prohibited person for them to consider it a straw purchase.

Remember the father son duo that got busted? I dont recall the direction, but One was a cop and used his ability to purchase a Glock for the other at a discount using the Blue Label program. The non cop could have purchased the gun on his own legally, but they still called it a straw purchase.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip, you dont have to be a prohibited person for them to consider it a straw purchase.

Remember the father son duo that got busted? I dont recall the direction, but One was a cop and used his ability to purchase a Glock for the other at a discount using the Blue Label program. The non cop could have purchased the gun on his own legally, but they still called it a straw purchase.

But it's not a straw purchase as defined in the statutes, which requires the purchase to be for someone who is a prohibited person as defined in the statutes.

It is lying on Form 4473. Calling it a "straw purchase" is about as accurate as referring to private transfers as the "gun show loophole".

 

[Cameramonkey]

But it's not a straw purchase as defined in the statutes, which requires the purchase to be for someone who is a prohibited person as defined in the statutes.

It is lying on Form 4473. Calling it a "straw purchase" is about as accurate as referring to private transfers as the "gun show loophole".

I don’t disagree. But some prosecutors and judges say otherwise.

 

[apollo11capcom]

I was recently reading up on this subject. I get why people want to be able to sell their private property to others. But I also know that selling a firearm to a guy in a Lowes parking lot and checking his DL isn't necessarily the end all be all to make sure he's not a felon. Cudos to those that check for pink card licenses, but you don't need those anymore (constitutional carry kind of ruined that) and a person could have a lifetime permit and have received a felony afterward. I'm not against ending private sales but I'm not against having to go through a FFL. As that would also help boost some of our LGS who lose a lot of business to online retailers.

It's not John Q Publics job to make sure someone is or isn't a felon. If you get a bad vibe from someone, maybe they're agitated, maybe they seem angry and in a rush to get your gun, whatever the case may be, you have the ability to cancel the sale on the spot. But to start off with the premise that we're supposed to police whether or not someone's a felon, well that'll be the beginning of the end of our 2A freedoms.

 

[Jaybird1980]

But it's not a straw purchase as defined in the statutes, which requires the purchase to be for someone who is a prohibited person as defined in the statutes.

It is lying on Form 4473. Calling it a "straw purchase" is about as accurate as referring to private transfers as the "gun show loophole".

I believe early on they were trying to spin it as he was a prohibited person, because he was underage and from a different state. IIRC.

I could be remembering wrong though, there was a lot going around then.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Gun laws have changed a bunch. I bought my first firearm - an old Enfield carbine - in 1970 at a pawn shop in Texas. I had just turned 20. Bought my second firearm from a Sears Catalog in '72. Bought a pistol and a rifle from a buddy who had an FFL in 1983, and I don't remember signing anything but a Bill of Sale for his taxes. That same guy bought himself an M-60 machine gun to use as a wall decoration in his office. Ah, the Good Old Days . . .

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Gun laws have changed a bunch. I bought my first firearm - an old Enfield carbine - in 1970 at a pawn shop in Texas. I had just turned 20. Bought my second firearm from a Sears Catalog in '72. Bought a pistol and a rifle from a buddy who had an FFL in 1983, and I don't remember signing anything but a Bill of Sale for his taxes. That same guy bought himself an M-60 machine gun to use as a wall decoration in his office. Ah, the Good Old Days . . .

The 4473 was present in 1970, 1972, 1983 and today.

Gun laws have changed, for the better.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I knew the day would come, but I really hoped it wouldn't be this soon.

I hope I'm misunderstanding this or that indiana state law will still allow us our rights but I'm definitely no lawyer.

I am shocked that it took this long after the 2022 legislation.

I am still expecting an admin rule declaring all 9mm pistols and AR-15s machine guns.

 

[Magyars]

These communist scum bags just won't leave people alone.

Leaked info suggests ATF is about to pass new rule BANNING private gun sales – NaturalNews.com

Frustrated at the lack of progress in dismantling the Second Amendment, fake president Joe Biden is planning to use executive orders to weaponize the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) against Americans and strip them of their right to privately buy and sell firearms. The New York...

www.naturalnews.com

 

[bobzilla]

dupe.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/th...te-sales-without-a-ffl-involved.538788/unread

 

[KellyinAvon]

Merged!

 

[Tombs]

Without a registry how exactly do they think they'll enforce no private sales?