Private Party Sale of a Handgun

[ATM]

What, no cough?

OK, I'll cough but I'm not turning my head. I will look you straight in the eyes and make you as uncomfortable as poss... hey, wait a second!

I'm the seller...

I see what you tried to do there!

 

[finity]

Is this true or false? Oppinnion or fact? If this is false I say we all neg rep the hall monitor. If it is true +1 for a clear concise point.

Absolutely true.

IN state law:

IC 35-47-5-6
Purchasing or obtaining a rifle or shotgun
Sec. 6.
(a) Any resident of Indiana:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and
(2) who is not prohibited by law from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm; may purchase or obtain a rifle or shotgun in Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois.
(b) Any resident of Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, or Illinois:
(1) who is eighteen (18) years of age or older; and
(2) who is not prohibited by the laws of Indiana, his domicile, or the United States from obtaining, possessing, or using a firearm; may purchase or obtain a rifle, shotgun, or ammunition for a rifle or a shotgun in Indiana.
(c) Any transaction under this section is subject to the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 1213, 18 U.S.C. 0.922(B)(3)).
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.32.

Federal law:

18 USC 922:

(a) It shall be unlawful -
(1) for any person -
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or
licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing,
manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such
business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
..
..
..
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver -
..
..
..
(3) any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee's place of business is located, except that this paragraph
(A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee's place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and
(B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;

Sorry to have dashed your hopes of any desired negative rep frenzy.

 

[finity]

There is no gun registration in the state of Indiana. When you buy a gun from an FFL you fill out a 4473 and undergo a background check. The serial number of the firearm is not turned into the state. The state has no list of firearm ownership. The only place the state or law enforcement has a list of serial numbers is guns that are reported stolen. If you buy a gun from a dealer and sell it to Billy Bob and Billy Bob then kills 25ppl with it and gets arrested its Billy Bobs gun. In other words as soon as you sell the firearm that firearm is no longer your responsibility, you have no liability for it. And no reason or responsibility to prove it. There is no database for them to check to see rather or not Billy Bob obtained the firearm from you or anyone else and the only way ownership of said firearm can be tracked is if it has been reported stolen.

Mostly true but...

The 4473 is required to be kept on file with the FFL for a period of (I think) 20 years or if the FFL goes out of business those records get sent to the BATFE for storage.

So the manufacturer has a record of the FFL the gun was sent to & the FFL has a record (for 20 years) of who originally purchased the gun. If the police were really driven to find the owner of the gun they could possibly find the original owner that way. When they come knocking on your door it would be nice to have proof to show that you aren't the owner anymore (plus a good alibi). Is it likely? Probably not, but possible.

I don't know hell after reading this thread it sounds to me like a lot of you gentlemen are all for the legislation to close the supposed gun show loophole. Maybe we should just ban private sales all together and only do FFL transfers. A lot of this just sounds to me like people wanting to have their cake and eat it to. LOL you dont have to have an LTCH to buy from a dealer or to even own a handgun you can own 1000 handguns without an LTCH but some of you guys require it even for the sale of a long gun??? Y'all some crazy mo'foes lol...

+1

I was kind of thinking the same thing.

I think it is interesting that the militant "shall not be infringed" attitude of many gun-owners mixes so easily, although inconsistently, with "no sale unless I can verify the equivalent of a NICS check".

 

[oldfb]

Absolutely true.







Sorry to have dashed your hopes of any desired negative rep frenzy.

lol I am reppin all that said it was true.
btw
I was NOT mocking his tragedy. I was adding brevity, levity and facetious commentary. I recalled seeing him state he was so well informed because he was leo or had friends in leo, 27 years at gunshows and generally arguing from a position of conviction instead of one of a point of law. I did not intend for the group to actually slap him around, push him down a flight of stairs or give johnny a time out. I just get frustrated when I read an interesting thread and it turns into a bickerfest. (new emoticon needed) Perhaps I misspoke or was misinterpreted and for that I make a public apology. I am sorry if I made any comments that appeared to disregard your tragedy shooter, that was not my intention.
Intent was to poke you with a stick for arguing conviction with no real legal point of law and using lollygagging I heard or I saw nonesensical trivial tactics and theories to muddy an issue because you are trying convince others that your convictions are applicable law. No one I associate with nor myself wish guns to fall into crimminal hands as several have argued over. I just really hate abstract lessons and bickering by people that state a point or personal choice then take 40 posts to argue why their view is law, morally correct and should be adopted by everyone because it is in the best interest of society. Have a good day!
C

 

[Boilers]

Even the Brady Campaign website is clear on this:

Why do they refer to 18 to 21 year olds as JUVENILE?

a young person.
• Law a person below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible (18 in most countries).

 

[thompal]

I think it is interesting that the militant "shall not be infringed" attitude of many gun-owners mixes so easily, although inconsistently, with "no sale unless I can verify the equivalent of a NICS check".

No, more like "no sale unless you verify that you have allowed YOUR rights to be infringed."

It especially galls me when people require you to have a LTCH before they will sell you a RIFLE. I had to pass on an M1a that was listed here because there was the unreasonable requirement that the buyer have a LTCH. Whether I have a handgun license is none of their business in the first place, but I'm just not going to even deal with someone who demands more infringements than does the Brady Campaign.

 

[thompal]

Why do they refer to 18 to 21 year olds as JUVENILE?

Because when the Brady propaganda says that "xxx children are injured very year with a firearm," that number includes all the gangbangers who are 18-21 years old.

 

[Roadie]

No, more like "no sale unless you verify that you have allowed YOUR rights to be infringed."

It especially galls me when people require you to have a LTCH before they will sell you a RIFLE. I had to pass on an M1a that was listed here because there was the unreasonable requirement that the buyer have a LTCH. Whether I have a handgun license is none of their business in the first place, but I'm just not going to even deal with someone who demands more infringements than does the Brady Campaign.

Wow, I never thought of it that way! Excellent point!

 

[Madmax]

It would make me feel awfully ashamed if my "sold" gun is used against someone where death of serious injury is involved. It is just a way of keeping this type of thing even happening...

 

[Griffeycom]

It would make me feel awfully ashamed if my "sold" gun is used against someone where death of serious injury is involved. It is just a way of keeping this type of thing even happening...

So you're saying that someone with a LTCH will never cause death or serious injury?

--------

I understand the "feel good" factor that requiring LTCH in your private sales. But it really means nothing, just because someone produces a LTCH does not mean that person is never going to do anything bad with that weapon.

I feel like thompal has hit the nail on the head here

No, more like "no sale unless you verify that you have allowed YOUR rights to be infringed."

It especially galls me when people require you to have a LTCH before they will sell you a RIFLE. I had to pass on an M1a that was listed here because there was the unreasonable requirement that the buyer have a LTCH. Whether I have a handgun license is none of their business in the first place, but I'm just not going to even deal with someone who demands more infringements than does the Brady Campaign.

Could not agree more!

Anyway, just my .02 and people are FREE to choose if they want to require a LTCH or not!

 

[Boilers]

Because when the Brady propaganda says that "xxx children are injured very year with a firearm," that number includes all the gangbangers who are 18-21 years old.

Is that TRUE? Their 'child' statistics include adults?

 

[dburkhead]

No, more like "no sale unless you verify that you have allowed YOUR rights to be infringed."

It especially galls me when people require you to have a LTCH before they will sell you a RIFLE. I had to pass on an M1a that was listed here because there was the unreasonable requirement that the buyer have a LTCH. Whether I have a handgun license is none of their business in the first place, but I'm just not going to even deal with someone who demands more infringements than does the Brady Campaign.

What you are missing is that there is a difference between the seller of a gun putting whatever conditions they want on the sale and of the government requiring that condition before the sale will be permitted.

One is Freedom in Action. The other is the exact opposite of freedom in action.

Another factor is tactical. While I may think that the whole background check thing is a waste of time (since, in the past 15 years, it hasn't effected crime rates any, a strong argument can be made for that, IMO), the current situation is one where people think they are "reasonable." There's also a law that says that it's a crime to knowingly sell a gun to a "prohibited person." And I can easily see that not taking "reasonable precautions" (which can cover a lot of territory) to ensure that the person buying a gun is not a prohibited person could be turned into charges of negligence if that gun I sold later turns up having been used in a crime.

The 2nd ensures the right to keep and bear arms. It does not, however, ensure the right to buy my gun except under conditions that I find acceptable. (Flip side is there is no right to sell my gun to any particular buyer--except under conditions the buyer finds acceptable--so we either both have to come to mutually acceptable conditions.) A private seller putting conditions on the sale, is not an infringement on anybody's rights.

As for the "allowed your rights to be infringed." The "infringement" came with the prohibition on carry without a license. They didn't need my permission for that and I have been doing everything I can to get that changed. However, while those are the rules of the game, it pays to play by them. Try playing by soccer rules while the other team is playing by Football rules and see how far that gets you.

Sure, I could refuse to get the license and carry anyway as a form of protest--but that would just end up with me in prison and no good (and possibly significant harm) done to the 2nd Amendment case. Thus that "allows their rights to be infringed" argument is specious.

Of course, my solution is rather simple. I haven't sold a gun ever and have no particular plans to do so in the future. If I did, I'd probably want to deal with somebody I know (and, case by case, online counts), or if it's someone I don't know, then I'd want to have some sort of confidence that the person I'm selling to was not a prohibited person. At the moment, I can't really think of anything other than a carry license that would serve that function.