Thoughts on private gun sales

[bwframe]

Which is odd... since you recommend doing exactly the opposite of that... what's up with that?

This is what was said...

those who are scared of getting something wrong in a sale or a buy could remove ALL questions of legitimacy and responsibility by simply taking this transaction to those who do it for a living?

I'm not scared. I know exactly what is required for a legal private sale. I pay close attention to following this, without thinking more into it.


.

 

[Judamonster]

A lot of times even good friends might not readily volunteer that they are prohibited. Often "criminal past" doesn't come up in casual conversation. They also may not understand the grey area of whatever their legal issues of the past may have done to their status.

I have a pretty good fishing buddy. I mentioned to him that I was selling a pistol to an online acquaintance. Fishing buddy mentions his daughter thought she would like to have "some protection." Then goes on to say that daughter was better now after having "some problems" and being diagnosed as bipolar. I gracefully told him that I couldn't legally sell daughter any guns. He naively mentioned that I could still sell him a gun, if I wanted. I, again tactfully, told him no I could not, after that conversation.

The point is that you cannot KNOWINGLY sell to a prohibited person. Nothing in the law makes it your responsibility to "background check" any potential buyer of your gun for sale.


.

Is bipoalar enough to deny someone? I thought you had to have a severe mental illness, and the bar is set pretty high on that one.

 

[bwframe]

Is bipoalar enough to deny someone? I thought you had to have a severe mental illness, and the bar is set pretty high on that one.

It was enough for me, on top of not knowing what "having some problems" was. The woman wasn't a real consideration to sell to anyway.

I prefer to sell in the INGO classifieds, where I can review post history and feedback. Most INGOers post history tell me that they are good to go, often even eliminating need to "see their papers." That said, over the years, I have made some interesting discoveries in post history that had me passing over some INGO wannabe buyers.


.

 

[Mij]

Who me?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Is bipoalar enough to deny someone? I thought you had to have a severe mental illness, and the bar is set pretty high on that one.

Generally speaking just a diagnosis of any mental illness (severe or not) does not make one a prohibited person. Under federal and IN law to become prohibited you must be involuntarily committed (72 hr hold for evaluation doesn't count) or be found in court to be mentally defective. Basically it takes a court order for a mental illness to becoming a prohibiting factor, not just being mentally ill regardless of the mental illness, be it bipolar/depression/schizophrenia/etc.

It was enough for me, on top of not knowing what "having some problems" was. The woman wasn't a real consideration to sell to anyway.

Who you sell to is your own business, just not sure how you figured that it would be illegal to sell to her. I've known quite a few people with mental illnesses including bipolar who have had "some problems" none of which are prohibited possessors. Heck several have their LTCH. What gave you a reasonable belief that she was a prohibited person?

Also not sure why you couldn't (not wouldn't) sell to the father.

 

[misconfig]

I sold a glock to someone years ago, one day out of the blue I was contacted by an ATF agent who was tracing said firearm because it was used in a violent crime.

The bill of sale I had was my saving grace. I’ll never sell a gun without proof of valid DL and LTCH alongside the bill of sale personally and that includes friends and family.

 

[Expat]

I sold a glock to someone years ago, one day out of the blue I was contacted by an ATF agent who was tracing said firearm because it was used in a violent crime.

The bill of sale I had was my saving grace. I’ll never sell a gun without proof of valid DL and LTCH alongside the bill of sale personally and that includes friends and family.

So you would have definitely ended up bankrupt and in prison otherwise

 

[misconfig]

So you would have definitely ended up bankrupt and in prison otherwise

I’m picking up your sarcasm and I get where you are coming from but I’m not interested in being wrapped up in any legal proceedings with the fed, let alone even being on their radar.

 

[Ingomike]

The bill of sale I had was my saving grace.

So you would have definitely ended up bankrupt and in prison otherwise

One must admit the literary prose was melodramatic…

 

[misconfig]

One must admit the literary prose was melodramatic…

I suppose that's subject to interpretation, aye? Especially considering the details of said BOS effectively took their eyes off of me and on to the next guy.
Maybe others in this forum are much more wise and brave than I am, but when a federal agent contacts you asking for details and you can't give them definite information, who's to say the investigation doesn't stay right there?

People have been indicted for less, especially with a few administrations I can think of.

 

[Route 45]

I suppose that's subject to interpretation, aye? Especially considering the details of said BOS effectively took their eyes off of me and on to the next guy.
Maybe others in this forum are much more wise and brave than I am, but when a federal agent contacts you asking for details and you can't give them definite information, who's to say the investigation doesn't stay right there?

People have been indicted for less, especially with a few administrations I can think of.

Would love to know what you think you'd be indicted for after selling a gun to a proper person without a bill of sale.

In fact, if the guy you sold the gun to turns out to be the prohibited person, all the bill of sale does is provide written proof of your collusion with him.

 

[Destro]

In fact, if the guy you sold the gun to turns out to be the prohibited person, all the bill of sale does is provide written proof of your collusion with him.

Exactly my thoughts. The standard is typically "knew or should have known" someone was prohibited. From the eyes of a jury, you had all the information written on the receipt needed to reasonably check and see if they were a prohibited person and chose not to,

I say receipt because that is how the overzealous prosecutor is going to characterize it during trial when presenting evidence of running a firearms business without a license and skirting that law too.

"You knew there was a chance people you were selling to might not pass the required checks so you invented your own system to overcome it and complete the sales to prohibited persons"

Inventing laws and procedures could just as easily be your undoing.

 

[misconfig]

Exactly my thoughts. The standard is typically "knew or should have known" someone was prohibited. From the eyes of a jury, you had all the information written on the receipt needed to reasonably check and see if they were a prohibited person and chose not to,

I say receipt because that is how the overzealous prosecutor is going to characterize it during trial when presenting evidence of running a firearms business without a license and skirting that law too.

"You knew there was a chance people you were selling to might not pass the required checks so you invented your own system to overcome it and complete the sales to prohibited persons"

Inventing laws and procedures could just as easily be your undoing.

Interesting take on it. I'm holding a copy of the Indiana Handgun Law from Bryan Ciyou and it says the contrary. I'm not a lawyer though, you may be right. I'm willing to concede on the point, I'm still doing a bill of sale if I sell a firearm though.
One thing to note here is it's not inventing laws - is a agreement between you and a bank a 'law'? No it's an agreement between two parties attesting there is an agreement. I'm not sure if you've seen a bill of sale but there tends to be verbiage stating the buying party attests the information supplied (DL and LTCH) is valid and they are taking possession of the item.

I'm failing to see how any laws are 'invented' here and also failing to see how this introduces more liability, vs the ATF calling me and saying "uh, yeah I sold the gun' without concrete proof, remember here my situation isn't hypothetical, it really happened.

 

[flatlander]

I suppose that's subject to interpretation, aye? Especially considering the details of said BOS effectively took their eyes off of me and on to the next guy.
Maybe others in this forum are much more wise and brave than I am, but when a federal agent contacts you asking for details and you can't give them definite information, who's to say the investigation doesn't stay right there?

People have been indicted for less, especially with a few administrations I can think of.

I've been there with the federal agent. It's no big deal. They move on.

 

[Ingomike]

Interesting take on it. I'm holding a copy of the Indiana Handgun Law from Bryan Ciyou and it says the contrary. I'm not a lawyer though, you may be right. I'm willing to concede on the point, I'm still doing a bill of sale if I sell a firearm though.
One thing to note here is it's not inventing laws - is a agreement between you and a bank a 'law'? No it's an agreement between two parties attesting there is an agreement. I'm not sure if you've seen a bill of sale but there tends to be verbiage stating the buying party attests the information supplied (DL and LTCH) is valid and they are taking possession of the item.

I'm failing to see how any laws are 'invented' here and also failing to see how this introduces more liability, vs the ATF calling me and saying "uh, yeah I sold the gun' without concrete proof, remember here my situation isn't hypothetical, it really happened.

The point you may be missing is, if they want you, they will get you. A piece of fabricated paper will not change that…

 

[misconfig]

The point you may be missing is, if they want you, they will get you. A piece of fabricated paper will not change that…

I don't think I'm missing that per se. Also, it's not a fabrication if both parties agree'd and independently signed the document. You calling it a fabrication is implying the document is false and I'd be lying. Fabricating would be true in terms of inventing the document but in this context it would definitely be interpreted as a false document and forging information from another party.

I've been there with the federal agent. It's no big deal. They move on.

Same here. In my case my understanding is they moved on because I supplied concrete evidence that I'm not the last person who was in possession of the firearm, at least that's my take on it.

 

[Destro]

I'm failing to see how any laws are 'invented' here

What does law say is required to sell a firearm to a private party? Be specific.

 

[misconfig]

What does law say is required to sell a firearm to a private party? Be specific.

I don't know where you are going with this. You simply said a bill of sale is an 'invented' law. I don't know what you are trying to get from me, you made the statement. I did not.

I'm also not inferring a bill of sale is a requirement, it's just a preference nothing about what I said is implying I'm an expert in law, I'm just referencing a book about handgun laws written by a lawyer that happens to focus on the state of Indiana.

 

[Topper80]

Hey guys, just wanted to check to see what y'all do (if anything) when selling your firearms. I moved back to Indiana after several years away not too long ago. I've always checked for gun permit and write bill of sale in the past, but how do you all treat it with the constitutional carry? Just getting ideas and seeing what others do. Thanks

My brother and I check their drivers license and search them on mycase.in.gov
To see if they have any felonies. It only takes a second to do

 

[Ingomike]

My brother and I check their drivers license and search them on mycase.in.gov
To see if they have any felonies. It only takes a second to do

So if you miss something, by the fact that you unilaterally decided that the state’s requirements are inadequate, are you liable?