Websites that sell guns over the Internet?

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 09:12 AM

I'm familiar with the auction sites, like gunbroker, where you can buy a gun and have it shipped to your FFL.

I'm wondering what dealers have their own site? I have seen kyimports.com and wonder if there are more sites like it?

Also, per the ATF rules for obtaining an FFL, it is illegal for a FFL dealer to SELL OR TRANSFER a handgun to a non FFL holder who resides in another state, by Internet or over-the-counter. I know a lot of guys are buying handguns from sellers in other states (via the Internet) and having them shipped to their transfer FFL holder. The transfer is legal, the sale is not.

How are Internet dealers evading this rule legally? Or, have I made an assumption there.......

deanf · January 12, 2002, 09:41 AM

Quote:

The transfer is legal, the sale is not.

ATF is not concerned with the exchange of money, only how the transfers are performed.

I assume the law uses the words SELL OR TRANSFER? I haven't studied up on it in a while. If so, I guess it's something the ATF chooses to interpret differently than you.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 10:00 AM

Thanks for the input Dean, but there really isn't any "interpretation" to it. The wording from the ATF is very clear and its meaning is impossible to misconstrue.

What I find more likely, however, is that the ATF chooses not to vigorously enforce that part of their own rule. The unfortunate part of that being that an entrepreneur, who starts a business with Internet sales as a dependent part of his business plan's success, may find himself butting heads with the ATF soon after opening his business.

RWK · January 12, 2002, 10:05 AM

Without any claim of legal expertise, handgun laws are complied with when: (1) the out-of-state selling FFL transfers a fully-paid firearm to your in-state FFL and (2) the second FFL successfully completes all required state and Federal paperwork (collecting an "administrative" fee, but not charging for the weapon, because you already own it).

I am sure there are a bunch of regulatory and statutory terms I have failed to use in the above paragraph, but that's the crux of it.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 10:22 AM

RWK - I'm not saying that the practice you have described does not happen regularly. And, apparently, the ATF is allowing it to happen. What I am saying is that, per the ATF application for a FFL (I have it in front of me now), it is not legal to do so.

Per the application, you CANNOT sell a handgun to a non FFL outside of your state. The transfer to the buyer's transfer agent FFL holder is legal. Selling the gun to the non FFL out-of-state buyer is not legal. There are many things that happen everyday that are technically illegal, but the governing body charged with enforcement chooses not to do so. My assumption is that this type of transaction fits that category. My problem with it, as a potential firearms dealer, is that the ATF could choose to enforce it at any time.

Again, the wording of the law is very simple to understand. The practice IS illegal. I will contact the Indianapolis ATF office on Monday and find out their position on enforcing the rule.

deanf · January 12, 2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

The wording from the ATF is very clear and its meaning is impossible to misconstrue.

This is what we thought about the constitution, but look what's happened.

444 · January 12, 2002, 10:57 PM

"you CANNOT sell a handgun to a non FFL outside of your state"

They arn't selling the gun to a non FFL. They are selling it to an FFL in your state and you are buying it from him. Obviously, this is how business operates. A manufacturer in one state makes a gun. They sell it to a wholesaler or distributor. The dealer then buys the gun from a wholesaler or distributor and sells it to you. Most of the time the manufacturer, the distributor, and the dealer are all in different states. Your FFL tranfering a gun from another dealer is no different. This is also no different from you going in to your dealer and having him order you a gun that is not in stock. Likewise this is no different than you going to your local dealer and telling him that you want a Model 14 S&W. He looks at Gun List or surfs the internet, finds one, orders it, and then sells it to you. Just because you located the gun and had him order it, doesn't make it illegal.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 11:06 PM

That's not the scenario we're describing 444.

We're talking about a buyer seeing a gun for sale on the internet, sending his money to the FFL seller in another state, the seller then sends the gun to a FFL holder in the buyer's state, and the local FFL holder transfers the gun to the buyer.

The transfer part of the transaction is legal. The seller, who accepted money from a non FFL out-of-state buyer, thus selling the gun to an out-of-state non FFL buyer, is expressly forbidden. That is why, I'm sure, the ATF carefully worded the rule to say SALE or TRANSFER.

As in an earlier post in this thread, I suspect that the ATF is mostly concerned with the proper transfer and not so much with the sale. So, even though it is technically illegal, they aren't enforcing it as long as the transfer is done correctly. I intend to try to get someone at ATF to wink at me on Monday if I'm correct.

444 · January 12, 2002, 11:14 PM

"We're talking about a buyer seeing a gun for sale on the internet, sending his money to the FFL seller in another state, the seller then sends the gun to a FFL holder in the buyer's state, and the local FFL holder transfers the gun to the buyer. "

If this is being done, I have never heard of it. The guy sending the gun has to have a copy of your dealers FFL sent along with the money (unless your dealer already has a current copy of his FFL on file with the other guy). I don't think it really matters if the dealer sends his FFL along with one of your personal checks or a money order made out by you. But either way one dealer is sending his FFL to another dealer who sends the gun back to another FFL holder. And you are buying the gun from your local FFL dealer.

Waterdog · January 12, 2002, 11:17 PM

Now, that was confusing.

Seller(non FFL) can send firearm to FFL in buyers state, FFL in buyers state transfers firearm via 4473 to buyer.

Seller (cannot) sell firearm to FFL in buyers state, only FFL in sellers state (can) sell firearm to FFL in buyers state.

Only FFL can (sell) firearm to FFL in different state.

Correct?

waterdog

444 · January 12, 2002, 11:18 PM

I very well may be missing something here. So let me apologize in advance if that is the case.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 11:23 PM

444 - Not only is it being done, but it is being done a lot. I participated in such a transaction 2 weeks ago. I paid the FFL seller in another state by credit card, my local FFL sent his copy to the selling FFL, the selling FFL sent the gun to my local FFL and the local FFL transferred the gun (4473) to me. In no way can it be construed that my local FFL holder sold me the gun. He TRANSFERRED it to me, but did not sell it to me. The gun was sold to me by a FFL holding dealer in another state. This seller is moving, on average, 4 guns a day.

Jody Hudson · January 12, 2002, 11:24 PM

By the way, does anyone have experience with www.kyimports.com ??? Please advise.

444 · January 12, 2002, 11:37 PM

I now see what you are saying, but I still disagree with your logic. You are still buying the gun from your local dealer. The only difference is that all he is actually charging you is his profit. My local dealer charges $15 for a transfer like that. He is selling you a gun that he has nothing invested in for $15. If he doesn't charge you anything at all for the transfer he is selling you the gun for no profit but he is selling you the gun.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 11:47 PM

It may very well be that is the height at which the ATF has set the bar. If so, they obviously don't care that it is happening.

My local FFL holder also charges $15 for a transfer when the gun comes from another FFL seller out of state. If the way it is kosher with the ATF is that my local guy charges me $15 for a $700 handgun, albeit one that my local guy received for free, then so much the better for all of us.

However, I'm still skeptical that this is what the ATF had in mind.

Indy_SIG · January 12, 2002, 11:56 PM

Jody - I have not bought from kyimports, but I have seen several positive posts about their attention to detail and speed. My personal observation has been that their prices tend to run a bit high for an Internet seller. I can consistently find the same gun on gunbroker.com, or auctionarms.com, for a little less. YMMV

QB · January 13, 2002, 12:10 AM

There are several places on the ATF websight that speak to this issue and say that it IS legal. When going to the site provided below, please review sections B3 and F2.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#2

Waterdog · January 13, 2002, 01:56 AM

In reviewing the ATF site, paragraphs (B8) and (B9), it is my understanding, that a nonlicensee may ship a handgun by common carrier to a licensee (FFL), in another state, and then it can be transfered by 4473 to buyer.

Reads pretty damn clear to me.

I think (F2) refers to FFL selling to private citizen of another state, and (B9) clarifies (B3)

No (handguns) may be shipped USPS.

Waterdog

yankytrash · January 13, 2002, 06:41 AM

Indy - You're thinking too hard.

Here's what happened, in your case:

You saw a gun you liked. Although you may have paid for it with your crdeit card, the gun was sent to, and transferred to, your dealer. Then, your dealer transferred it to you.

Thus, the last owner of the gun was not the out-of-state dealer, but your local dealer.

When your local dealer received that gun, he had to enter it into his books as part of his inventory. At the point, the gun is his, no matter who laid down the money. Technically, at that point, he can take his keys and put a big, long, deep scratch along the side of the gun and it wouldn't matter, because it's his.

Not until your 4473 paperwork, paid fees, and the entry in his book is it yours.

That's why most gun ads say, "Call your FFL holder for pricing". That's so he can mark it up if he so desires.

The fact that most FFLs do not choose to mark up the guns they receive as part of these types of transfers really says something about the gun community. We're all in this together, and we're not going to try to screw each other.

I want to buy a Ford pickup that my local dealer doesn't have. I can call and order any truck or car from Ford Motor Company that I want, and pay Ford Finance. But, since I'm not an authorized Ford dealer, Ford has to send it to my local dealer. When that car or truck arrives at my dealer, the title has his, not my, name on it. The title will not be in my name until all applicable taxes and fees are paid by me to the Ford dealer. My Ford dealer, at that point, has the option of throwing his profit margin on it, if he so desires, and I have no legal recourse.

If I paid $40,000 for the car, it's still not mine until those couple hundred dollar's worth of fees are paid. Until then, the car is his.

Get it?

Indy_SIG · January 13, 2002, 09:04 AM

QB and others,

Thanks for the input, but you are describing sections of ATF code that do not match the scenario that I have described.

I received an email this morning from a former ATF employee who now works for the Marion County Sheriff's (Indianapolis) Department. I got his name and email from a local gun dealer. He confirmed that the scenario I have described is indeed ILLEGAL. In the legal relationship between the selling FFL dealer and myself, there was "consideration" on both sides, thus a sale occurred. "Consideration" is a term that has a special legal meaning and the definition is rather long. Suffice it to say, for this discussion, that it is the measure of whether a sale took place.

Just as I have described above, the fact that the selling FFL dealer TRANSFERRED the gun legally is irrelevant. When he received my money, and took action, ANY ACTION, that benefitted him, Consideration occurred for both parties and a sale happened - illegally. The fact that there was an intermediate FFL holder in the transaction is completely irrelevant.

Also as I wrote above in another thread, the ATF is not stupid....they are well aware of such practice. While technically illegal, they are more interested in the TRANSFER than they are the SALE. This is good for you and I, but unnerving for a potential entrepreneur who is considering using Internet sales as a major component of a gun dealership.

These are complicated topics and do require somewhat of a background in either these laws or interpreting laws and/or contracts in general. My expertise is the latter. It is what drew my interest to this topic in the first place, after I completed such a sale a couple weeks ago.

444 · January 13, 2002, 01:17 PM

" there was "consideration" on both sides, thus a sale occurred"

Years ago, I took a couple business law classes. My memory of them isn't all that great and they certainly didn't make me a lawyer, but my understanding of the term consideration is that both parties payed or gave up something of value in the deal. In a normal business deal, you would pay someone in cash and the other party would provide you with the goods or services you agreed upon. The consideration is the cash and the goods and services. You give money, he gives the gun in this case. Again, this did not take place. You gave the money, he gave the gun to someone else. You got no consideration from him, there was no consideration on both sides. You got the gun from a third party who, as mentioned above, owned the gun at the time of the transfer and gave him the consideration of $15.

One thing you might want to keep in mind, and no, this is not paranoia or right wing propaganda. The government (at any level) frequently makes their own inturpretation of law, arrests you, and it is up to you to prove or disprove that they are right or wrong. Even if you manage to win, you will be ruined financially and your reputation dragged through the mud. I am not sure about the BATF, but I know that the IRS is allowed to even ignore past case law. In other words if you and I have the exact same tax problem, you might fight it in court and win. That doesn't mean that I am now allowed to do the same thing, I would have to also win the case in court. The point to all this is that you are playing with fire. You might think that this is a light hearted discussion. Let me assure you that it is not. This is more like playing with very old and unstable dynamite or playing with an ouija board. The danger of losing everything you have and having your life ruined beyond repair are lurking right around the next bend in the road. This ouija board you are playing with will open the door to entities that are worse than your wildest nightmares. You admit to a world wide audience that you participated in a transaction that you believe to be illegal. I don't agree but I think you had better rethink what buttons you are pushing. After reading this, I can think of no one right now more willing to be a victim. But why would anyone want to bother me, I am a law abiding, productive, tax paying member of society. The BATF sees you as someone to make an example out of. Remember, government exists for it's own sake. The only reason this issue even exists is because govenment said it did. This isn't a moral question. The BATF sees stuff like this as reason to hire more people, promote more people and expand their spere of power. They need to do this to combat this new problem, this internet loophole. Their goal is power and money. Tax money. They don't care who they trample to get to this goal. If there are no criminals, there is no reason to have law enforcement. So, we simply make more laws. More laws = more criminals. More criminals = more money and power for us. The worse we can make the problem appear, the easier it is no get more money and hire more people.

LiquidTension · January 13, 2002, 06:03 PM

This seems pretty simple to me but maybe I'm just weird. It would be pretty stupid for your local dealer to buy the gun from the out of state guy and then get his money back from you if he's not marking up the price (i.e. he's just doing a transfer). It would also be silly to give the local guy your money and have him order the gun. Why not just cut out the middle man and a load of hassle by giving payment directly to where it has to end up??? Seems to me that this could be the reason ATF doesn't enforce the section of law you quoted earlier. The end result is the same - the out of state guy gets the money for the product he is selling, and you get the product. Naturally this doesn't really apply to a dealer's stock, which will always be marked up. But if the dealer is just doing a transfer for you, he'll charge you for the transfer and that's where he makes his money. I think I just said the same thing about 5 different ways and I'm not sure any of them made sense. The out of state dealer is receiving money and then shipping the gun. He's shipping it to another dealer, so it is legal. What the other dealer does with it doesn't matter because the out of state guy has already completed his end of the transaction. Yeah.

yankytrash · January 14, 2002, 06:01 AM

ehhehehhheh, "consideration". That's funny. Now the BATF is trying to look educated, too.

Maybe next time you talk to a agent, give him this scenario:

I recently found out that I need a new, post-ban lower for my AR if I am to compete in an NRA High-Power shoot to my satisfaction. I've always had a firm respect for Bushmaster's products, so I think I'll order a complete A2 lower from them. I look on their website and see what I want, but I have to call my local dealer to call them for the pricing.

Let's say my dealer then calls me back and says they're $250 or somethin. I send an order with my credit card.

OK, so now what? Is that lower on hold for me? If 444 decides he needs the same thing, and sends the money, along with his dealer sending a copy of the FFL, what will Bushmaster do? Will they say, "Oh no, I'm sorry 444, but yank put money on that receiver. You can't have it."

The answer is no. I'll still be out $250 forever until I get my dealer to send the FFL. Then, it will be transferred to him and him only.

The lower was never "considered" mine at all. My payment was only in acting as an agent of my dealer.

ATF, what a buncha jokers. The reason they say they 'let' it go on is because it is, indeed, legal.

Don't let them scare you, that's what they want.

If you ask the right guy at the ATF, they'll say private in-state transfers are illegal too. I know, because two different agents, from a certain Buffalo, NY-area office, I've talked to have actually tried to tell me as such.

EOD Guy · January 14, 2002, 09:27 AM

Indy-Sig,

You are incorrect and so is your ex-ATF agent friend. There is no such provision in the BATF Regulations (27CFR). As a mater of fact, the sale would be legal if the firearm is shipped to a licensee in the buyer's home state and the buyer takes delivery there.. This is specifically addressed in the Federal Firearms Regulations Guide (ATF Publication 5300.4) on page 138, FAQ F2.

"(F2) May a licensed dealer sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of another state?"

"Generally a firearm may not be lawfully sold by a licensed dealer to a nonlicensee who resides in another State other than the State in which the seller's licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaser's State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence."

Indy_SIG · January 14, 2002, 10:37 AM

EOD - I have confirmed from the BATF that, while the transaction is technically illegal per their regulations, in reality it is defacto legal. The BATF has allowed the scenario that I described, without challenge, to the point where it has become commonly accepted practice. If a seller transfers the gun legally to an FFL holder in the buyer's state, the BATF has no interest in following the money trail or preventing the sale.

I don't know that this answer necessarily relived my concern over doing so on a regular basis, but it is encouraging.

January 12, 2002, 09:12 AM	#1
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	Websites that sell guns over the Internet? I'm familiar with the auction sites, like gunbroker, where you can buy a gun and have it shipped to your FFL. I'm wondering what dealers have their own site? I have seen kyimports.com and wonder if there are more sites like it? Also, per the ATF rules for obtaining an FFL, it is illegal for a FFL dealer to SELL OR TRANSFER a handgun to a non FFL holder who resides in another state, by Internet or over-the-counter. I know a lot of guys are buying handguns from sellers in other states (via the Internet) and having them shipped to their transfer FFL holder. The transfer is legal, the sale is not. How are Internet dealers evading this rule legally? Or, have I made an assumption there....... __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 10:00 AM	#3
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	Thanks for the input Dean, but there really isn't any "interpretation" to it. The wording from the ATF is very clear and its meaning is impossible to misconstrue. What I find more likely, however, is that the ATF chooses not to vigorously enforce that part of their own rule. The unfortunate part of that being that an entrepreneur, who starts a business with Internet sales as a dependent part of his business plan's success, may find himself butting heads with the ATF soon after opening his business. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 10:05 AM	#4
RWK Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 1999 Location: Occupied Virginia Posts: 2,777	Indy Sig: Practically, here's how it works . . . Without any claim of legal expertise, handgun laws are complied with when: (1) the out-of-state selling FFL transfers a fully-paid firearm to your in-state FFL and (2) the second FFL successfully completes all required state and Federal paperwork (collecting an "administrative" fee, but not charging for the weapon, because you already own it). I am sure there are a bunch of regulatory and statutory terms I have failed to use in the above paragraph, but that's the crux of it. __________________ __________________ Μολών λαβέ!

January 12, 2002, 10:22 AM	#5
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	RWK - I'm not saying that the practice you have described does not happen regularly. And, apparently, the ATF is allowing it to happen. What I am saying is that, per the ATF application for a FFL (I have it in front of me now), it is not legal to do so. Per the application, you CANNOT sell a handgun to a non FFL outside of your state. The transfer to the buyer's transfer agent FFL holder is legal. Selling the gun to the non FFL out-of-state buyer is not legal. There are many things that happen everyday that are technically illegal, but the governing body charged with enforcement chooses not to do so. My assumption is that this type of transaction fits that category. My problem with it, as a potential firearms dealer, is that the ATF could choose to enforce it at any time. Again, the wording of the law is very simple to understand. The practice IS illegal. I will contact the Indianapolis ATF office on Monday and find out their position on enforcing the rule. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 10:57 PM	#7
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	"you CANNOT sell a handgun to a non FFL outside of your state" They arn't selling the gun to a non FFL. They are selling it to an FFL in your state and you are buying it from him. Obviously, this is how business operates. A manufacturer in one state makes a gun. They sell it to a wholesaler or distributor. The dealer then buys the gun from a wholesaler or distributor and sells it to you. Most of the time the manufacturer, the distributor, and the dealer are all in different states. Your FFL tranfering a gun from another dealer is no different. This is also no different from you going in to your dealer and having him order you a gun that is not in stock. Likewise this is no different than you going to your local dealer and telling him that you want a Model 14 S&W. He looks at Gun List or surfs the internet, finds one, orders it, and then sells it to you. Just because you located the gun and had him order it, doesn't make it illegal. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

January 12, 2002, 11:06 PM	#8
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	That's not the scenario we're describing 444. We're talking about a buyer seeing a gun for sale on the internet, sending his money to the FFL seller in another state, the seller then sends the gun to a FFL holder in the buyer's state, and the local FFL holder transfers the gun to the buyer. The transfer part of the transaction is legal. The seller, who accepted money from a non FFL out-of-state buyer, thus selling the gun to an out-of-state non FFL buyer, is expressly forbidden. That is why, I'm sure, the ATF carefully worded the rule to say SALE or TRANSFER. As in an earlier post in this thread, I suspect that the ATF is mostly concerned with the proper transfer and not so much with the sale. So, even though it is technically illegal, they aren't enforcing it as long as the transfer is done correctly. I intend to try to get someone at ATF to wink at me on Monday if I'm correct. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 11:14 PM	#9
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	"We're talking about a buyer seeing a gun for sale on the internet, sending his money to the FFL seller in another state, the seller then sends the gun to a FFL holder in the buyer's state, and the local FFL holder transfers the gun to the buyer. " If this is being done, I have never heard of it. The guy sending the gun has to have a copy of your dealers FFL sent along with the money (unless your dealer already has a current copy of his FFL on file with the other guy). I don't think it really matters if the dealer sends his FFL along with one of your personal checks or a money order made out by you. But either way one dealer is sending his FFL to another dealer who sends the gun back to another FFL holder. And you are buying the gun from your local FFL dealer.

January 12, 2002, 11:17 PM	#10
Waterdog Junior member Join Date: January 6, 2000 Location: AZ Posts: 1,236	Now, that was confusing. Seller(non FFL) can send firearm to FFL in buyers state, FFL in buyers state transfers firearm via 4473 to buyer. Seller (cannot) sell firearm to FFL in buyers state, only FFL in sellers state (can) sell firearm to FFL in buyers state. Only FFL can (sell) firearm to FFL in different state. Correct? waterdog

January 12, 2002, 11:18 PM	#11
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	I very well may be missing something here. So let me apologize in advance if that is the case. __________________ You know the rest. In the books you have read How the British Regulars fired and fled, How the farmers gave them ball for ball, From behind each fence and farmyard wall, Chasing the redcoats down the lane, Then crossing the fields to emerge again Under the trees at the turn of the road, And only pausing to fire and load.

January 12, 2002, 11:23 PM	#12
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	444 - Not only is it being done, but it is being done a lot. I participated in such a transaction 2 weeks ago. I paid the FFL seller in another state by credit card, my local FFL sent his copy to the selling FFL, the selling FFL sent the gun to my local FFL and the local FFL transferred the gun (4473) to me. In no way can it be construed that my local FFL holder sold me the gun. He TRANSFERRED it to me, but did not sell it to me. The gun was sold to me by a FFL holding dealer in another state. This seller is moving, on average, 4 guns a day. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 11:24 PM	#13
Jody Hudson Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2000 Location: Near Rehoboth Beach Delaware Posts: 1,140	By the way, does anyone have experience with www.kyimports.com ??? Please advise. __________________ We help people relocate to Rehoboth Beach Delaware. Our Site: www.Kate-Jody.com

January 12, 2002, 11:37 PM	#14
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	I now see what you are saying, but I still disagree with your logic. You are still buying the gun from your local dealer. The only difference is that all he is actually charging you is his profit. My local dealer charges $15 for a transfer like that. He is selling you a gun that he has nothing invested in for $15. If he doesn't charge you anything at all for the transfer he is selling you the gun for no profit but he is selling you the gun.

January 12, 2002, 11:47 PM	#15
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	It may very well be that is the height at which the ATF has set the bar. If so, they obviously don't care that it is happening. My local FFL holder also charges $15 for a transfer when the gun comes from another FFL seller out of state. If the way it is kosher with the ATF is that my local guy charges me $15 for a $700 handgun, albeit one that my local guy received for free, then so much the better for all of us. However, I'm still skeptical that this is what the ATF had in mind. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 12, 2002, 11:56 PM	#16
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	Jody - I have not bought from kyimports, but I have seen several positive posts about their attention to detail and speed. My personal observation has been that their prices tend to run a bit high for an Internet seller. I can consistently find the same gun on gunbroker.com, or auctionarms.com, for a little less. YMMV __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 13, 2002, 12:10 AM	#17
QB Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2000 Location: Carrollton, Texas (DFW Metro) Posts: 100	There are several places on the ATF websight that speak to this issue and say that it IS legal. When going to the site provided below, please review sections B3 and F2. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#2

January 13, 2002, 01:56 AM	#18
Waterdog Junior member Join Date: January 6, 2000 Location: AZ Posts: 1,236	In reviewing the ATF site, paragraphs (B8) and (B9), it is my understanding, that a nonlicensee may ship a handgun by common carrier to a licensee (FFL), in another state, and then it can be transfered by 4473 to buyer. Reads pretty damn clear to me. I think (F2) refers to FFL selling to private citizen of another state, and (B9) clarifies (B3) No (handguns) may be shipped USPS. Waterdog

January 13, 2002, 06:41 AM	#19
yankytrash Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2001 Location: Farnham, Va Posts: 2,183	Indy - You're thinking too hard. Here's what happened, in your case: You saw a gun you liked. Although you may have paid for it with your crdeit card, the gun was sent to, and transferred to, your dealer. Then, your dealer transferred it to you. Thus, the last owner of the gun was not the out-of-state dealer, but your local dealer. When your local dealer received that gun, he had to enter it into his books as part of his inventory. At the point, the gun is his, no matter who laid down the money. Technically, at that point, he can take his keys and put a big, long, deep scratch along the side of the gun and it wouldn't matter, because it's his. Not until your 4473 paperwork, paid fees, and the entry in his book is it yours. That's why most gun ads say, "Call your FFL holder for pricing". That's so he can mark it up if he so desires. The fact that most FFLs do not choose to mark up the guns they receive as part of these types of transfers really says something about the gun community. We're all in this together, and we're not going to try to screw each other. I want to buy a Ford pickup that my local dealer doesn't have. I can call and order any truck or car from Ford Motor Company that I want, and pay Ford Finance. But, since I'm not an authorized Ford dealer, Ford has to send it to my local dealer. When that car or truck arrives at my dealer, the title has his, not my, name on it. The title will not be in my name until all applicable taxes and fees are paid by me to the Ford dealer. My Ford dealer, at that point, has the option of throwing his profit margin on it, if he so desires, and I have no legal recourse. If I paid $40,000 for the car, it's still not mine until those couple hundred dollar's worth of fees are paid. Until then, the car is his. Get it? __________________ Right turn, Clyde.

January 13, 2002, 09:04 AM	#20
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	QB and others, Thanks for the input, but you are describing sections of ATF code that do not match the scenario that I have described. I received an email this morning from a former ATF employee who now works for the Marion County Sheriff's (Indianapolis) Department. I got his name and email from a local gun dealer. He confirmed that the scenario I have described is indeed ILLEGAL. In the legal relationship between the selling FFL dealer and myself, there was "consideration" on both sides, thus a sale occurred. "Consideration" is a term that has a special legal meaning and the definition is rather long. Suffice it to say, for this discussion, that it is the measure of whether a sale took place. Just as I have described above, the fact that the selling FFL dealer TRANSFERRED the gun legally is irrelevant. When he received my money, and took action, ANY ACTION, that benefitted him, Consideration occurred for both parties and a sale happened - illegally. The fact that there was an intermediate FFL holder in the transaction is completely irrelevant. Also as I wrote above in another thread, the ATF is not stupid....they are well aware of such practice. While technically illegal, they are more interested in the TRANSFER than they are the SALE. This is good for you and I, but unnerving for a potential entrepreneur who is considering using Internet sales as a major component of a gun dealership. These are complicated topics and do require somewhat of a background in either these laws or interpreting laws and/or contracts in general. My expertise is the latter. It is what drew my interest to this topic in the first place, after I completed such a sale a couple weeks ago. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.

January 13, 2002, 01:17 PM	#21
444 Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2000 Location: Ohio Posts: 3,968	" there was "consideration" on both sides, thus a sale occurred" Years ago, I took a couple business law classes. My memory of them isn't all that great and they certainly didn't make me a lawyer, but my understanding of the term consideration is that both parties payed or gave up something of value in the deal. In a normal business deal, you would pay someone in cash and the other party would provide you with the goods or services you agreed upon. The consideration is the cash and the goods and services. You give money, he gives the gun in this case. Again, this did not take place. You gave the money, he gave the gun to someone else. You got no consideration from him, there was no consideration on both sides. You got the gun from a third party who, as mentioned above, owned the gun at the time of the transfer and gave him the consideration of $15. One thing you might want to keep in mind, and no, this is not paranoia or right wing propaganda. The government (at any level) frequently makes their own inturpretation of law, arrests you, and it is up to you to prove or disprove that they are right or wrong. Even if you manage to win, you will be ruined financially and your reputation dragged through the mud. I am not sure about the BATF, but I know that the IRS is allowed to even ignore past case law. In other words if you and I have the exact same tax problem, you might fight it in court and win. That doesn't mean that I am now allowed to do the same thing, I would have to also win the case in court. The point to all this is that you are playing with fire. You might think that this is a light hearted discussion. Let me assure you that it is not. This is more like playing with very old and unstable dynamite or playing with an ouija board. The danger of losing everything you have and having your life ruined beyond repair are lurking right around the next bend in the road. This ouija board you are playing with will open the door to entities that are worse than your wildest nightmares. You admit to a world wide audience that you participated in a transaction that you believe to be illegal. I don't agree but I think you had better rethink what buttons you are pushing. After reading this, I can think of no one right now more willing to be a victim. But why would anyone want to bother me, I am a law abiding, productive, tax paying member of society. The BATF sees you as someone to make an example out of. Remember, government exists for it's own sake. The only reason this issue even exists is because govenment said it did. This isn't a moral question. The BATF sees stuff like this as reason to hire more people, promote more people and expand their spere of power. They need to do this to combat this new problem, this internet loophole. Their goal is power and money. Tax money. They don't care who they trample to get to this goal. If there are no criminals, there is no reason to have law enforcement. So, we simply make more laws. More laws = more criminals. More criminals = more money and power for us. The worse we can make the problem appear, the easier it is no get more money and hire more people. Last edited by 444; January 13, 2002 at 01:48 PM.

January 13, 2002, 06:03 PM	#22
LiquidTension Senior Member Join Date: August 21, 2000 Location: SC Posts: 105	This seems pretty simple to me but maybe I'm just weird. It would be pretty stupid for your local dealer to buy the gun from the out of state guy and then get his money back from you if he's not marking up the price (i.e. he's just doing a transfer). It would also be silly to give the local guy your money and have him order the gun. Why not just cut out the middle man and a load of hassle by giving payment directly to where it has to end up??? Seems to me that this could be the reason ATF doesn't enforce the section of law you quoted earlier. The end result is the same - the out of state guy gets the money for the product he is selling, and you get the product. Naturally this doesn't really apply to a dealer's stock, which will always be marked up. But if the dealer is just doing a transfer for you, he'll charge you for the transfer and that's where he makes his money. I think I just said the same thing about 5 different ways and I'm not sure any of them made sense. The out of state dealer is receiving money and then shipping the gun. He's shipping it to another dealer, so it is legal. What the other dealer does with it doesn't matter because the out of state guy has already completed his end of the transaction. Yeah.

January 14, 2002, 06:01 AM	#23
yankytrash Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2001 Location: Farnham, Va Posts: 2,183	ehhehehhheh, "consideration". That's funny. Now the BATF is trying to look educated, too. Maybe next time you talk to a agent, give him this scenario: I recently found out that I need a new, post-ban lower for my AR if I am to compete in an NRA High-Power shoot to my satisfaction. I've always had a firm respect for Bushmaster's products, so I think I'll order a complete A2 lower from them. I look on their website and see what I want, but I have to call my local dealer to call them for the pricing. Let's say my dealer then calls me back and says they're $250 or somethin. I send an order with my credit card. OK, so now what? Is that lower on hold for me? If 444 decides he needs the same thing, and sends the money, along with his dealer sending a copy of the FFL, what will Bushmaster do? Will they say, "Oh no, I'm sorry 444, but yank put money on that receiver. You can't have it." The answer is no. I'll still be out $250 forever until I get my dealer to send the FFL. Then, it will be transferred to him and him only. The lower was never "considered" mine at all. My payment was only in acting as an agent of my dealer. ATF, what a buncha jokers. The reason they say they 'let' it go on is because it is, indeed, legal. Don't let them scare you, that's what they want. If you ask the right guy at the ATF, they'll say private in-state transfers are illegal too. I know, because two different agents, from a certain Buffalo, NY-area office, I've talked to have actually tried to tell me as such. __________________ Right turn, Clyde.

January 14, 2002, 09:27 AM	#24
EOD Guy Senior Member Join Date: February 18, 1999 Location: Concord, CA, USA Posts: 726	Indy-Sig, You are incorrect and so is your ex-ATF agent friend. There is no such provision in the BATF Regulations (27CFR). As a mater of fact, the sale would be legal if the firearm is shipped to a licensee in the buyer's home state and the buyer takes delivery there.. This is specifically addressed in the Federal Firearms Regulations Guide (ATF Publication 5300.4) on page 138, FAQ F2. "(F2) May a licensed dealer sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of another state?" "Generally a firearm may not be lawfully sold by a licensed dealer to a nonlicensee who resides in another State other than the State in which the seller's licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer whose business is in the purchaser's State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the dealer in his or her State of residence."

January 14, 2002, 10:37 AM	#25
Indy_SIG Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2001 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 441	EOD - I have confirmed from the BATF that, while the transaction is technically illegal per their regulations, in reality it is defacto legal. The BATF has allowed the scenario that I described, without challenge, to the point where it has become commonly accepted practice. If a seller transfers the gun legally to an FFL holder in the buyer's state, the BATF has no interest in following the money trail or preventing the sale. I don't know that this answer necessarily relived my concern over doing so on a regular basis, but it is encouraging. __________________ I refuse to be a willing victim.