What's up with Gunbroker sellers?

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:14 am

Being attracted by weird, old firearms, I am often caught snooping around Gunbroker and other such dens of iniquity admiring worn-out Martinis, Sniders, Vetterlis, "Zulus" and other oddities from the Victorian era. But more and more, I am encountering sellers who insist on shipping to an FFL despite the fact the firearm was clearly manufactured long before 1898 and is therefore an antique under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Are these people clueless, timid, ill-informed or just plain stupid? I am not about to buy from these clowns and needlessly incur the added expense of a dealer transfer. Anyone else noticing this?

bmtshooter · Post by **bmtshooter** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:48 am

I passed on bidding on a muzzleloader on Gun Broker because of that very reason about a year ago. When I contacted the seller, they said that they were not familiar with the laws and were not taking any chances. The seller was not a gun guy, and was just trying to convert the rifle to cash. He was even in the same state where I live. Perhaps you are seeing a wave of uneducated sellers. Sad to say, but when folks inherit items to which they hold no particular connection, often they just want to convert to cash quickly.

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:46 am

I've noticed that a lot too. I think it's just a "cover yer butt" move, regardless of the laws.

Mainehunter · Post by **Mainehunter** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:10 am

TedH wrote:I've noticed that a lot too. I think it's just a "cover yer butt" move, regardless of the laws.

+1

Mainehunter

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:42 am

Bill in Oregon wrote:.....Are these people clueless, timid, ill-informed or just plain stupid? ....

Yes, yes, and yes.

The other end of the spectrum is the ones you see openly negotiating on Facebook to transact across state lines without an FFL. I live a stone's throw from Okiehoma, and see it all the time. If I tell some of them I want their gun, but want to meet them at the FFL, they back out (good to know). Others have chosen to sell their bargain to me BECAUSE I wanted to use an FFL, when others were trying to get them to circumvent the law.

My FFL only charges me $10 per transfer, even if multiple guns are on the sheet, so it doesn't bother me much. I'd almost rather have it delivered to the FFL rather than have UPS leave it unattended on my porch. I live in the boonies, but anything can happen.

(boonies- (noun) A nice place to live where you can pee off the back porch, off the front porch, in the front yard, at the mailbox, etc and so forth.

FatJackDurham · Post by **FatJackDurham** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:32 am

I am not stupid or ignorant of the laws, but I still prefer to ship to an FFL. Also, I can't get the USPS or UPS to even take a gun despite being legal. I pretty much have to have my local gun store ship everything.

BrentD · Post by **BrentD** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:45 am

FatJackDurham wrote:I am not stupid or ignorant of the laws, but I still prefer to ship to an FFL. Also, I can't get the USPS or UPS to even take a gun despite being legal. I pretty much have to have my local gun store ship everything.

if you can't get USPS to take a long arm, then you need to get in touch with the Postmaster, and then, if necessary, your congresscritters. It is really that simple. I do this all the time and my post office is simply great about it.

InTheWoods · Post by **InTheWoods** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:51 am

Cabelas made me wait 45 minutes in the background check line in order to purchase a Smith and Wesson tip-up revolver made decades before 1898. How stupid, and definitely a CYA policy.

OldWin · Post by **OldWin** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:13 pm

I understand the thought process, but......

If you can legally do something and everyone chooses not to.....just to be safe.......It soon won't be legal to do so.

I see this trend as a fast track to "universal background checks".

Sorry if I got this bumped to "Politics".

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:18 pm

I got a C&R license for that reason...

missionary5155 · Post by **missionary5155** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:31 pm

Greetings
I was informed by the resident that his state requires an FFL to ship all firearms out of that state.
Mike in Peru

jhrosier · Post by **jhrosier** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:57 pm

Bill in Oregon wrote:.... Are these people clueless, timid, ill-informed or just plain stupid?...

This is becoming the rule, rather than the exception, in the Northeast.
Gunshop employees and police officers seem particularly prone to making up "stuff" on the fly.

I believe that most of the rest is a product of young skulls full of mush who have been educated in the public school system.
The latter are most likely to assume that everything is illegal unless the state gives them permission.

The whole thing just makes my head hurt.

Jack

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:07 pm

.

Sellers aren't alone, in the ignorance of Federal Law - last week, I was shooting the breeze with a receiving FFL, who told me that as far as he knew, NOBODY except an FFL holder could legally ship/mail a gun to him, and that the BATF inspectors would take issue with him.

(My state has no such restriction)

There's no arguing with stupid........................

.

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:08 pm

After getting some static about the right of a nonlicensee to mail long guns, I took the appropriate sections of the United States Code to my small-town postmaster a few years back, and after a brief discussion, she was fully clued in and became most helpful.

7.62 Precision · Post by **7.62 Precision** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:07 am

Bill in Oregon wrote:Are these people clueless, timid, ill-informed or just plain stupid?

Yes.

And if you are an individual, no, you do not need a copy of my FFL - you an verify it on EZ-check, so no, I won't send it to you.

And you can send the rifle assembled, with (gasp!) the firing pin in even.

And why should I pay you triple actual shipping cost because I am in Alaska?

By the way, I know how much it costs to ship to Alaska, I do it all the time, and it does not cost as much as you want to charge me.

No, it is not overseas, it is not exporting without a license, we do pay in American dollars, we do speak English, and we do sleep in the mud when our igloos melt in the spring, and yes, I do have Sarah Palin over for dinner once a week. Oh, and I'm a king crab fisherman bush pilot that lives on a wilderness homestead and drives an ice road to work running a gold dredge from the deck of the crab boat. (Sometimes you have to tell them a few of the things they want to hear.)

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:47 am

There is also a guy in Albuquerque who keeps posting his guns for sale on a local internet classified board and insisting that the buyer will sign a bill of sale. I've always heard of bills of sale being used to demonstrate legal ownership by the buyer - as in "this is not stolen", not the other way around.

The guy's ads always have a huge metaphorical chip on his shoulder anyway, like he's doing the world a big favor by offering his guns for sale in the first place.

These guys crack me up.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:54 am

.

He sounds like one of those "rare gun" sellers......................

.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:08 am

92&94 wrote:There is also a guy in Albuquerque who keeps posting his guns for sale on a local internet classified board and insisting that the buyer will sign a bill of sale. I've always heard of bills of sale being used to demonstrate legal ownership by the buyer - as in "this is not stolen", not the other way around.

The guy's ads always have a huge metaphorical chip on his shoulder anyway, like he's doing the world a big favor by offering his guns for sale in the first place.

These guys crack me up.

You mean like, "I don't really want to sell this, but if someone makes the right offer I will......"

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:09 am

Pete44ru wrote:.

He sounds like one of those "rare gun" sellers......................

.

Yeah, he's selling various "mint/perfect" (his words

) condition guns, but nothing truly old. Prices aren't all that bad really, compared to some I've seen. This has been going on for months with the two lever guns I keep looking at - I believe he's come down some of the prices through lack of interest. Funny part is that the guy can't seem to figure out that the lack of interest has more to do with the dumb carp than the price!

Heck, if he came down another $100 on his 32 Special I would buy it in spite of the bill of sale. In fact, I would tell him I wanted a signed copy from him as well to prove I hadn't stolen his gun - THAT would probably pz him right off

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:09 am

vancelw wrote:
92&94 wrote:There is also a guy in Albuquerque who keeps posting his guns for sale on a local internet classified board and insisting that the buyer will sign a bill of sale. I've always heard of bills of sale being used to demonstrate legal ownership by the buyer - as in "this is not stolen", not the other way around.

The guy's ads always have a huge metaphorical chip on his shoulder anyway, like he's doing the world a big favor by offering his guns for sale in the first place.

These guys crack me up.
You mean like, "I don't really want to sell this, but if someone makes the right offer I will......"

Yup, one o' them guys

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:22 am

Hmmm, sounds like a lot of jail house lawyers condemning those that aren't as "smart" as they are. Anybody wanna quote the exact law? Section, subsection, paragraph, and sentence? Or is all this wonderful information what has been read online and/or Bubba's uncle's sister's nephew once took a pre-law class and his teacher told him so...

As for signing a sales receipt, it's silly not to keep a signed record of a sale of anything of value; guns, cars, equipment, wives...

No offense fellers, just seems a little rough on a bit of CYA...

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:48 pm

Well, here is what Gunbroker customer support told me when I asked about this:

1/28/2015 12:19:04 PM
GBSupport1015 That decision is up to the sellers.
1/27/2015 7:21:47 AM
William Powell I am finding more and more sellers here will not ship firearms that are clearly pre 1898 except to an FFL holder. I won't put up with this ignorance from your sellers. You and they are missing sales. Thanks. Bill Powell

Chapter and verse?

Here is exactly what the ATF 'Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide' (ATF P 5300.4) says:

(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 178.31, 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]

(B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U. S. Postal Service?
A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

'Antique' firearms need not be shipped to a licensed dealer. These can be shipped directly to the buyer. An antique firearm is a firearm built in or before 1898, or a replica thereof. The exact ATF definition of an antique firearm is:
Antique firearm. (a) Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and (b) any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this definition if such replica (1) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (2) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

It's hard for me to imagine how this could be any clearer.

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:10 pm

mikld wrote:Hmmm, sounds like a lot of jail house lawyers condemning those that aren't as "smart" as they are. Anybody wanna quote the exact law? Section, subsection, paragraph, and sentence? Or is all this wonderful information what has been read online and/or Bubba's uncle's sister's nephew once took a pre-law class and his teacher told him so...

As for signing a sales receipt, it's silly not to keep a signed record of a sale of anything of value; guns, cars, equipment, wives...

No offense fellers, just seems a little rough on a bit of CYA...

You say no offense after calling us paranoid jailhouse lawyers. If you mean no offense, then do not say the offensive thing.

I say the CYA'ers are the paranoid jailhouse lawyers - they are the ones following made up, nonsense rules in order to avoid threats that do not even exist.

As Bill has illustrated already, one can look up the ATF regs and the letter of the law in the GCA 68 - no I do not know the title, chapter, and paragraph of US Code - it is easy enough to find on the net using GCA 68. We're not making this up.

I see no reason I should sign a record of a seller's transaction. Business does not work this way - that is why the store does not ask you to sign every receipt they print - they write it for their records and give you a copy so you can prove you purchased this item, should their be any confusion over potential theft. You, as the customer, are under no obligation to help the seller prove to a third party that they legally sold you anything - whereas the seller is reasonably obligated to provide you with a bill of sale so that you have some recourse if they take your money and then report the item stolen and tip the cops off to your license plate number.

How does the customer signing the bill of sale prove anything? There is nothing to be proven to anyone - because we do not register guns in New Mexico. No one is ever going to show up on that idiot's doorstep and ask what happened to the Winchester 94 carbine he bought used from his uncle in 1980. And I'm willing to bet that even if his eventual customer signs his bill of sale, that guy is never going to tell the IRS that he made $600 or whatever on a gun he sold. I know, I could buy it, demand his signature on a bill of sale, and then 1099 him!

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:43 pm

Well, so far the only post/reply that was really informative and not speculative sounding was Bill in Oregon's last post. Most of the rest just said the sellers were stupid and ignorant. Did you take offense? Oh well, I guess that's too bad

Didn't intend to, but I stand by my original post. Nobody seemed to give any real facts, just name calling...

Thanks Bill...

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:05 pm

mikld wrote:Well, so far the only post/reply that was really informative and not speculative sounding was Bill in Oregon's last post. Most of the rest just said the sellers were stupid and ignorant. Did you take offense? Oh well, I guess that's too bad Didn't intend to, but I stand by my original post. Nobody seemed to give any real facts, just name calling...

Thanks Bill...

Nah, not really offended. Just seems kinda stupid to criticize most people posting in this thread and then say "no offense" as if that makes it all ok. Whatever though, I'm sure it made sense to you even if I can't fathom it.

The reason no one gave any real facts (as in the regs Bill referenced) is because up until the time you posted everyone participating in the discussion knows those facts quite well already. Had anyone else asked for links or references, they would have gotten something along the lines of Bill's post earlier. That no one posted up a bunch of references unasked does not mean that the bulk of us are ignorant of the subject which we are discussing.

There has been a little speculation about cops making stuff up as they go along, but mostly the thread is remarking upon the silly behavior of the overly cautious seller. That behavior is silly because those sellers are limiting their pool of interested customers when they need not do so to sell the gun legally. I don't believe anyone has claimed that they have no right to do this, just that it's not the best way to achieve the sellers' desired result - max price with least trouble. This is what makes the spectacle of such sellers comical, and we discuss it because it is comical.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:16 pm

mikld wrote:Well, so far the only post/reply that was really informative and not speculative sounding was Bill in Oregon's last post. Most of the rest just said the sellers were stupid and ignorant. Did you take offense? Oh well, I guess that's too bad Didn't intend to, but I stand by my original post. Nobody seemed to give any real facts, just name calling...

Thanks Bill...

Bill is extremely nice for responding to you.
I would have told you to Google it. It's really that simple, and anyone who can't do it must be......

Gaucho Gringo · Post by **Gaucho Gringo** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:38 am

Just like the gun shops and pawnshops not accepting my C&R for C&R guns. I don't even bother setting foot in their shops for anything ever again. I can buy everything I want online with no hassle, so why bother with these brick and mortar idiots. If I want to buy something that requires a FFL-01 to transfer there are lots of home based transferees to do business with.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:38 am

Bill in Oregon wrote:Well, here is what Gunbroker customer support told me when I asked about this:

1/28/2015 12:19:04 PM
GBSupport1015 That decision is up to the sellers.
1/27/2015 7:21:47 AM
William Powell I am finding more and more sellers here will not ship firearms that are clearly pre 1898 except to an FFL holder. I won't put up with this ignorance from your sellers. You and they are missing sales. Thanks. Bill Powell

Chapter and verse?

Here is exactly what the ATF 'Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide' (ATF P 5300.4) says:

(B9) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by carrier?
A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by carrier to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 178.31, 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]

(B8) May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U. S. Postal Service?
A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own state or to a licensee in any state. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. A nonlicensee may not transfer any firearm to a nonlicensed resident of another state. The Postal Service recommends that longguns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

'Antique' firearms need not be shipped to a licensed dealer. These can be shipped directly to the buyer. An antique firearm is a firearm built in or before 1898, or a replica thereof. The exact ATF definition of an antique firearm is:
Antique firearm. (a) Any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; and (b) any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this definition if such replica (1) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (2) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

It's hard for me to imagine how this could be any clearer.

Bill,
The ATF infom is all correct. But, the unclear part is how do you determine when the gun in question was actually made. Major brands are usually easy to find a DOM. But, they are the exception.
I am an FFL and deal in the old guns too. What has happened to me is the ATF inspectors don't know what is and is not an antique. So, they want written provenance. Unless I can show from a known source then the inspectors will always rule against the FFl.
I've had this happen even with a known DOM Win 92. The gun was made in 1894 but rebarreled to 357mag. The inspector insisted that it was no longer an antique.

Bottom line is most FFL's just don't want the hassle.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:39 am

cas · Post by **cas** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 am

A lot of guns are hard to date. What's even easier than doing research to find the date, is just to log it in. Once it's logged in, it's got to be logged out. Also easier to do to an FFL. No worries about finding out later that you're a felon and he may or may not have broken the law. Why risk it.

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:39 am

If everyone that is a member of this forum knows the regulations, what's the discussion for? Just to vent about those vendors that choose to go a bit farther than required? The regulations were referred to several times, therefore my googling them would prove nothing as I already have a grasp of them, but if you're gonna quote them, at least have the credibility to back up what you're saying...

BTW; Some need to learn to read just the black letters/words, and not ASSume (92&94)...

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 12:41 pm

As I said before, we comment on comical behavior because it is comical.

Point fingers all ya like mik, you just confirm my initial take of your personality - as I no doubt confirm your take on mine. That's life, we're not all wired to get along.

That said, I would like to thank NKJ for providing the contrasting perspective in a very simple and down to earth fashion, and without resorting to name calling. That is precisely what makes threads interesting to read, and it does lead me to extend dealers in particular a bit more latitude on this kind of thing. They do have regular dealings with regulating authorities and may just find it prudent to err on the side of caution. There is middle ground to be found, as NKJ has illustrated.

That private seller in ABQ is still a complete knob though

mikld · Post by **mikld** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:41 pm

Yep, sparring verbally with some is just like wrestling with a pig...

I see no need to continue, at least on my part. Adios.

jdad · Post by **jdad** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:05 pm

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
I've had this happen even with a known DOM Win 92. The gun was made in 1894 but rebarreled to 357mag. The inspector insisted that it was no longer an antique.

Bottom line is most FFL's just don't want the hassle.

It was no longer an antique because it was no longer in its original chambering. If it had been re barreled, but remained in its original caliber there would not have been an issue.

vancelw · Post by **vancelw** » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:53 pm

mikld wrote:If everyone that is a member of this forum knows the regulations, what's the discussion for? Just to vent about those vendors that choose to go a bit farther than required? The regulations were referred to several times, therefore my googling them would prove nothing as I already have a grasp of them, but if you're gonna quote them, at least have the credibility to back up what you're saying...
.

To paraphrase Obi Wan Kenobi...."Move along. This is not the thread that interests you."

If you don't like the topic, why continue reading and posting on it?

Maybe the OP did just want to vent.

Oh, and speaking of paraphrasing....I'm glad you also like my favorite quote.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:31 am

jdad wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:
I've had this happen even with a known DOM Win 92. The gun was made in 1894 but rebarreled to 357mag. The inspector insisted that it was no longer an antique.

Bottom line is most FFL's just don't want the hassle.

It was no longer an antique because it was no longer in its original chambering. If it had been re barreled, but remained in its original caliber there would not have been an issue.

That was the agents argument, too. But, as it turned out it's still an antique. The issue was submitted to the ATF Tech branch (by the agent I might add) and that was their ruling.

6pt-sika · Post by **6pt-sika** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:51 am

About 6 years ago I bought a very nice circa 1897 Marlin 1895 in 38-56 from Leroy Merz a rather well known antique firearms dealer . I paid a few dollars over 3G's for the gun it was pre 1898 and he shipped it to my house . I live in the country , the UPS driver came to the house leaned the GD box against the front door out in the open and left . Someone could have come by and stolen it or it could have been rained on blah blah blah . I was not happy about that but nothing bad happened .

As to the FFL on GB thing when I post auctions I ask for FFL's for what requires an FFL and I tell them in the auction I will only accept a printed signed FFL in the same envelope with the funds . And you would not believe how many jerks wanna quibble over that after the fact . If you cannot follow a simple guideline posted in an auction DO NOT BID . Now that has nothing to do with people asking FFL's for things not requiring FFL's . But you should know it's a two way street , there is no under abundance of people who cannot read the auction .

You know if some guy emailed me and said I live in Bumm F where ever and It takes me two days to drive to the closest FFL and he asked if he could email or fax I'd most likely accommodate him, but he better do it before he bids ! Those who come crying "after the fact" I have no mercy .

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:14 am

This seems like a simple issue to me.

If you don't like the way a guy does business, don't do business with him.

If he's got something unique that you want, either shut up and tolerate the nonsense, or shut up and go somewhere else.

Not everyone is an FFL or a lawyer.

If a guy is going overboard trying to cover his six it's because he's wary of pirates like you.

YO HO HO.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:36 pm

Gaucho Gringo wrote:Just like the gun shops and pawnshops not accepting my C&R for C&R guns. I don't even bother setting foot in their shops for anything ever again. I can buy everything I want online with no hassle, so why bother with these brick and mortar idiots. If I want to buy something that requires a FFL-01 to transfer there are lots of home based transferees to do business with.

Have found this out also. Have had a C&R for years, originally purchased quite a few guns (Gun Broker, Auction Arms, etc) never had any issue. Last five or so years though...have been having quite few issues. Even with regular brick and mortar shops that I have dealt with in the past. Finally made a drive across state lines (fortunately my job entails covering different continents, so visiting far away gun shops is not a problem) and took the owner of a fairly large gun shop (he has a couple of them) to dinner and asked, "what's up with this?".

Simple answer was, profit.

Quite a few of the gun shop owners have stressed that with the advent of vehicles like GunBroker and such, their regular customers were purchasing direct. Even if the gun was considered an antique, the previous norm was to purchase at a dealer. Unfortunately for people like myself, with a C&R, the FFL dealers consider me as a loss of revenue. No matter how small my revenue stream is.

That being said, GunBroker is now predominately being used by dealers...who protect each other by requiring dealer to dealer transfer...whether it is an unwritten code or something else, they pretty much stick together.

So...most of my purchases have been with places like SOG or Century since they honor my C&R. Recently purchased 10 M95's, went through them, picked the best three out and farmed out the rest.

mohavesam · Post by **mohavesam** » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:51 pm

Some may assign ignorance but more likely, a seller has experienced a recent ATF audit?
I know one recent auditee who was told by the ATF that in the next few years, a form 1099 would have to be issued to anyone buying across state lines, for those states taht must report interstate privelege sales taxes. Scary, even if not true.

ATF Inspectors have adopted some entirely questionable practices in the past few years. I kow an FFL whose inpector insisted on "holding" his FFL license until the audit was completed (illegal).
I know sellers (very smart ones) who have taken to selling only to NRA members (making it a "private club" business), thus avoiding some of the regs that apply to a "public business". Others refuse sales to NY, CA, MA and VA at all, even though there are perfectly legal ways to do that.

Some may be ignorant, but I consider they probably are NOT. It is just a lot easier to be a buyer than to be a seller in these days of the HWP's administration.

7.62 Precision · Post by **7.62 Precision** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:42 am

Old Time Hunter wrote: That being said, GunBroker is now predominately being used by dealers...who protect each other by requiring dealer to dealer transfer...whether it is an unwritten code or something else, they pretty much stick together.

Not at all. It is because non-dealers can be a huge pain to deal with. And a lot are breaking the law.

Take a look through Gunbroker sometime and see how many people describe themselves as "private dealers," or "unlicensed dealers," who are selling hundreds of firearms a year, often new in the box. Why should I go out of my way to support a guy who is skipping all the hassle and cost of carrying the correct licenses? Bet he doesn't pay the taxes he should either. What if he gets busted? Will I also get inspected as a result? It happens all the time.

Non-licensed sellers will ship stuff incorrectly, will ship ammo in a box with a rifle (and if the local PO or local UPS catches it, guess who has to deal with the hassle?). A friend of mine has received 3 firearms last year with rounds in the chambers.

One problem I see a lot is the seller will not provide any personal information. I have to have name and address of the shipper to enter the firearm in my books, but they refuse to supply it.

Also, they tend to insist I send a copy of my FFL. The ATFE has instructed me adamantly to send copies only to other licensees, and they warn on their website not to send copies to individuals. A big problem now is these guys doctor FFLs in order to get guns sent to another address.

Some guys are better to work with than others. The older collectors are usually not bad.

I take firearms from individuals. But I don't blame the guys who don't.

92&94 · Post by **92&94** » Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:29 am

My local FFL did two transfers from private sellers for me last year. Both neglected to include a copy of their DL as instructed. We eventually got the copies from both - one was just a busy guy, the other had the 'tude. FFL himself had to call up the second one and explain why the ATF wanted him to have a copy of a DL rather than just the address off the box. That did work though, he said the guy was pretty reasonable once it was explained to him.

I didn't know that about not sending license copies to individuals - my dealer had me email both sellers his license. That is one to bear in mind in the future.

Those unlicensed dealers have always been a minor problem, but it sounds like the internet is making them a bigger one. Sounds like a prime field for some legitimate ATF enforcement to me

Do they really say it in black and white on their auction? I've never seen that, but then it's been a few years since I bought much on GB.

Bill in Oregon · Post by **Bill in Oregon** » Sun Feb 01, 2015 10:50 am

First, I am sorry if folks have given or taken offense in this thread. I hate to see discord among my Levergunner brethren.
I agree it can be a close call dating some firearms, but when a particular gun is known to have gone out of production prior to 1 Jan. 1899, it is pretty hard for me to swallow a seller's confusion/failure to research the product he is selling/timidity. Agree that one should just walk away from such a seller, but it is frustrating nonetheless. It wasn't so bad when I had an FFL who would receive for $10, but my current dealer gets $30 to receive. With $30-35 often charged for shipping, that "bargain" just cost another $65.

Speaking of ATF audits, I once had a C&R -- and a closet full of cosmoline-drenched surplus of all sorts.
I also had a manufacturer's FFL to meet the legal requirement for making and selling jacketed bullets swaged on Corbin equipment. As most of you know, this is basically a very stout hand press that I had mounted on my loading bench. I got a call from ATF one day saying they were coming to my home to check compliance.
An agent drove all the way from Portland to my house in Medford. She came in, looked at my press, lead wire, jackets and finished bullets and said "They sent me all this way to inspect this?"
I told her, well, I'll be happy to show you my bound book for all my C&R stuff. She said that's OK, no worries, got in her car and drove the 4 1/2 hours back to Portland -- and probably got a little overtime that day.
That's ONE of my ATF stories.

Pete44ru · Post by **Pete44ru** » Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:27 pm

.

The bottom line is: What does the Law say/do ?

Laws of any kind NEVER regulate what a person or company CAN do - Laws regulate/specify what someone is restricted from doing.

Ergo, if an action is not specifically restricted, the action is permissable in the eyes of the Law.

.