• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Petersburg Police: Cash for Guns!!

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
Around here it is common to meet a guy in a parking lot, buy or sell a gun without asking a damn thing, and leave.

What is common and what is prudent are two different things.

I've transferred ownership of guns I've owned to 4 other people, my best friend, a co-worker I've known for years, my son, and my daughter-in-law. I would NEVER meet a complete stranger in a parking lot and sell him a gun no questions asked.

I've received guns from 3 non-licensed persons, my father, a co-worker I've known for years, and a complete stranger. The stranger asked to see a VA ID and I gladly showed it to him.

The transaction you described was probably 100% legal, but I wouldn't do it.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
What is common and what is prudent are two different things...

...The transaction you described was probably 100% legal, but I wouldn't do it.

And what is common or prudent is not what is being debated. What is legal is.

There are many here who won't do it, too. There is nothing wrong with a seller having a personal requirement to make a sale.

But there are many here who do. It is common because it is known that no "attestment" is a valid way of stopping any illegal activity anyway, so why not live like free people?

I only brought up the point because it was said that such attestment would have to be done and I wished to verify that because for all I knew, maybe the law was different in VA than the federal requirements. I thought the clarification to be important since the point was being made that this was a legal impediment to something.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
And what is common or prudent is not what is being debated. What is legal is.

There are many here who won't do it, too. There is nothing wrong with a seller having a personal requirement to make a sale.

But there are many here who do. It is common because it is known that no "attestment" is a valid way of stopping any illegal activity anyway, so why not live like free people?

I only brought up the point because it was said that such attestment would have to be done and I wishe,d to verify that because for all I knew, maybe the law was different in VA than the federal requirements. I thought the clarification to be important since the point was being made that this was a legal impediment to something.

I completely agree Mac!

jegoodin presented it as a matter of fact, not opinion.
With a whopping 3 or 4 F2F transactions and a pretty narrow understanding of the law involving personal sales......it's ALL IS OPINION as posted.

He's welcome to ask what he pleases and have his own requirements, that's his right, but it's hardly required or normal.

Parking lot transactions are extremely common. I've done dozens of them and as a matter of fact, did one last night after dinner in the restaurant lot.
 
Last edited:

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
I completely agree Mac!

jegoodin presented it as a matter of fact, not opinion.
With a whopping 3 or 4 F2F transactions and a pretty narrow understanding of the law involving personal sales......it's ALL IS OPINION as posted.

He's welcome to ask what he pleases and have his own requirements, that's his right, but it's hardly required or normal.

Parking lot transactions are extremely common. I've done dozens of them and as a matter of fact, did one last night after dinner in the restaurant lot.

I do not believe its a matter of fact that they have to ask. I've already acknowledged that.

But I do believe that if you complete the transaction between two persons that are not from the same state it is illegal and I provided the statute. Ask, don't ask, that's up to you. And yes, they could be lying if you do ask.

I'll also give you another opinion... If a person does dozens of parking lot transactions and they don't know the person or ask reasonable questions about them, like are they from the same state and are they legally capable of owning the gun, then I believe (my opinion) that this is what gives us all a bad reputation as gun owners. That may not be a popular opinion on this board, but it is my opinion.
 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by jegoodin
...At some point in the transaction the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident...

...I did not say "must inquire". I said there is a risk if you don't inquire...


Perhaps I misunderstood this?

Those are two snippets taken out of a much longer conversation that started back around posting #20 in the string.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I do not believe its a matter of fact that they have to ask. I've already acknowledged that.

But I do believe that if you complete the transaction between two persons that are not from the same state it is illegal and I provided the statute. Ask, don't ask, that's up to you. And yes, they could be lying if you do ask.

I'll also give you another opinion... If a person does dozens of parking lot transactions and they don't know the person or ask reasonable questions about them, like are they from the same state and are they legally capable of owning the gun, then I believe (my opinion) that this is what gives us all a bad reputation as gun owners. That may not be a popular opinion on this board, but it is my opinion.

You're starting to sound like a broken record. Give it a rest!
This was a useful thread until your OPINION which you gave under color of fact, showed up!
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
I'll also give you another opinion... If a person does dozens of parking lot transactions and they don't know the person or ask reasonable questions about them, like are they from the same state and are they legally capable of owning the gun, then I believe (my opinion) that this is what gives us all a bad reputation as gun owners. That may not be a popular opinion on this board, but it is my opinion.
With all due respect to my neighbor across the river... this clearly shows you know very little about Peter Nap. :) I'd trust his instincts about a person more than a computer background check any day.

TFred
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
With all due respect to my neighbor across the river... this clearly shows you know very little about Peter Nap. :) I'd trust his instincts about a person more than a computer background check any day.

TFred

As I often say TFred...Just because he owns a gun doesn't make us brothers, allies or even like each other....it just means he can afford a gun.
I suspect he irons his underwear, then brags on the crease because he's missing most of the real world.

If you ASK someone, they'll lie if they are prohibited, but if someone drives up with Mary Land tags and tells you he lives in Danville....there might be a reason to suspect him:lol:

But then again, there is no time limit tied to residency. If he's lived here for two days, he fits the residency requirement or so sayeth User.


I believe (my opinion) that this is what gives us all a bad reputation as gun owners.

I didn't know we had a bad reputation.:uhoh:
 

jegoodin

Newbie
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
337
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
With all due respect to my neighbor across the river... this clearly shows you know very little about Peter Nap. :) I'd trust his instincts about a person more than a computer background check any day.

TFred

I too stand in awe of peter nap's god-like omniscience and innate ability to peer into the souls of men.
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
I too stand in awe of peter nap's god-like omniscience and innate ability to peer into the souls of men.

Well Good!
Now that you've looked under the tent and seen the critter, and the Petersburg gun buyback is dead...we can get on with open carry important things!

Which reminds me, Bow season is 23 days, 12 hours, 18 minutes and 30 seconds away.

smiley-laughing021.gif
 

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can someone clarify the fact(s) under va (and federal?) law on who has the burden to comply with same state requirement and not legally prohibited from owning a firearm? The "practice" seems to be the seller asking for proof but the cites seem to imply the restriction is on the reciever (buyer).

Thanks,
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can someone clarify the fact(s) under va (and federal?) law on who has the burden to comply with same state requirement and not legally prohibited from owning a firearm? The "practice" seems to be the seller asking for proof but the cites seem to imply the restriction is on the reciever (buyer).

Thanks,

It's not beating a dead horse (yet) because a lot of irrelevant stuff got in the way while I was trying to make one simple point of fact (as a direct correction to a misleading statement), so I can understand the resulting confusion.

There is no federal requirement for an unlicensed seller to make any effort to determine the status of his potential buyer. If the seller KNOWS the buyer is prohibited, that is different.
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can someone clarify the fact(s) under va (and federal?) law on who has the burden to comply with same state requirement and not legally prohibited from owning a firearm? The "practice" seems to be the seller asking for proof but the cites seem to imply the restriction is on the reciever (buyer).

Thanks,

Each is responsible for their own actions but not the other persons.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can someone clarify the fact(s) under va (and federal?) law on who has the burden to comply with same state requirement and not legally prohibited from owning a firearm? The "practice" seems to be the seller asking for proof but the cites seem to imply the restriction is on the reciever (buyer).

Thanks,

The onus is on the seller/tranferror.

There is a different crime for being a prohibited person who attempts to posses a firearm.

The seller has to commit his crime before the purchaser can commit theirs.

And yes, it is a crying shame that sometimes they charge one person but not the other - unless of course the only one getting charged is the prohibited person. [/sarcasm]

stay safe.
 

grylnsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
620
Location
Pacific Northwest
At the risk of beating a dead horse, can someone clarify the fact(s) under va (and federal?) law on who has the burden to comply with same state requirement and not legally prohibited from owning a firearm? The "practice" seems to be the seller asking for proof but the cites seem to imply the restriction is on the reciever (buyer).

Thanks,
Under a strict interpretation, you have no legal burden to determine whether or not the other person is legally prohibited from receiving your firearm. (I say "your firearm" because that covers both prohibited persons and interstate sales.)

However, it is important to keep in mind that a strict interpretation isn't necessarily the one that you will face if the CA decides to come after you. The CA could easily argue that by not even asking the questions you were showing reckless disregard for the legal restrictions, and so you must have at least suspected that the other person couldn't legally receive your gun. (I'm not saying that they would be right, only that they could easily argue that. It still drags you into court, which can get expensive.)

As a practical matter, it is relatively trivial to verify that the buyer is a resident of the same state, and the act of asking them if they are prohibited gives you legal cover by making the burden of proof even higher for the CA. It's a rather insignificant cost to prevent a significant potential liability.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Under a strict interpretation, you have no legal burden to determine whether or not the other person is legally prohibited from receiving your firearm. (I say "your firearm" because that covers both prohibited persons and interstate sales.)

However, it is important to keep in mind that a strict interpretation isn't necessarily the one that you will face if the CA decides to come after you. The CA could easily argue that by not even asking the questions you were showing reckless disregard for the legal restrictions, and so you must have at least suspected that the other person couldn't legally receive your gun. (I'm not saying that they would be right, only that they could easily argue that. It still drags you into court, which can get expensive.)

As a practical matter, it is relatively trivial to verify that the buyer is a resident of the same state, and the act of asking them if they are prohibited gives you legal cover by making the burden of proof even higher for the CA. It's a rather insignificant cost to prevent a significant potential liability.

Is not the threat of government violence marvelous (and pernicious)?

My standard is that all deserve the right to defend themselves. I would assume the buyer's innocence, until/unless I was given probable cause to question it. Prior restraint, as for example against the right of self-defense, gets very low marks in my book.

But, the threat of government violence pressures me to assume the buyer may not be innocent, pressures me to verify residence without even having so much as a reasonable suspicion, pressures me to question and infringe my fellow man's right of self-defense.

My, how far from the standards of free men government has pushed us.
 
Last edited:
Top