Sellers request CPL when selling rifle

[911Boss]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

Gun stores are non governmental bodies the must serve all non prohiibited customers"

"I also think that denying a sale based on the buyer's looks is unfortunate.
Are all wearers of baggy pants thugs? Are all wearers of suits upstanding?

Ugly path to walk down.

No they do not have to serve non prohibited customers. Kinda like alcohol, they can and should refuse in certain circumstances. Also, all business have the right to refuse service so long as it isn't done for reasons that are illegal (such as race, etc. )


Actions have consequences. Dress like a thug, act like a thug, don't be surprised when people think you might be a thug.

You may have a right to buy a gun, but you don't have a right to buy it from me. Back the concept of your rights don't overrule my rights.

 

[starbuck]

imported post

I've sat there in my living room and watched an old roommate get grilled by ATF over a gun he sold, that was recovered at a crime scene and was traced back to him. It ain't fun.
Trust me, taking a simple step to cover one's own rear when selling a gun goes a LONG way in getting them off of your back.

Should it be that way? Absolutely not. Is it? Yes.

 

[HankT]

imported post

starbuck wrote:

I've sat there in my living room and watched an old roommate get grilled by ATF over a gun he sold, that was recovered at a crime scene and was traced back to him. It ain't fun.
Trust me, taking a simple step to cover one's own rear when selling a gun goes a LONG way in getting them off of your back.

What kind of questions did they ask him?

Did he have a record or memory of the details of his selling the gun to a particular person?

What was the final outcome? I assume he was a good guy.

 

[PT111]

imported post

I often hear the argument for being able to carry as the possiblilty of a gun being stolen from a locked car. This is a valid argument and makes sense to me. At the same time that we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys by not locking them in our cars shouldn't we also use that much care when selling one?

 

[Jim675]

imported post

Should only State-certified persons be allowed to be armed?

If not, what degree of physical difference between you and the buyer is acceptable before they are likely to be a criminal?

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

Should only State-certified persons be allowed to be armed?

If not, what degree of physical difference between you and the buyer is acceptable before they are likely to be a criminal?

That's quite a reach, and a pretty desparate one at that. Whether or not I choose to sell someone a firearm doesn't reflect their ability to own a firearm whatsoever. It only reflects their ability to own my firearm. In that the gun is mine, I have the sole decision on when, where, how, why, and to whom I sell it. I can sell it for cash, trade it for other goods or services, or walk away. If the buyer doesn't like my terms, whatever they may be, they can still buy from someone else.

It doesn't have to be a physical difference, it could just be the way the CPL or DL looks (say, it looks like it's been tampered with) or the demeanor of the buyer (nervous or shifty).

Someone mentioned "due diligence" which is a perfect term. What's mine is mine to do with as I please. You (collective you) don't have to agree, and it doesn't matter one whit to me if you do or don't. Those are my terms, not law.

 

[911Boss]

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

Should only State-certified persons be allowed to be armed?

If not, what degree of physical difference between you and the buyer is acceptable before they are likely to be a criminal?

No, you shouldn't have to be state certified to buy a gun. Then again, if the state has determined it is illegal for you to possess one, folks should make some reasonable effort to determine that before selling one to you.

You keep wanting to only look at one side of the coin. Every time you flip it over, the reverse still exists. Those of us who consider it our responsibility to keep guns away from the folks that shouldn't have them aren't flipping the coin, we are standing it on edge.

In some states you do have to be "certified" to buy a gun. Let enough felons in possession be tracked back to private sales, add in a few dead children, sobbing widows, or other high profile incidents and that is how the anti's will try to make it in WA as well.

It is far easier to prevent that from happening than it is to fight it once the wave starts. There is just no "legitimate" argument a person is going to present that will convince a gun grabber that there is no need to confirm whether someone is barred from possessing a gun before selling it to them.

I expect ID and a sense of comfort before I am going to sell to anyone. That doesn't mean I am filling out transfer forms or keeping documentation I just want to feel comfortable that this stranger doesn't just "look" ok, but that he/she is ok before I put a gun in their hand. It is still a paperless priate sale and you can keep your privacy intact, but if I get called by ATF, I can truthfully explain the steps I took to ensure I didn't break the law.


"Compromise" - When neither side gets what they want, but both sides get what they can live with.

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

I sold a couple guns to fellow forum members and asked to see a CPL. I don't think it's that big of a deal and more for my peace of mind.

But if it's an issue then don't buy. That's free market economics right there.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

How can you ever be held responsible for someone else taking a gun and killing people with it?

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking and if we want to preserve our freedom... we had better start demanding that people be held personally responsible for their own actions and stop allowing others who had nothing to do with their actions to be held liable... this whole argument of liability must be nipped in the bud.

The first thing that has to be done is TORT reform. And that's not likely to happen.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

If it were someone I knew I wouldn't worry about it. But If it is someone I'm only acquainted with or do not know, I wouldn't sell a firearm without a DL and CPL. It sucks but that's the way it is these days.

I wonder if this isn't an activity where we can stand up for liberty a little bit?

Unless it is illegal to sell, or the buyer has obvious prison-pallor or something, maybe we can make the sale and tell the government to bugger off.

Otherwise the government over-reach just got a little longer, no?

What have you done when you sold guns in the past, Citizen? Have you checked any buyer ID as many others here have?

 

[FE427TP]

imported post

can someone tell me where the buyers desire to purchase a product from me became more important than my right to choose to whom i can or can not sell with whichever qualifications I choose? hardly an attitude of liberty

 

[Citizen]

imported post

FE427TP wrote:

can someone tell me where the buyers desire to purchase a product from me became more important than my right to choose to whom i can or can not sell with whichever qualifications I choose? hardly an attitude of liberty

Nobody said it was.

I'm wondering out loud whetherit really is the best course to demand a CCW from the buyer.

 

[Jim675]

imported post

No one said you must. Several expressed their own opinion that not doing so is antithetical to the idea of liberty. You are acting as agents of the State to deny sales to people without a CPL.

There are several valid potential reasons to not have a CPL:
I don't want one.
I don't want the State to know I may have weapons.
I just moved and have not yet received one.
I was recently threatened and the guy is coming this weekend to kill me.
Et al

I understand your argument that you're afraid of lawsuit or guilt if someone does something bad.

Wold you feel guilty if the recently separated woman you refused was stabbed to death that evening?

What you're doing is agreeing with the State that people are dangerous unless they have been passed by the bureaucracy.

I prefer to think that most people are not killers, whether the State has blessed them or no.

To each his own.


ETA: Citizen beat me.

 

[Mainsail]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Cop wants to come back to me saying I knowingly sold to a felon, I say, yeah right, that's why I had him sign this piece of paper so I could show that I sold to a guy I knew was felon. If I knew he was a felon, do you really think I would be stupid enough to give him my signature and keep his?

That never works. I agree that legally you are not responsible, but if some disgruntled husband guns his wife down with the gun you sold, the prosecutor would laugh at that excuse. Due diligence, that's the phrase. That said, your terms are perfectly acceptable and I'm not arguing that.

How can we come on here and whine about cops wanting to see ID all the time and cops wanting to see our CPL to make sure we are legit to open carry and then we do the exact same action and ask to see a CPL to tell if the guy we are selling to is legit?

The cops are limited by LAW, so it isn't whining to be dissappointed when they violate the law in a demand for ID.

Some cop wants to see my CPL for open carrying, he can p... off. Somebody wants to see a CPL for a private sale, they can p... off too. I didn't pay for the CPL to show it to prove my innocence.

Exactly! You can buy from whoever you choose under terms agreeable to both of you, and you can choose not to buy if the terms are not agreeable.

 

[killchain]

imported post

All I got to add is this:

Look at the DC Sniper. He stole the rifle from the gun store and killed people with it, and the gun store got sued and lost. They were punished for someone else's actions.

And looking at the other side, the gun store did a crappy job with their paperwork and never realized their gun was gone until it was too late, but still.

I have no problem with a private seller refusing a sale based on these grounds. Until another way is devised, having a CPL is the best way of proving you're not banned from owning a firearm.

Myself, I probably will never sell a gun to anyone I don't know or an FFL holding gun store. But, if I ever did, especially if it were a pistol, I would ask for a CPL.

If you don't like it, well, find someone who will sell to you without a CPL.

 

[911Boss]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

...Guy tells me why he wants the gun. I meet him at McDonald's. He's got in state plates. I sell him the gun.

Now, I will do a two part bill of sale, with both our signatures on it. He gets my signature as a receipt for his money and I get his as a receipt for my gun. But, other than that, nope - no government intrusion at all. Cop wants to come back to me saying I knowingly sold to a felon, I say, yeah right, that's why I had him sign this piece of paper so I could show that I sold to a guy I knew was felon. If I knew he was a felon, do you really think I would be stupid enough to give him my signature and keep his?

So if you aren't looking at his ID, you don't really know if it his signature or just a name he decided to write.

And when you show the BOS to the agent all you can really say is "He wrote on this piece of paper", not that it is his name.

No matter how many times I write "Barack Hussien Obama", I am not the prez...

I am all for ID, but I usually don't do a BOS. If you want it to be private, why make a paper trail? If I sell a gun it is "As Is", there won't be a return or a refund so no real need for paper record should someone decide they want to dispute the sale. Now if the buyer wants a BOS, that's fine with me, but then I keep a copy too.

I can say I did my best to confirm the person wasn't barred from owning or possessing and my responsibility ends there until they put a law in place that I have to keep a record of a sale including who it was sold to.

I keep records of what I have owned and sold and the dates they are sold, noting what I saw as ID, but not who it was sold to.

 

[1245A Defender]

imported post

i dont want the state in my buziness! so no names, no paper, nobodys buziness.

a guy could have all the id in the world, but if i dont feel right about him as a person, i wouldnt sell!

i bought a gun from a forum member, and he wanted id and cpl to sell, but we had a rapport and he came to my house, so he knew i wasnt just some street flake with cash! and he forgot to ask, hes cool too, and i would have shown it to him.

as for as being legal to own guns was concerned, we had open carried together at a public event and posed for pics with LEO all around. you wont OC if youre a felon!

 

[fire suppressor]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote

think one of the real messed up problems in this country is that nobody is responsible for themselves any more... the alcohol made them do it, the coke made me do it, my depression made me do it... its that other guy's fault because he sold me the car, the gun, the machete...

Exactly! I've some pretty stupid stuff over the years, somethings I wont be doing again, like we all have (never any drugs sorry don't believe in that sh*t) but you know what every single time I have stood up, raised my hand and owned up to it. And trust me it always wasn't easy. When did America lose it accountability?

 

[starbuck]

imported post

HankT wrote:

What kind of questions did they ask him?

Did he have a record or memory of the details of his selling the gun to a particular person?

What was the final outcome? I assume he was a good guy.

They came to the house with a printed list of every firearm he'd ever purchased from the FFL that the recovered weapon was traced to. They wanted to know where each and every gun was, or if it was sold, to whom. It was pretty apparent that in their eyes he was a straw purchaser. There were upwards of 20 weapons that he couldn't account for, and couldn't provide them with any contact info on who he sold them to. They didn't like that...at all.

There's a lot more to the story than I'm comfortable putting out on a public forum (I'm not sure he'd want me laying it all out here).
It was definitely a life lesson for me though. Getting to sit there and watch it all unfold over the course of a year showed me that something can be both legal, and a really bad idea at the same time.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

WFL and firesuppressor, + a million on personal accountability.....nobody is self sufficient anymore, nobody is accountable for their actions....it's always "someone else's fault"