Another new "rule" incoming? No more private sales without a ffl involved?

[Route 45]

some of these folks don't realize they're going to have to answer why they sold to an unauthorized person

Once again, you prove that you have no idea how any of this works. No one is required to answer anything. There must be probable cause that someone intentionally sold to an improper person while knowing that the person was improper.

 

[Combat_turtle]

You very likely won't be selling anything to me. I have no need for extra paperwork in a legal private sale. If I wanted a documented purchase, I'd go to an FFL.

Never say never, because I could certainly be convinced to purchase your item and fill out your papers for say...
...half the item's value?

One thing is for sure. You wouldn't want to spring the added unnecessary paperwork on someone at the place where you meet for the trade. You need to specify your bill of sale requirement in your for sale add.

Always do. Don't try to waste anyone's time. If you signing a paper covering me from being responsible for what you do with a gun I sold you is a deal breaker for you then I wouldn't sell you one in the first place. Its just my personal preference because I truly have no desire to be a resident of one of our fine correctional facilities cause some DA had a hardon for a gun conviction.

 

[Creedmoor]

That is a good technique. It's simple and helps you watch your back. I've known a couple guys that have had a knock on their door (gun was stolen or sold to the wrong person) and some of these folks don't realize they're going to have to answer why they sold to an unauthorized person. Stating 1 liners from the second amendment isn't going to amuse the detective nor do they realize how liable works.

Thats amazing that you know a couple of guys thats happened to.
I'm 65 and I dont know anyone thats happened to. I had a burglery in my shop in Maryland 20 years ago and a few firearms were stolen, I didnt have to explain anything to my local LE.

 

[Expat]

I'm as pro 2A as anyone, but …..

 

[DoggyDaddy]

 

[Creedmoor]

View attachment 291318

Shouldn't that be Mr Hankey?

 

[NHT3]

You do realize, don't you, that there is zero enforcement capability for this? There are more than 400 million firearms in circulation in private ownership, with zero provenance. Only firearms purchased through FFLs, after this would take effect, could the government even possibly prove that a private transfer took place without an FFL.

My thoughts exactly.. This is an exercise in futility UNLESS the database they say they don't have somehow materializes?

 

[cbhausen]

Again, I say, read the Indiana code. The seller is obligated only to not knowingly sell to an improper person. The rest is on the buyer.

If the police come knocking on your door because a firearm you sold ends up being used in the commission of a crime the seller, if they choose to say anything, only needs to articulate they had no reason to believe the person they sold to was improper.

If the police confiscate your entire firearms collection because of one sale gone wrong, there’s a lot more going on in your life than one unknowing sale to an improper person.

Stand up for your damn rights. This is how we lose them slowly, bit by bit.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not sure I understand the issue with giving/receiving a bill of sale/receipt for a purchase of a good - especially one being bought/sold for what may be several hundreds of dollars.

 

[Jaybird1980]

That is a good technique. It's simple and helps you watch your back. I've known a couple guys that have had a knock on their door (gun was stolen or sold to the wrong person) and some of these folks don't realize they're going to have to answer why they sold to an unauthorized person. Stating 1 liners from the second amendment isn't going to amuse the detective nor do they realize how liable works.

Actually no you don't. If you're volunteering up damning evidence on yourself that's on you.

In my case it went like this.

Popo: Do you own blank gun?
Me: Nope
Popo: did you sell it?
Me: Yep
Popo: Who did you sell it to?
Me: Well if you guys come back with the proper paperwork, I will have a lawyer explain it to you.
Popo: You can just tell us no need for any of that.
Me: I know I could, but that's not how it is going to happen.
Popo: Have a good day.

Learn your rights and stand up for them people. Stop playing along with the stupidity, it only encourages more stupidity.

You can not knowingly sell to an improper person. If you are selling to people you know are improper then you deserve what you get.

 

[chipbennett]

That is a good technique. It's simple and helps you watch your back. I've known a couple guys that have had a knock on their door (gun was stolen or sold to the wrong person) and some of these folks don't realize they're going to have to answer why they knowingly sold to an unauthorized person. Stating 1 liners from the second amendment isn't going to amuse the detective nor do they realize how liable works.

FIFY

It's not merely that person A sold a firearm to person B, while person B is a prohibited person. Rather, person A must have done so knowingly. And, as with all elements of a crime, the state bears to burden of proof that person A knew that person B was a prohibited person at the time of the sale/transfer.

 

[11infantryb]

"How can you know if you dont ask" is exactly the question I could hear a prosecuter ask you. I can tell some of you have never thought through that statement. But not asking and not knowing are two different things. I hope you folks at least check DLs before you do private sales.

 

[Ingomike]

"How can you know if you dont ask" is exactly the question I could hear a prosecuter ask you. I can tell some of you have never thought through that statement. But not asking and not knowing are two different things. I hope you folks at least check DLs before you do private sales.

It really is not hard to understand, you either know or you don’t know. That simple. You are adding investigation to knowing.

 

[Ark]

"How can you know if you dont ask" is exactly the question I could hear a prosecuter ask you. I can tell some of you have never thought through that statement. But not asking and not knowing are two different things. I hope you folks at least check DLs before you do private sales.

Again, we refer you to the letter of the law in Indiana. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew for sure the buyer was a prohibited person and knowingly chose to make the sale anyway.

Not asking is not a crime. I have no legal duty to ask anything. Any prosecutor would be laughed out of court for that move.

 

[Creedmoor]

I just profile the person, before I sell them a firearm.

 

[Expat]

I think we can all agree that at the very least we need a psychic reading done before selling a gun to someone.

 

[11infantryb]

Again, we refer you to the letter of the law in Indiana. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you knew for sure the buyer was a prohibited person and knowingly chose to make the sale anyway.

Not asking is not a crime. I have no legal duty to ask anything. Any prosecutor would be laughed out of court for that move.

Like they laughed Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer out of the courtroom and the guy that gave him a gun? You sound naive. You and others say you will not comply and can say "shall not infringe" all you want but you clearly don't know how the left is employing their tactics and you are feeding into it.

 

[Ark]

Like they laughed Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyer out of the courtroom and the guy that gave him a gun? You sound naive. You and others say you will not comply and can say "shall not infringe" all you want but you clearly don't know how the left is employing their tactics and you are feeding into it.

He was acquitted on all charges. That was also a murder trial.

Once again, the law is quite clear. I have no legal duties to conduct any kind of background investigation, nor am I qualified, certified, licensed, or otherwise trained to do so.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I find it interesting that you don't have to inquire if the buyer is a proper person, but I support it. The burden of not breaking the law appears to fall on the buyer, not the seller. Therefore, you need not protect yourself with paperwork as the seller. Less paperwork the better.

 

[11infantryb]

He was acquitted on all charges. That was also a murder trial.

Once again, the law is quite clear. I have no legal duties to conduct any kind of background investigation, nor am I qualified, certified, licensed, or otherwise trained to do so.

You do know that the friend that gave him that rifle plead out? And how much do you think their lawyer fees racked up to.