Selling firearm back to a friend - not sure what to do

[Cygnus]

I kind of agree with him selling them here.
He said earlier they were a Sub2k and a Makarov. He gave her $500 for them.
That's not really that far off from market value. Unless the Makarov is a collectable or pristine.
he could give her $550-600 and she'd have a better than market return on her money and he'd have less worries.

YMMV

 

[jedi]

Ohhh a Sub2K.... I've been wanting to get one but it's on the "wish list" too far on the bottom. =(

 

[finity]

The law doesn't say you have to make sure that they can legally own the firearm. There is no way you can do that. You don't have the resources available unless, of course, you're a dealer. What it says is that you can't knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If you don't KNOW that they are prohibited, legally you are OK.

Morally, on the other hand, is completely different. That is a personal decision only you can make, but the fact that you promised to sell them back should weigh heavily on that decision. As far as you know, she is not a prohibited person & has not lost her rights (no matter who she decides to live with). If she decides to give those guns to him after the fact, that's out of your hands.

If you were a dealer you would not be held accountable for a straw purchase and neither should you as a private person (as long as you don't know, for a fact, that is what she intends to do).

 

[Michiana]

Take the "right" road.

The law doesn't say you have to make sure that they can legally own the firearm. There is no way you can do that. You don't have the resources available unless, of course, you're a dealer. What it says is that you can't knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If you don't KNOW that they are prohibited, legally you are OK.

Morally, on the other hand, is completely different. That is a personal decision only you can make, but the fact that you promised to sell them back should weigh heavily on that decision. As far as you know, she is not a prohibited person & has not lost her rights (no matter who she decides to live with). If she decides to give those guns to him after the fact, that's out of your hands.

If you were a dealer you would not be held accountable for a straw purchase and neither should you as a private person (as long as you don't know, for a fact, that is what she intends to do).

Even a dealer should not transfer a gun to any person who they "suspect" is buying this gun for another person. Every gun going into the hands of an undesirable person only hurts the regular gun owner. Because you can doesn't always mean you should. Friendship or a promise should not override safety.

 

[BE Mike]

Even a dealer should not transfer a gun to any person who they "suspect" is buying this gun for another person. Every gun going into the hands of an undesirable person only hurts the regular gun owner. Because you can doesn't always mean you should. Friendship or a promise should not override safety.

Well put Michiana. I couldn't have said it better. If a person has any inkling that a prohibited person may end up with the firearm, it should send up red flags and the sale shouldn't proceed.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The law doesn't say you have to make sure that they can legally own the firearm. There is no way you can do that. You don't have the resources available unless, of course, you're a dealer. What it says is that you can't knowingly sell to a prohibited person. If you don't KNOW that they are prohibited, legally you are OK.

This is not true. Below you will see the ACTUAL law in reference to selling a firearm. Notice it says, "reasonable cause to believe", and in this case, there IS reasonable cause. Additionally, the part that says, "or in any manner transfer" means that even if you go through an FFL, you are still breaking the law. This doesn't require a law degree to understand. A third grade level of reading comprehension would suffice.

(b) It is unlawful for a person to sell, give, or in any manner transfer the ownership or possession of a handgun to another person who the person has reasonable cause to believe:
(1) has been:
(A) convicted of a felony; or
(B) adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult, if the person seeking to obtain ownership or possession of the handgun is less than twenty-three (23) years of age;
(2) is a drug abuser;
(3) is an alcohol abuser; or
(4) is mentally incompetent.

 

[finity]

This is not true. Below you will see the ACTUAL law in reference to selling a firearm. Notice it says, "reasonable cause to believe", and in this case, there IS reasonable cause. Additionally, the part that says, "or in any manner transfer" means that even if you go through an FFL, you are still breaking the law. This doesn't require a law degree to understand. A third grade level of reading comprehension would suffice.

No reason to get all pi$$y about it & start insulting my intelligence.

The post that I responded to said that you "have to make sure...that they can legally own the firearm."

That was not correct because there is NO WAY for them, as a non-dealer/LEO to "make sure" they can legally own the firearm.

I'll grant you I was going by memory when I used the word 'knowingly' instead of the more precise 'reason to believe'. My bad.

It doesn't change the point of the post. The OP has NO REASON TO BELIEVE that the woman is a prohibited person. He has a reason to believe that her husband may be prohibited BUT NOT HER. Just because you are married to a prohibited person doesn't mean that you give up your rights to own a firearm.

There is no question about whether you are married to a felon on a 4473. Therefore she would not be prohibited from buying from a dealer.

The law is only concerned about the person actually buying the gun & what their intentions are with it. If he has a reason to believe that the only reason she wants the guns is so she can then supply them to her husband, then that is a straw purchase & is illegal. OTOH, If she wants them for herself & she is not prohibited (even if she has the potential to let him drool over them occasionally) that is not illegal. It may be illegal for her to subsequently provide him access to them but not illegal for the OP to sell them to her initially.

Being able to read the law doesn't require any more than a 3rd grade reading level but being able to not read more into it than it says must be harder.

The OP is NOT transferring possession to a prohibited person. That law DOES NOT APPLY.

If she has not made any comments to the OP that would lead someone to believe that she intends to make a straw purchase then that law DOES NOT APPLY.

Here's a related story:

My father-in-law committed suicide a several years ago. My brother-in-law decided he wanted the gun he used (strange, I know). My BIL is a felon (drug use, I think). I called the police station & asked if he could get it & told them he was a felon (this was before I was a gun-owner & didn't know anything about IN gun laws). They said he couldn't get it but his wife (who was not prohibited) could legally take possession of it.

The Evansville police were knowingly going to give a handgun to the wife of a felon & they were OK with it.

Hmmm, I guess they have a bunch of cops on the Evansville PD who aren't any smarter than a third grader.

 

[indianamoon]

How about just insisting that the transfer be done thru a dealer?

Indy

 

[Michiana]

How about just insisting that the transfer be done thru a dealer? Indy

If you go to a dealer and just ask the dealer to handle the transfer between the two of you and leave any past information or your concerns out of the transaction and the dealer does a NICS check on this person and she comes back PROCEED it is a clean transaction. In my case I already know the concerns of the seller, therefore I would refuse to handle this particular transfer.

I have had a couple people who for whatever reason got DELAYED on on NICS background check and since their wives were with them they said just sell the gun to my wife and I had to say no. If they came in together and the wife was the one buying the firearm from the start that would have been no problem selling or transferring a firearm to her but that was not the case in these situations. Seeing the husbands came back DELAYED I have to assume something could be wrong which is the reason the FBI has the three business day waiting period for DELAYED responses.

It comes down to what you know when making any transaction. Personally I always error to the safe side, why ask for trouble.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

If she has not made any comments to the OP that would lead someone to believe that she intends to make a straw purchase then that law DOES NOT APPLY.

Well, I apologize for insulting your intelligence, however there has been mention of the husband/boyfriend trying to nose in on the deal from the beginning. There is SIGNIFICANT reason to believe this is a straw purchase. He even called the OP at 1:am with remarks about the sale. I suggest perhaps reading a few more pages of this dribble. It is dribble too, the correct advice has been given repeatedly only to be contradicted by page after page of bad info from people that didn't feel like reading the whole thread.

 

[indyjs]

OK

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

[....]

Hmmm, I guess they have a bunch of cops on the Evansville PD who aren't any smarter than a third grader.

Yeah, sounds about right for the EPD.

 

[GregD]

This was very interesting, hope you will post how this turned out.

 

[csaws]

too many variables for me on the outside to advise in anyway except for you to pray for direction and discernment. A lot of things playing a role here, and some may just say you made a commitment and you need to stay true to that, but you made a commitment to a married couple, and the man is the head of the household so even more so with him! others may say well how close of friends are you?
Above all things integrity is there and i can see from the article that your not just trying to keep the guns for yourself but really feel a cautious when dealing with this matter.

and IBTL

 

[csaws]

You could call the police and ask them. Sell the gun at your place, report her for having a firearm in the car without a permit.

IIRC you can transport a firearm from place of purchase to your home without a permit. This may be the worst information given in this thread yet.

As for the OP's situation. I say unless the original husband and her both come to you wanting the guns back you are free not to sell to her regardless of a past promise to the original couple. Although at this point I may be incorrect as to whether the current husband is the original husband as there is tons of speculation in this thread.

 

[indyjs]

I can't believe this is still going. Let's see, he wants to sell it back, but is unsure. He now feels unsafe in his apartment due to the situation. He is also unsure of the consequences of not selling it back. How does he make the gun go away and extricate himself from this without being the bad guy ? All choices have the potential for negative consequences. And which of his "friends" are getting him into and keeping him in this situation ? I don't know. I don't have any friends that would do this to me

 

[RainRider]

I would remind her that your deal was to sell them back to her and her husband at the time that you bought them not her husband now. What if the original husband decides he wants them back too.
Your hands are tied , you keep the guns.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

MODS< PLEASE KILL THIS BEFORE THE ADVICE GETS ANY WORSE....l..