• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Bill of sale?

I have found that if they are a new member, they really don't know what a BOS is, or that it's a useless piece of paper.
If they are seasoned member, they are just paranoid or ignorant.
They are coerced into marking "YES" because that's the only option, there is not a "NO" box.
It's kinda the same way with shipping, the only answer is "NO".

As soon as I see BOS YES I close it and move on.
I wish there was a way filter out the BOS required ads, or just have a separate category for the paranoid.


There is a way, it is called Gun Broker, and where these folks should list their gunz
 
That'd be great 'cause I can buy long guns across state lines without going through an FFL as long as the states have adjoining borders. I read that here.
That's what I read also, but the states have to be south of the Mason-Dixon line. Otherwise it is a felony. Its called the "adjoining border law", and has been place for about two years or so.
 
10 seconds of Google searching turns up this FL case. Ga laws are very similar on this topic.
KERR v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeals, 4th Div.
Decided April 18, 2007


When a person has possession of property known to have been recently stolen the law recognizes two rebuttable presumptions arising from such possession: (1) a common law presumption that the possessor stole the property, see State v. Young, 217 So.2d 567, 571 (Fla. 1968) (“In the case of possession of recently stolen goods … the inference that the possessor is the guilty taker is so strong that the rules of evidence permit the jury to return a verdict of guilty on this one circumstance alone if the defendant allows it to go to the jury either unexplained or with an explanation that is so palpably unreasonable and incredible that the jury rejects it entirely”);

and (2) a statutory presumption that the possessor knew the property had been stolen,

...
[BUT what if THE ACCUSED SAYS "I BOUGHT THIS THING LEGALLY" ?? ]
...once the defense has offered evidence of an explanation that is facially reasonable, the burden of proof remains on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with evidence inconsistent with defendant’s facially reasonable explanation. When a defendant’s explanation is not indisputably reasonable and requires an assessment of credibility and other factors, the presumption may not vanish entirely.


[IN KERR'S CASE]
The factors adduced by defendant—his statement that he bought the car from someone he just - 3 - met playing basketball and that he received no receipt, bill of sale or evidence of title—are not facially plausible.


[CONVICTION UPHELD ]

His "I bought the car legally" story sounded like B.S. and was rejected by both the court and the jury because, in part, he didn't have any receipt or bill of sale to support is verbal statement.


Vehicles and guns
Apples and oranges

Do you also have a title for each of your guns?
Do you tag them also?

And confederate statues are racist.:wacko:
 
image.jpeg

Uh oh, looks like I'll need some more paper for my next BOS.
 
That's what I read also, but the states have to be south of the Mason-Dixon line. Otherwise it is a felony. Its called the "adjoining border law", and has been place for about two years or so.
Nah, I think it goes back to 1994, just before the omnibus crime bill passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom