Do you pass on a good deal if it requires a Bill of Sale?

[Aimless]

Reading compression, get some FAST! The reasonable cause clause applies to suspicion that the person is unqualified to own a gun legally. It has nothing to do woth residency. There is NO "reasonable cause" qualifier for that.

Reading is a *****. And if you get caught selling to a gun without verifying residency to one of Bloombergs thug buyers, you gonna be somebody's ***** too.

More talky words, still no law or regulation proving that showing ID is required.

A person from South Carolina attempting to buy a gun in a private transaction from a resident in this state would make them a prohibited person. If they called you from a South Carolina phone number and showed up with SC plates on their car that would, in my mind give me REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that they may be a prohibited person, someone not ELIGIBLE to make private transactions in Georgia. So, I wouldn't move forward with the transaction. Let me try this another way; NO RESIDENCY means NOT ELIGIBLE to make a PRIVATE TRANSACTION. They are PROHIBITED. So long as a person does not give you REASONABLE CAUSE to believe otherwise simply asking them are you a resident, are you prohibited, is sufficient. There is no law or regulation that says anyone has to show ID or keep a record of the transaction (BOS), in Georgia.

If you spent as much time reading up on the subject as you do trying to word crafty insults and smart ass comments we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

[bc]

Why do right thinking gun owners actively hate BoS's?

The left wants to track and document all gun transfers. Why? Because they want to register and eventually sieze all guns from private citizens. Don't believe it? Then you're a dumbass and shouldn't be carrying a lethal weapon. You lack the common sense to be armed with anything more dangerous than a rubber band gun and even that's iffy.

So, whenever we buy from a gun store or pawn shop we fill out a 4473. PRESENTLY the law requires only that those be kept on file...forever. Why? Because they know that at some point the government CAN demand them. The law doesn't allow that yet but the existense of those documents is not an accident. There is NO reason to keep them on file other than that the government will be able to at some point use them to start tracing guns. Period. And I hopw you can see how tenuous the stability of the laws protecting our freedom is.

Why for ****s sake would we voluntarily do the same thing to each other...to ourselves?

When we transfer a weapon from me to you to him to her to Bob, to Jim, to Joe.etc...we "launder" those guns. We wash away the taint of government tracing. Now the BoS's aren't by any means iron clad or even half-ass as far as tracking but when/if the time ever does come that someone kn ocks on your door with a 4473 in hand demanding your X and you run to hand him your BoS with your slightly sweaty, quivering fingers, you are a traitor to freedom.

A BoS is just a security blanket for those who lack the courage to face the uncertainty that comes hand in hand with freedom.

I have never understood why the government is so concerned with the chain of ownership regarding guns during a crime investigation. To me, the buck stops at who pulled the trigger, end of story. Furthermore, if we quit with this nonsense of releasing those caught using a gun in the commission of a violent crime, we wouldn't even be having these discussions.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Nah, myself and many others here will continue to require a BOS....ya don't like it?...tough ****.

As long as you're happy continuing to do so, knowing that you're intentionally alienating potential buyers. It only hurts you.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I have never understood why the government is so concerned with the chain of ownership regarding guns during a crime investigation. To me, the buck stops at who pulled the trigger, end of story.

Most of the times it's not the chain of ownership....it's first contact. LE shows up and finds a gun, a body, and no perp. So they run the number on the gun and start there. If they catch the shooter, chances are, even if it was at one time your gun, you'll never know it.

 

[Patronus]

More talky words, still no law or regulation proving that showing ID is required.

A person from South Carolina attempting to buy a gun in a private transaction from a resident in this state would make them a prohibited person. If they called you from a South Carolina phone number and showed up with SC plates on their car that would, in my mind give me REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that they may be a prohibited person, someone not ELIGIBLE to make private transactions in Georgia. So, I wouldn't move forward with the transaction. Let me try this another way; NO RESIDENCY means NOT ELIGIBLE to make a PRIVATE TRANSACTION. They are PROHIBITED. So long as a person does not give you REASONABLE CAUSE to believe otherwise simply asking them are you a resident, are you prohibited, is sufficient. There is no law or regulation that says anyone has to show ID or keep a record of the transaction (BOS), in Georgia.

If you spent as much time reading up on the subject as you do trying to word crafty insults and smart ass comments we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Just amazing. You know, when you are in the big house begging for soap-on-a-rope, I won't care. But the tragedy is the **** you talk may convince someone who doesn't know better and it may be them who ends up getting screwed because you can't learn. Let me try to help you out since you seem incapable of "imagining" how easy it is to get you to sell to a non-resident unless you verify. Your SC buyer...say he has a friend or family in GA. Say they have talked about guns and the SC guy hears about the site. he's read these threads and sees YOU bragging about not checking. So he stops off at his GA frieneds house, calls you up and arranges a meet. He rides in with his GA resident friend in his GA tagged car and you sell happily, blissfully ignorant that you have just committed a felony. Buhbye brainless..er aimless, hello Bubba's Gal. Hell, he could just give you a celphone number and you'd be able to call him direct without ever knowing it was a South Carolina resident. Do you really think Bloombergs boys will tell you up front they are from NYC? Just like any drug sting they can lie and cheat and it's YOUR responsibility to ask the right questions. DEMAND ID. Selling only to GA residents IS the law. And no matter how goofy the law may seem there MUST be a way to legally abide by it. Looking at a DL or State issued ID is that way.

 

[Aimless]

Just amazing. You know, when you are in the big house begging for soap-on-a-rope, I won't care. But the tragedy is the **** you talk may convince someone who doesn't know better and it may be them who ends up getting screwed because you can't learn. Let me try to help you out since you seem incapable of "imagining" how easy it is to get you to sell to a non-resident unless you verify. Your SC buyer...say he has a friend or family in GA. Say they have talked about guns and the SC guy hears about the site. he's read these threads and sees YOU bragging about not checking. So he stops off at his GA frieneds house, calls you up and arranges a meet. He rides in with his GA resident friend in his GA tagged car and you sell happily, blissfully ignorant that you have just committed a felony. Buhbye brainless..er aimless, hello Bubba's Gal. Hell, he could just give you a celphone number and you'd be able to call him direct without ever knowing it was a South Carolina resident. Do you really think Bloombergs boys will tell you up front they are from NYC? Just like any drug sting they can lie and cheat and it's YOUR responsibility to ask the right questions. DEMAND ID. Selling only to GA residents IS the law. And no matter how goofy the law may seem there MUST be a way to legally abide by it. Looking at a DL or State issued ID is that way.

Asking if they are a prohibited person is sufficient. Like before, show me a law that states you are required to see a state issued ID to make a private transaction in the State of Georgia. If you don't have one or know of one then everything you are saying is just fear driven bull****. You don't even have a case where a private seller has been caught up or arrested in a sting involving Bloomberg or his people. You are just propagating irrational fear. Fake ID's can easily be bought and there are some really good ones out there (ask any bartender or cop), so unless you are an expert at spotting fake ID's what good does it do to ask to see one? Especially if they are covering 90% of it up as you suggested. How do you prove that you asked if things did go pear shaped down the road? You can't. It is your word against theirs. So like I said before all you are doing is useless feel good bull****. It makes you feel more secure. That is alright to me, that is your choice. Just don't get on here and spill that feel good bull**** out like it is gospel or the law of the land because it isn't and it makes you no better than the people that think a useless and easily forged piece of paper is going to keep them out of jail.

 

[strider12]

Asking if they are a prohibited person is sufficient. Like before, show me a law that states you are required to see a state issued ID to make a private transaction in the State of Georgia. If you don't have one or know of one then everything you are saying is just fear driven bull****. You don't even have a case where a private seller has been caught up or arrested in a sting involving Bloomberg or his people. You are just propagating irrational fear. Fake ID's can easily be bought and there are some really good ones out there (ask any bartender or cop), so unless you are an expert at spotting fake ID's what good does it do to ask to see one? Especially if they are covering 90% of it up as you suggested. How do you prove that you asked if things did go pear shaped down the road? You can't. It is your word against theirs. So like I said before all you are doing is useless feel good bull****. It makes you feel more secure. That is alright to me, that is your choice. Just don't get on here and spill that feel good bull**** out like it is gospel or the law of the land because it isn't and it makes you no better than the people that think a useless and easily forged piece of paper is going to keep them out of jail.

 

[zesty]

In order to break the law you have to knowingly sell to a felon or to a non-resident. You don't have to ask a single question or see any ID.

The ATF stings that cought people selling across state lines were cases where the people were selling dozens of guns. It was blatant.

The Bloomberg stings that caught people selling to non-residents and felons involved buyers that told the seller that they were either from out of state or that they wouldn't pass a background check. It was blatant.

Is there some trickery going on with some transfers? Undoubtedly. Am I worried about getting put in jail after being tricked into selling to someone? Nope.

Telling the cops that I thought the transfer was legal is the exact same thing as having a BOS that says I thought it was legal. In both cases, they'd have to prove otherwise. You might be a bit better off with a BOS in the rare scenario that would put you in such a position, but there are countless other risks with completing a BOS so you take your chances either way.

BOS's are a no-go for me, because I believe they are like stores volunteering to stop selling magazines or ARs to citizens. They are self inflicted control measures that many of us would scream about if they were mandated and controlled by the government. BOS requirements don't just limit buyers, they're a step towards limiting freedom.

 

[bc]

Most of the times it's not the chain of ownership....it's first contact. LE shows up and finds a gun, a body, and no perp. So they run the number on the gun and start there. If they catch the shooter, chances are, even if it was at one time your gun, you'll never know it.

That makes perfect sense. However, more than a few LEO here and on other forums keep repeating that a BOS is required to protect the seller from being responsible for a gun used in a crime to "prove" you are you no longer in possession of said gun. The "chain of possession" phrase is one I have seen them use to defend their argument and I assumed from that it was a somehow an important part of an investigation. I never could connect the dots in their reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

BOS's are a no-go for me, because I believe they are like stores volunteering to stop selling magazines or ARs to citizens. They are self inflicted control measures that many of us would scream about if they were mandated and controlled by the government. BOS requirements don't just limit buyers, they're a step towards limiting freedom.

That makes perfect sense. However, more than a few LEO here and on other forums keep repeating that a BOS is required to protect the seller from being responsible for a gun used in a crime to "prove" you are you no longer in possession of said gun. The "chain of possession" phrase is one I have seen them use to defend their argument and I assumed from that it was a somehow an important part of an investigation. I never could connect the dots in their reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

The reason you couldn't connect the dots is because they are making a faulty argument. The "E" in "LE" means "enforcement" not "erudition." If you want to know the law, don't ask/listen to LE.