I am Confused. . .Executive Actions/Orders in effect? Not? What do I have to do?

[The Professor]

I can't seem to get a straight answer, but then. . .momma doesn't let me leave the house, much.

Right now, as of this date and time. . .if I wanted to sell a handgun to a friend, MUST I go have the background check performed?

If not now, when? Is there a pending date when this will be enacted or enforced?

The Professor

 

[Bigtanker]

No.

If you are making a profit selling guns, you could get into trouble.

Sell it to him (assuming he is not prohibited from owing a firearm)

 

[24Carat]

Executive actions/orders are binding on Federal employees, no one else.

 

[pudly]

Your confusion and fear mean that Obama has succeeded with his speech. He actually changed almost nothing. He merely restated existing law and put some more resources into enforcement. Assuming you are selling out of your personal collection and aren't going out of your way to look like a business, you are fine. Some guns appreciate over time, so making a profit on those is not out of bounds either.

ATF Guidance Document
INGO DIscussion

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would wonder if he did, in fact, change how narrowly or broadly "in the business" will be defined. I mean, it's obvious that a guy who sells one gun and makes allowances for depreciation or appreciation in the market (that is, if he has a Colt Woodsman that sold for $70 in 1954, he could appropriately sell it for hundreds or even thousands today, but unless his name rhymes with Ron Ravis and he doesn't want to make any money, he just loves to sell guns , he can't resell a used Hi-Point 9mm for a couple of C notes.

(and regardless of the ATF document, I don't think any of us are willing to put our trust in gov't to always do what they say they will.)

Your confusion and fear mean that Obama has succeeded with his speech. He actually changed almost nothing. He merely restated existing law and put some more resources into enforcement. Assuming you are selling out of your personal collection and aren't going out of your way to look like a business, you are fine. Some guns appreciate over time, so making a profit on those is not out of bounds either.

ATF Guidance Document
INGO DIscussion

 

[Kirk Freeman]

if I wanted to sell a handgun to a friend, MUST I go have the background check performed?

It depends. Where does your friend reside?

 

[CampingJosh]

So is it now easier to obtain an FFL without having fixed business hours and a retail store? I remember reading years ago that not only was an FFL unnecessary for people who only sell at gun shows, but it wouldn't be issued in the first place.

 

[Tactically Fat]

It depends. Where does your friend reside?

OP, what our esteemed INGO colleague is intimating: If your friend resides in a different state, then YES, an official transfer must be done by an FFL holder.

It goes further from there depending on if a handgun vs. long gun. Remember: If the current owner and the future recipient reside in different states, it'll need a "background check" to be done to stay 100% legal.

 

[trophyhunter]

I wonder what the impact on day to day operations would be for the ATF if several million gun owners nationwide suddenly applied for an FFL, "just in case" they found themselves in a position of wanting or needing to sell a gun or two out of their collection?

And by several I mean 30 million of them.

 

[HoughMade]

In addition to the state residence issue, the issue is whether you are in the business of selling handguns...and "making" a profit is not the test.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In addition to the state residence issue, the issue is whether you are in the business of selling handguns...and "making" a profit is not the test.

To quibble, being in the bidness is the test for an FFL THEN a background check.

 

[HoughMade]

To quibble, being in the bidness is the test for an FFL THEN a background check.

You are correct. If you are in the business (at a profit or loss), you can't sell without an FFL and when you have an FFL, background checks are required.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

INGO Test for FFL requirement=>

 

[The Professor]

In re: the person to whom I would sell this particular firearm is an Indiana Resident. And as to the confusion about "fearing," I would suggest that I, like other law-abiding gunowners, would prefer to respect such laws. And while there are those who would go around beating their chests saying they won't comply with this law or that, I prefer to comply with the laws of the land. . . especially in this case where the recipient would be my brother's son.

I don't mind being in jail. Hell, at my age, it's three hots and a cot (okay, two lukewarm, one brownbag, a rack and one sexy, orange jumpsuit).

However, if the law of the land now states that a background check is in order, I'm going to make sure that if I perform the transaction, it's done in full compliance of the law.

The Professor

 

[HoughMade]

In re: the person to whom I would sell this particular firearm is an Indiana Resident. And as to the confusion about "fearing," I would suggest that I, like other law-abiding gunowners, would prefer to respect such laws. And while there are those who would go around beating their chests saying they won't comply with this law or that, I prefer to comply with the laws of the land. . . especially in this case where the recipient would be my brother's son.

I don't mind being in jail. Hell, at my age, it's three hots and a cot (okay, two lukewarm, one brownbag, a rack and one sexy, orange jumpsuit).

However, if the law of the land now states that a background check is in order, I'm going to make sure that if I perform the transaction, it's done in full compliance of the law.

The Professor

So, Professor, what makes you think that an in-state private transaction by one not involved in the business of firearms requires a background check?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In re: the person to whom I would sell this particular firearm is an Indiana Resident.

No requirement for a background check. However, you cannot make the sale if you reason to believe that the purchaser is a prohibited person--felon, domestic violence conviction, habitual drunkard, etc.

And as to the confusion about "fearing," I would suggest that I, like other law-abiding gunowners, would prefer to respect such laws.

The law has not changed since 1968. You need an FFL to do business. If you have an FFL you need to be handing out 4473s and conducting NICSs checks.

The confusion is that not one controlling factor determines if you are in business. Things that could lead to the conclusion that you are in business: percentage of income derived from gun sales, advertising, business cards, number of sales, inter alia.

However, if you have a pistol that you are no longer into and this is your one and only sale in a while, sell it to your buddy as long as he is not a prohibited person.

Obama's little speech changed nothing. The executive actions were simply restatements of existing law and, as per usual, some in the gun culture and the political right, set themselves on fire and ran around the conference room table.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, Professor, what makes you think that an in-state private transaction by one not involved in the business of firearms requires a background check?

Well, he may be a Professor of a certain age that remembers Indiana's UBC (for handguns) that was repealed in 1998, and being in the Big E he may get media from Illinois which cites Illinois law for private sales. Just speculation.

 

[JettaKnight]

EO's can't change laws, they can define how a (semi-)vaguely law is executed by the executive branch (hence the name). The law clearly states that businesses must hold an FFL01 and transfers must have a F4473 with background check (bypassed in some states with CCL's). In this case, the vague part is what defines a business. No court would uphold a fiat decision that you or I are businesses, but the guy at every gun show with two 8' tables and is paying cash for the gun you brought in is certainly a possibility.


There's my libertarian part that despises these laws that could affect him, but then there's my egalitarian part that is dismayed that he is avoiding the paperwork, taxes, business expenses that other honest dealers must bear.

These EO's don't really have much teeth*. For instance, telling the DoD they need to consider and fund "smart guns"? You got to imagine everyone at the pentagon is trying to figure out what to do about that bit of stupidity. And it's probably an unfunded mandate, since congress hasn't bought in.



*Don't tell that to people in line at the Indy 1500 this weekend.

 

[Mgderf]

...and regardless of the ATF document, I don't think any of us are willing to put our trust in gov't to always do what they say they will.)

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor..."

 

[The Professor]

Well, he may be a Professor of a certain age that remembers Indiana's UBC (for handguns) that was repealed in 1998, and being in the Big E he may get media from Illinois which cites Illinois law for private sales. Just speculation.

Partly,

We moved away in the 90's to Colorado and only just returned. Colorado (which is not Indiana, I understand this) has, as State Law, that all gunsales, no matter where made or initiated (i.e., at home, at a gunshow, at a dealer or private transfer) must have a background check performed.

My problem is that several people around me have been throwing about the "gunshow loophole" BS and claiming that Obama now has directed the ATF to require background checks on all transfers of ownership of firearms. I have several other people saying the exact opposite, that nothing really has changed.

I have a nephew who wishes to purchase a firearm from me and I didn't know what the exact procedure is, since I've really only been back in the state for a few months and I didn't want to do anything illegal.

The Professor