Unreasonable to ask for signed bill of sale on private gun sale?

[ultra...good]

I have never sold a gun, so that is not an issue. I have given a few as gifts, but the people that i have given them to i know pretty well.
As far as buying, i would never accept a gun without a receipt that clearly stated what i bought, who i bought it from, and when i took possession. No ifs and or buts about it.
I had a rifle some time back that turned out to be stolen. I did not get a receipt for it and it was taken away from me and i was charged with a misdemeanor. $500 later for a lawyer and the charge was dropped. Turns out the rifle was stolen in Iowa in 1980. I was 5 years old in 1980 so it was kind of easy for the lawyer to explain. Either way, i do not want to go through that again.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Just curious...
To all of you who won't do a transaction without a bill of sale, what is the worst thing that you're afraid of happening if you don't have one?
Please don't say you're going to be imprisoned because your previously owned gun was used in a crime and you didn't get a signature from the buyer...

You frame a solid question.

Apparently they're so uncertain of the character of the person they're selling to that they don't trust that person not to do anything felonious, and thus want to help the police beyond a simple 'Sorry, officer, I sold that years ago. Sorry I cannot be of more help to you.'

Forget 4473s, from this thread alone the conclusion I am left with is that gun owners will be our own worst enemy if and when confiscation is attempted.

I have a better solution than even a bill of sale: if one is at all uncomfortable with this person to whom they're selling something formerly in one's name, how about just don't sell it to that person?

I wouldn't sell an arm to anyone whom I had any qualms about, whatsoever, whether my name was attached to that piece via a yellow slip of paper or not. Ethically speaking, I think some minimal screening does and would do far more than simply supposedly washing one's hands by having someone the seller isn't 100% comfortable with sign some bill of sale.

What, because Jimbo Manson signed Daffy Duck on a piece of notebook paper it means he's restrained from going out and murdering someone? What's to stop him from claiming he sold it when the police come to investigate him after the original owner rats out Daffy Duck?

Bills of sale are nothing more than stupid feel-good measures. They don't do one thing to stop powerful weapons from being in the wrong hands that simply looking someone over and up and down and having the spine to say 'No, I'm sorry, but I am just not going to sell this to you at any price' and waiting for the next legitimate proper buyer wouldn't do better.

Do we lawful gun owners want legal coverage? A simple 'I sold that a long time ago/recently' does just that. Do we want ethical coverage? Not selling to people we lawful gun owners don't trust does just that.

Just my . Take that for what little it's worth.

 

[marv]

I have Never asked for a signed B O S nor have I ever signed one. And I intend to keep it that way. I did not ever get the other party's name and didn't give them mine. Sometimes I'll ask for proof of Hoosiership if I don't know already or ask if they have an L T C H. Thus far no one has knocked on my door in an official capacity.

 

[Bennettjh]

I don't think that's unreasonable at all. Your gun, your rules.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I always ask for a 3 Musketeers Bar

Cannot wait to do my next ad and put that in as one of the conditions

 

[Miles42]

Sellers choice. No problem, the rules just needed before hand.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Just to muddy the waters a bit I have my FFL03, aka C&R License.

If I purchase a C&R qualified firearm I must, by law, record the sellers name and address. I believe it goes vice verse as well.

Most of the purchases I have made this has not been a problem, but would sellers generally be comfortable with this or not?

The vast majority of purchases I have made online have been with other C&R holders or businesses friendly to C&R's.

Regards,

Doug

 

[merotek]

Just curious...
To all of you who won't do a transaction without a bill of sale, what is the worst thing that you're afraid of happening if you don't have one?
Please don't say you're going to be imprisoned because your previously owned gun was used in a crime and you didn't get a signature from the buyer...

For me it is more their willingness to sign one than the actual signing

 

[Spike_351]

I still have bills of sale from firearms I sold over 4 years ago. If they don't want to sign they don't get to buy, simple as that. If they are scared of a paper trail then they are either not legally able to own one or extremely paranoid. Of course I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

 

[Spike_351]

You frame a solid question.

Apparently they're so uncertain of the character of the person they're selling to that they don't trust that person not to do anything felonious, and thus want to help the police beyond a simple 'Sorry, officer, I sold that years ago. Sorry I cannot be of more help to you.'

Forget 4473s, from this thread alone the conclusion I am left with is that gun owners will be our own worst enemy if and when confiscation is attempted.

I have a better solution than even a bill of sale: if one is at all uncomfortable with this person to whom they're selling something formerly in one's name, how about just don't sell it to that person?

I wouldn't sell an arm to anyone whom I had any qualms about, whatsoever, whether my name was attached to that piece via a yellow slip of paper or not. Ethically speaking, I think some minimal screening does and would do far more than simply supposedly washing one's hands by having someone the seller isn't 100% comfortable with sign some bill of sale.

What, because Jimbo Manson signed Daffy Duck on a piece of notebook paper it means he's restrained from going out and murdering someone? What's to stop him from claiming he sold it when the police come to investigate him after the original owner rats out Daffy Duck?

Bills of sale are nothing more than stupid feel-good measures. They don't do one thing to stop powerful weapons from being in the wrong hands that simply looking someone over and up and down and having the spine to say 'No, I'm sorry, but I am just not going to sell this to you at any price' and waiting for the next legitimate proper buyer wouldn't do better.

Do we lawful gun owners want legal coverage? A simple 'I sold that a long time ago/recently' does just that. Do we want ethical coverage? Not selling to people we lawful gun owners don't trust does just that.

Just my . Take that for what little it's worth.

and what proof would you have that you sold it long ago? a statement like that generally requires evidence to back it up.

 

[SmithGuy]

Bills of sale are nothing more than stupid feel-good measures.

I get your point and I somewhat agree, but if you ever have to answer to the police for a gun you sold years ago, I am sure you would appreciate having any documentation whatsoever.

 

[SmithGuy]

I always ask for ID and Indiana LTCH and have them sign two papers with my signature, the date, model of gun, serial, price and any added features (laser sight, etc.) I keep one copy and they get the other.

Good advice. I think I will do that from now on. And I will make sure to state upfront these are my conditions for the sale.

 

[SmithGuy]

He was the short MCSD guy wasn't he?

He was sitting at a table so I could not tell if he was short in stature. I would guess he was average height. He was IMPD.

 

[JetGirl]

I must, by law, record the sellers name and address.

Well, there's the difference, eh?

a statement like that generally requires evidence to back it up.

Got a case to cite? (Where the seller failed to produce a bill of sale and went to jail for failure to produce required evidence to back up his statement)...

 

[Lost Californian]

Most of the posts here make reference to legal issues in the future over long past transactions, as to the why of having a bill of sale.

Why not go all the way and have the sale done at your favorite FFL? Then all the records are logged elsewhere, there is no question of identity or legal possession, et al. As stated about a bill of sale, if this is disclosed up front, what would be the issue for the buyer or the seller??

 

[level0]

I don't begrude anyone asking for a BoS, but I'm more likely to look elsewhere if a BoS is a requirement for a person-to-person cash transaction.

 

[Expat]

This has been picked apart several times. I have seen several guns on here listed that I would have bought except they wanted a signed bill of sale, or to see my LTCH. The state does not require this and I think it is a concession to the gun grabbers when people do it. If that is how you feel then join with Obama and support the Manchin-Toomey bill. Have all sales done via a FFL. Have background checks done. Be serious about it.

 

[Dirtebiker]

As long as you're OK with me signing using a fictitious name, I don't see anything unreasonable about wanting a signature on there.

You mean ATM isn't your real name?

 

[ATM]

You mean ATM isn't your real name?

No, my real name is Jimbo Manson but I generally sign bills of sale as Daffy Duck.

 

[schafe]

A bill of sale always seemed to me, to be a logical thing. Not from the BATFE, or gun law liability angle, but from pure business sense. When both the buyer and seller have signed copies of a transaction, there is proof of what transpired, who paid whom how much, for exactly what, in what condition. No argument. If someone later feels ripped off, the bill of sale is a good place to start.
We do that for the sale of other valuable items which we sell or buy, right? Do those reasons go away when it's a firearm being exchanged?