Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/25/2016 6:01:51 PM EDT
|
If I could get some input on this I'd be appreciative.
Helping a friend who bought a NFA item, a DD. But it was sold as a parts kit, with the barrel having not been installed. So the receiver is a title 1 firearm. Like the M203's you can find on gunbroker. Seller states that he won't send the barrel until he sees an approved F1, or if my friend provides a type 10 FFL. The seller claims that if he mails the barrel to my friend, he could be held as providing him with constructive possession. I believe this is an Internet rumor, and told my friend to have the seller call the ATF field office and ask. In the state of Pa there is no law that says the seller could be held accountable for someone who did something illegal with an NFA item. If there was such a thing then BCM would require an approved F1 before selling a 10.5" upper. (Ok, so bad example, as a pistol could be built using a short upper, but the idea is the same) Just because someone could build an illegal NFA item doesn't mean there is any reason for the seller to not send the barrel. My friend even holds an 07/02(or 02/07?) so I can't see any reason why this seller should have any qualms about mailing the barrel. The barrel makes the unit, so the reciever is worthless with out the barrel. I don't think I've ever heard of an FFL out of state(seller in this case) being charged with a crime by mailing a barrel to someone in another state. I'm hoping some of those in the know could chime in, if you might be a lawyer(but not providing legal advice) that would be great. Or if anyone knows of a case in which the sellers concerns are valid, I'd love to know that as well. If there is such a think. Thanks in advance, Frank |
|
Sellers get to make their own rules, you can try to convince them otherwise, but they can do as they please.
I could legally sell a gun face to face without a background check. I choose not to (I use local FFL as transfer agent) because I want to be certain that I'm not selling to a prohibited person. Are there people who won't buy because of that? Sure. But I don't care. |
|
Quoted:
Sellers get to make their own rules, you can try to convince them otherwise, but they can do as they please. I could legally sell a gun face to face without a background check. I choose not to (I use local FFL as transfer agent) because I want to be certain that I'm not selling to a prohibited person. Are there people who won't buy because of that? Sure. But I don't care. Right. But there is zero laws for it. Face to face is different from mailing a licensed FFL in another state a barrel. Edited to add can you cite any times that an out of state dealer was charged with a crime for mailing a barrel to another FFL in a different state? There is zero laws that I know of, and can't even fathom why anyone would be concerned about it. Even if the receiving FFL did build an illegal weapon how would the dealer in a different state be held accountable for that? The main concern my buddy has is what happens if this guy in another state gets hit by a bus tomorrow? What if he gets hit by a bus? There is zero reasons for the out of state seller to hold the barrel that I can think of. Can someone else give me a reason why? Or a case where an FFL was charged? |
|
Quoted:
Seller is an idiot and does not know the law. There is no known cure for that. Sadly this is what I feared. I know you can't prove a negative, the guy thinks there is some law he is breaking. But from everything I've ever seen(and I'm not a lawyer) constructive possession/intent is just an Internet rumor. Sure you could break a law. I could go rob a bank with a kitchen knife I bought from Wally World. Doesn't mean Wally World won't sell me the knife or ask to sign a statement saying you won't break the law. |
|
Quoted:
If the seller won't do it, the seller won't do it. You can't prove a negative (seller can't be held liable). Trying to get the seller to change his mind is just wasting your time. But I think you can prove that the seller won't be held liable. Like Cali won't charge someone who sends an item that is banned in their state. But NY will. It's been a while since I looked at the laws but I seem to remember there was one state that would charge an FFL for shipping an item to their state(like high cap mags or an assault rifle) to their state. But most wouldn't. It was on the buyer to know the laws of their state. |
|
Quoted:
Was this info stated in the auction ? Hell a F1 will take a long time to be approved . That's his thing. There wasn't a contract for the item as it was sold as a title one gun. Guy gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Then what. Deal with his estate? A barrel is a barrel. No restrictions that I can find for a seller to ship a barrel to Pa. Unless someone knows something I don't. Why would a seller want that liability to hold something for 6-9 months? |
|
Quoted: Why would a seller want that liability to hold something for 6-9 months? Constructive possession is real, but yes it's usually blown WAY out of proportion on the internet and by people who are scared. Doesn't your 02 SOT know anyone in LE? See if he can get the barrel shipped to a local agency. I doubt they'd mind. |
|
Quoted:
That's his thing. There wasn't a contract for the item as it was sold as a title one gun. Guy gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Then what. Deal with his estate? A barrel is a barrel. No restrictions that I can find for a seller to ship a barrel to Pa. Unless someone knows something I don't. Why would a seller want that liability to hold something for 6-9 months? Quoted:
Quoted:
Was this info stated in the auction ? Hell a F1 will take a long time to be approved . That's his thing. There wasn't a contract for the item as it was sold as a title one gun. Guy gets hit by a bus tomorrow? Then what. Deal with his estate? A barrel is a barrel. No restrictions that I can find for a seller to ship a barrel to Pa. Unless someone knows something I don't. Why would a seller want that liability to hold something for 6-9 months? I would involve gun broker then if didn't mention holding it in the auction maybe they will have a solution ? |
|
Quoted:
It's not a liability for him, if he's got the money and the product. Constructive possession is real, but yes it's usually blown WAY out of proportion on the internet and by people who are scared. Doesn't your 02 SOT know anyone in LE? See if he can get the barrel shipped to a local agency. I doubt they'd mind. Quoted:
Quoted:
Why would a seller want that liability to hold something for 6-9 months? Constructive possession is real, but yes it's usually blown WAY out of proportion on the internet and by people who are scared. Doesn't your 02 SOT know anyone in LE? See if he can get the barrel shipped to a local agency. I doubt they'd mind. the "constructive possession" that most NFA guys talk about is the scenario where the guy's wife will supposedly get arrested for knowing his gun safe combination. which is a bullshit scare tactic used by gun lawyers to sell NFA trusts. If desired, that scary "situation" could be corrected just by putting a $5 gun lock on the gun. "constructive possession" of gun parts is a real thing however. I read about a guy who got his ass handed to him by ATF for selling some SBR parts without the proper paperwork. I don't remember the details but they really stomped down on the guy. I'm always careful to be CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY obeying the intent of all gun laws. Uncertainty and grey areas make lawyers rich and you poor. |
|
Quoted:
But I think you can prove that the seller won't be held liable. Like Cali won't charge someone who sends an item that is banned in their state. But NY will. It's been a while since I looked at the laws but I seem to remember there was one state that would charge an FFL for shipping an item to their state(like high cap mags or an assault rifle) to their state. But most wouldn't. It was on the buyer to know the laws of their state. Can you also prove that if buyer gets jammed up for whatever reason, the seller won't be compelled to spend time assisting the investigation, potentially required to take time to be a witness in court, etc.? ETA: Remember that in the Thompson Center case, it was Thompson that was held responsible for their "illegal" parts kit, had to pay big bucks to get a ruling that would continue to allow them to do so, and was only able to do so because there was an unregulated way to assemble the complete parts. In this case it doesn't sound like there is an unregulated way to assemble the parts, so it could very well be that the ATF would hold the seller responsible for transferring a regulated DD in unassembled form. |
|
JP Rifles wouldn't sell me a M16 style bolt carrier using the same reasoning. My personal opinion is manufacturers who take this tack must have had some run in with the ATF in the past and have decided to be uber puckered up because of it. Buy the stuff from somewhere else.
It is perfectly legal to own and use AR15 pistols which use the exact same upper assemblies. |
|
Quoted:
Sadly this is what I feared. I know you can't prove a negative, the guy thinks there is some law he is breaking. But from everything I've ever seen(and I'm not a lawyer) constructive possession/intent is just an Internet rumor. Sure you could break a law. I could go rob a bank with a kitchen knife I bought from Wally World. Doesn't mean Wally World won't sell me the knife or ask to sign a statement saying you won't break the law. Quoted:
Quoted:
Seller is an idiot and does not know the law. There is no known cure for that. Sadly this is what I feared. I know you can't prove a negative, the guy thinks there is some law he is breaking. But from everything I've ever seen(and I'm not a lawyer) constructive possession/intent is just an Internet rumor. Sure you could break a law. I could go rob a bank with a kitchen knife I bought from Wally World. Doesn't mean Wally World won't sell me the knife or ask to sign a statement saying you won't break the law. Constructive possession isn't a rumor. It just isn't used in NFA cases. It's used a lot in felon In possession cases. |
|
Quoted:
Constructive possession isn't a rumor. It just isn't used in NFA cases. It's used a lot in felon In possession cases. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seller is an idiot and does not know the law. There is no known cure for that. Sadly this is what I feared. I know you can't prove a negative, the guy thinks there is some law he is breaking. But from everything I've ever seen(and I'm not a lawyer) constructive possession/intent is just an Internet rumor. Sure you could break a law. I could go rob a bank with a kitchen knife I bought from Wally World. Doesn't mean Wally World won't sell me the knife or ask to sign a statement saying you won't break the law. Constructive possession isn't a rumor. It just isn't used in NFA cases. It's used a lot in felon In possession cases. constructive possession is a real legal term if you have your neighbor's credit card number, you have constructive possession of his credit card even though you have no physical possession but the stuff about your wife getting arrested for knowing your safe combination is a bunch of horseshit |
|
Quoted:
constructive possession is a real legal term if you have your neighbor's credit card number, you have constructive possession of his credit card even though you have no physical possession but the stuff about your wife getting arrested for knowing your safe combination is a bunch of horseshit Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seller is an idiot and does not know the law. There is no known cure for that. Sadly this is what I feared. I know you can't prove a negative, the guy thinks there is some law he is breaking. But from everything I've ever seen(and I'm not a lawyer) constructive possession/intent is just an Internet rumor. Sure you could break a law. I could go rob a bank with a kitchen knife I bought from Wally World. Doesn't mean Wally World won't sell me the knife or ask to sign a statement saying you won't break the law. Constructive possession isn't a rumor. It just isn't used in NFA cases. It's used a lot in felon In possession cases. constructive possession is a real legal term if you have your neighbor's credit card number, you have constructive possession of his credit card even though you have no physical possession but the stuff about your wife getting arrested for knowing your safe combination is a bunch of horseshit Which is what I just said. |
Armory Sponsor