selling gun question.....

[landon410]

Im pretty sure I know the answer but.... a guy wants to come buy my AR I ask him to bring drivers license and purchase permit or conceal carry permit, he says no conceal carry permit and purchase permit expired June of 2014, so 3 months ago...

Do I just have to tell him sorry no sell in order to protect myself?

[Mntnman]

Purchase permit is not required for a rifle purchase. It is a good idea for your piece of mind. If he has one that expired 3 months ago, I would probably do the sale. It is your judgement call. A signed bill of sale is a good idea, too.

[shooter]

 I think if he has one 3 months expired, that you would be ok, its not required,

[FarmerRick]

Take a pic of his drivers license and have him sign a bill of sale. Neither is required, but may be a good idea to CYA.

[Mudinyeri]

It will take him about 20 minutes and $5.00 to get a new permit.  For my own piece of mind, I'd require the buyer to do that.  However, it is not legally required.

[barmandr]

This place kills me...everyone constantly claiming too much government involvement in our business, but then recommends requiring more government documentation than the law requires.  Make up your minds folks.  If it's not needed, by law, it's not needed.

[66bigblock]

I agree with barman about too much govt interference, BUT...

Do you really want to be the one that sells a firearm to next niko jenkins?

Odds of that happening less than .0001%, but as easy as it is for someone to file for the sheriffs permit, why would they not do it?  Is there a way for you to know that the buyer has not been convicted of a felony in the 3 years and 3 months since his last handgun purchase permit was issued? 

A buyer that can provide me a permit, a NE DL and will let me photocopy them tells me that they have been checked out by someone at a higher pay grade than me.  As a responsible firearm owner, it proves to a jury that I did my due diligence to make sure that I was selling to someone that was legally authorized to purchase a firearm.

Although not required by law, I personally have too much to lose to sell a firearm to someone that has had that right removed by his own actions. 

My vote is do not sell without the permit.

66bigblock

 

[Mudinyeri]

This place kills me...everyone constantly claiming too much government involvement in our business, but then recommends requiring more government documentation than the law requires.  Make up your minds folks.  If it's not needed, by law, it's not needed.

I'm with 66bigblock. I don't want more government intervention but I do want to be comfortable that I'm selling a firearm to a law-abiding citizen.  While not required by law for private sales, the driver's license and purchase permit already exist (i.e. we're not asking for any additional government intervention) and should be easily provided by an individually who can legally own a firearm.

[Mntnman]

I agree with barman about too much govt interference, BUT...

Do you really want to be the one that sells a firearm to next niko jenkins?

The fact that he is able to pass a background check means nothing. Many people buy guns legally before they commit an act of evil. It might give you piece of mind that he hasn't done so yet, but maybe he just hasn't been caught. Background checks merely hinder law-abiding folks and really have been proven worthless at preventing evil acts.

Personally, if I am buying privately I don't like the seller keeping my information. I do show him my credentials but would rather they leave it at that. They can write my name down if it makes them feel better. Yes, I have been fingerprinted and background checked out the wazoo.

[barmandr]

So, some of you feel that the government requirement to have a purchase permit is an infringement on the RKBA, but have no problems requiring it, even though not required, when doing a private sale? Hmmm...your reason is that it is a CYA/peace of mind to make sure someone is allowed to purchase/own a gun and has passed a background check.  Isn't that exactly what the government is doing to lawful citizens who want to own guns?  You know, just making sure only the "right" people will purchase firearms. Yet, when it's your butt that may end up in a sling, you're all for it.  Sounds like a bit of a double standard and very hypocritical.

[66bigblock]

barman - I agree with you to a point.  IMO - The difference in the govt check is that some people think that it may lead to govt confiscation since the govt has a list of every purchase.

If I ask for your permit as proof to me that the govt has done a background check on you, I will not be back kicking in your door to confiscate or make you register in the future as many believe the govt could do.

Anyone is free to make a sale to anyone that they are comfortable with.  The OP asked a question and I gave my opinion on how I would handle it.  Not stating case law for him.

66bigblock

[newfalguy101]

It will take him about 20 minutes and $5.00 to get a new permit.  For my own piece of mind, I'd require the buyer to do that.  However, it is not legally required.

That will depend entirely on your location!!   I used to be able to walk into the Sheriffs office and walk out with the permit, 15 minutes door to door, however, now  the last permit I got took several days to show up in the mail...........their policy is to send them out now

[AWick]

That will depend entirely on your location!!   I used to be able to walk into the Sheriffs office and walk out with the permit, 15 minutes door to door, however, now  the last permit I got took several days to show up in the mail...........their policy is to send them out now

They're making it easy for CHP applicants at the Omaha State Patrol Office on i st. They put up a big sign that points to the obscure door and has the word "FINGERPRINTS" in letters about a foot tall! I drove through the parking lot of the Omaha State Patrol office today (they have a USPS dropbox) and noticed the new sign since having applied for my own CHP there.

[Gumby]

I had a handgun permit when it was a time in my life to buy handguns.  Then I let the permit lapse for nearly 10 years.  I bought long guns in the interim and was treated like a pariah by both auctioneers and retailers.  Now that I have a permit once again, my ring is kissed in all quarters. 

Yet like Mntnman said, "The fact that he is able to pass a background check means nothing".

Follow the law and sell the AR.

[Mntnman]

The problem is that we have been conditioned to feel that out natural right to keep and bear arms is a privilege. We don't even consider how much of an infringement we rubber stamp just to play nice. People, we have to accept that some things that our liberty opens us up to are not pretty. They use our fear and sense of doing what is right to fool us into weakening the one document that protects us from tyranny. We have to stop that. There are ways of dealing with society's ills without giving up our shield. In fact, we have to roll back many "laws" that they have fooled us into going along with.

[Mudinyeri]

So, some of you feel that the government requirement to have a purchase permit is an infringement on the RKBA, but have no problems requiring it, even though not required, when doing a private sale? Hmmm...your reason is that it is a CYA/peace of mind to make sure someone is allowed to purchase/own a gun and has passed a background check.  Isn't that exactly what the government is doing to lawful citizens who want to own guns?  You know, just making sure only the "right" people will purchase firearms. Yet, when it's your butt that may end up in a sling, you're all for it.  Sounds like a bit of a double standard and very hypocritical.

OK, is this better ...?  If you look at me wrong, or I don't like your general vibe, I won't sell you a firearm.  A part of that general vibe thing is if you get all blustery/evasive about showing me a license and/or permit.  I reserve the right not to sell a gun to someone I don't want to sell a gun to.  The same goes for a car, a motorcycle, an ATV or anything else.

The fact is, the permit is currently required by law for non-private party sales.  It's just one way (for me) to feel out a potential buyer.  If the permit requirement didn't exist, I'd find other ways.

[landon410]

if we want more or less govt doesn't change the fact that if I screw up I get in trouble
we take steps to try to make sure we do everything correct whenever possible, give unto ceasar that which is ceasars, dont have to like it, and we can work to change it, but I don't want to get in trouble and the fact is that these are the things are are currently in place to help us make these decision.

I had the guy put in writing that he was legally able to purchase this firearm, he had to issues doing it, showing me his D.L. or expired purchase permit. I spoke with the guy for awhile and he seemed on the up and up.

I deal with people trying ot deceive all the time and I feel I have a pretty good eye and ear for those things and this guy passed my test, but arguing with someone because they are asking for you to produce what the law currently requires for purchasing (some) guns from a dealer seems odd to me.

[jonm]

The fact is, the permit is currently required by law for non-private party sales.

Is that something new?

[Mntnman]

Is that something new?

Only required to purchase handguns. Many dealers dislike you not having it for long guns because they have to wait for the background check to go through before you can leave.

[CitizenClark]

So, some of you feel that the government requirement to have a purchase permit is an infringement on the RKBA, but have no problems requiring it, even though not required, when doing a private sale? Hmmm...your reason is that it is a CYA/peace of mind to make sure someone is allowed to purchase/own a gun and has passed a background check.  Isn't that exactly what the government is doing to lawful citizens who want to own guns?  You know, just making sure only the "right" people will purchase firearms. Yet, when it's your butt that may end up in a sling, you're all for it.  Sounds like a bit of a double standard and very hypocritical.

No, actually that is how the market should work, with individual responsibility and not government intervention as the rule. Instead of top-down government regulations, individuals should exercise their good judgment. No one has a "right" to buy a gun from any particular seller. The right is to engage in peaceful transactions freely without government bureaucrats intervening. If someone feels uncomfortable with a sale they shouldn't complete it.

The problems with government background checks are: (a) they are a government obstacle (and often an added expense) for sellers and for individuals seeking to exercise a fundamental right, and (b) if the purpose of our having guns is primarily to protect against tyrannical government, isn't it a little ridiculous to allow the government to say who can and can't have one?