The Sweet, Sweet Music of a Glock (VIDEO)

Carjack a Gun Owner, Get Hurt (VIDEO)

54 Sheriffs Join Federal Suit against Colorado’s New Gun Laws…

Congressman Claims Abortions Responsible for Recent Gun-Related Tragedies (VIDEO)

Gun Rights Speaker Forcefully Ejected from NJ Public Hearing (VIDEO)

Woman Stops Home Invasion, Holds Suspect at Gunpoint: ’5 inches…

Safety Bullets? (VIDEO)

Guns.com gets Open Letter fron ATF about Firearm Transfers

1/16/13 | by Aaron Samsel

Guns.com received this message hours after President Obama launched his newest gun control push. We have our own opinions on it but we would rather hear your thoughts. Just a friendly reminder about transfer purchases?

Post your Comments

Brian J. Schmidt:

January 16, 2013 at 8:40 pm

Woohoo, congrats, you're on their radar...;).

Bob Vandigriff:

January 16, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Well, if you have an FFL then of course you're "on the radar" so to speak. That's not the point. The point is, they are trying to encourage FFL's to inject themselves into private sales...not good imho. For instance, in the State I live in; private citizen "person to person" sales are not required to go through an FFL and that's as it should be! What the ATF and this Admin want and are working towards is a National Gun Registry...like Dear old Uncle Adolf created...and then used it to confiscate with at a later date.

Brian J. Schmidt:
January 16, 2013 at 9:30 pm
I guess the question is..."Does Guns.com have an FFL"...??? If not, then why receive this letter...???

Matthew Maltby:

January 16, 2013 at 10:07 pm

I am wary as there is no mandate that private sellers are required to run background checks...Yet. Either the background check is going to be played as a bargaining chip or Obama will use whatever he can to institute it. Meaning that if Congress shoots it down then we'll see more executive orders. Either way, I think Obama's not giving up on this one. If the checks-and-balances system doesn't work, then he'll overstep his authority.

Stephen Cornell:

January 17, 2013 at 12:06 am

Guns.com has an FFL? Since when?

Fakes Bookcom:

January 17, 2013 at 1:39 am

"do not have ability to use NICS" BINGO! you identified the issue, now go fix it. Give us private sellers the ability to run checks, I don't know any gun owner who knowingly or willingly wants to sell a gun to a criminal. Give us the tools and we will use it, without being taking for a $40 admin fee by an FFL. I submitted to guns.com tip line, the FBI, news papers, a way this could work without putting peoples privacy at risk.....but nobody seems to care or think we are responsible enough to use it.

Mark Farrell:

January 17, 2013 at 3:46 am

I personally don't have a huge problem with universal background checks, as long as FFLs will participate, which is likely as they can charge for it similar to the transfer fees for online sales and transfers. Second, only if it is done the same way as any other firearm sale using the 4473, which I understand does not lead to storage of the details of the sale. of course, those are available from the FFL's paperwork, so maybe it is a moot point.

Personally, I know maybe two people on earth well enough that I'd actually sell them a firearm with no background check. I frankly don't want to be upstream from someone I thought I could trust with a private sale of a firearm who then commits some crime with it, and then somehow implicates me. Worse, a firearm I no longer own - yet cannot prove I don't own - that ends up at a crime scene and is somehow traced back to me.

I have done sales to other individuals before, but I only do it through my local gun store as a transfer. Have done that for years just to protect me as the original owner. BUT, I admit, the potential that "private" sales are treated differently than a regular purchase from an FFL is a deal breaker, but as long as there is some kind of insulation against actual registration, I could support this. Not a popular opinion, probably, but thought I'd share another perspective.

Bob Vandigriff:
January 17, 2013 at 3:57 am
But the stipulations you "hope" for (no details) is EXACTLY what the Communist means by "Universal". He means a National Registry...meaning they create a list/Database of EXACTLY what weapons you have as an individual...You don't have a problem with that? I sure as hell do. I know where that leads further down the line...
Stephen Cornell:
January 17, 2013 at 4:15 am
Don't you have to keep a 'bill of sale' with private sales, though?
Mark Farrell:
January 17, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Universal doesn't automatically lead to a registry. I get that you are concerned about registration, which also concerns me - as I mentioned that would be a deal breaker. Until I see anything concrete that indicates that is the plan - which incidentally would NEVER survive the Senate and would require overturning other laws that specfically forbid any registry - I will assign the meaning of "all" to "universal".
Brian J. Schmidt:
January 17, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Stephen Cornell, NOPE...It'd be in your best interest to do so, but no, you don't have to do anything but collect the $$$ and part with the firearm...
Scott Worne:
March 15, 2013 at 3:51 am
Most states do not register firearms so even if things go wrong after a private sale, you are not at fault! Universal background checks will also spell gun registration!

Related Articles

Post your Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply