When do you actually own a new gun?

Denver Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 26 May, 2009 | Dan Bidstrup

[marktwain]

When do you own your new gun? While less than 1% of checks sent through the FBI's Instant Background Check system are turned down, one such denial has turned up an interesting question.

An Examiner colleague of mine, Brigette Rodriguez, alerted me to a local gun dealer who contends that only after you buy the gun can he submit the request for the background check. His reasoning is that since you have to attest on the form that you are the buyer of the gun (to make straw purchases illegal) you must have consummated the purchase for him to legally run the background check. He had a woman who failed the background check. He explained to her that although she paid for the gun, he could not legally let her have possession. To help out however, he would resell it for her for a 20% commission.

Our local Troubleshooter radio show host Tom Martino interviewed her on his show and talked to a representative of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation as well as several callers. The discussion was sort of battled to a draw May 5th and 6th. At exactly what point in the sale does the Instant Background Check occur?

For most of us, we indicate we want the gun and fill out the form. While the check is being run over the internet, we continue shopping. When the check comes back clean, we bring the other goodies we got up to the counter and pay for the whole lot, while we complain about the lack of ammunition to use with the new gun. Then, we tip our hat and go home. Is this gun store owner the only one doing it right, or is he the only one doing it wrong? If we warrant that we are the purchaser of the gun, are we perjuring ourselves on the Instant Background Check paperwork if we haven't already paid for it? If we have paid for it, are we illegal according to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 of buying a gun without a background check? Among the counter people I have talked to, the consensus is that you don't actually pay for the gun if you don't come back approved on the background check. What do you think?

[marktwain]

The whole idea of trying to stop crime creating this expensive, intrusive government mechanism to prevent sales to people is bankrupt.

We can make it illegal for criminals and people incapable of conducting their affairs to own guns, but it is silly to try to do so with this mechanism. It has not worked, and never will. It is only a way to gradually reduce gun owners to delegitimise the ownership of guns, and to make guns less politicaly viable.

[KoRn]

I know one thing for sure. I’d never buy anything from this gun dealer. I think he basically just didn’t want to give the lady her money back.

Every time I’ve ever bought a gun, money didn’t change hands until after I cleared the NICS. It’s always been my understanding that if you fail the background check, the gun goes back on the shelf, and you don’t even pull out your wallet.

[Leisler]

I’m at the point where even criminal should have guns. I mean, after all, they criminals, right? And they have them anyways. You could say, criminals are the only ones with the sack to tell the government to shove it.

I kind of respect that.

Plus, IMHO, we’re all criminals now. Something, someway at sometime, you are doing, planning, have done if only the authorities can look enough, or get someone to say you have, you are a criminal. Oh, you might not of ever harmed anyone, doesn’t matter. You could of harmed “The People” in general, even though there is no physical crime. These are crimes ‘against the people’ or against ‘the state’.

Just like back in old Socialist Nazi Germany or the Soviet Socialist Union.

[Pusterfuss]

"The Second Amendment to the Constitution is my permit to carry." - Ted Nugent

[bitterohiogunclinger]

Under almost any definition of business law, the “gun dealer” mentioned in this article is wrong and could be sued. While technically you must “buy” the gun before the paperwork is filled out, and cannot take possession of it until the “okey dokey” comes back from the background check, the ‘Sale” is not complete, nor legal, until something of value has changed hands. Clearly this has not happened if the background check failed and the woman in the story didn't get the gun. The dealer must return the monies paid in full, end of story. Shaking her down for a 20% commission to resell it is slimy, and probably illegal.
There are many things about the “instant background check” that are disturbing when there are DemonRATs pulling all the strings. John Ashcroft forced the Feds to destroy the background check records in a timely manner, in accordance with the law. Liberal DemonRATs wanted to hang onto them for “law enforcement” expediency. The law was clearly written expressly forbidding the government to maintain a database of gun owners and guns. I'm betting this is being violated routinely.

[behzinlea]

I can’t see any reasonable judge adopting the seller’s interpretation of the statute. But I can see a liberal judge adopting it for no other reason than it would make guns riskier to purchase and cause even entirely “qualified” but risk-averse consumers to abandon their plans to purchase a gun.

[Condor51]

This dealer is pulling a fast one.

[caver]

“To help out however, he would resell it for her for a 20% commission.”

This sounds like a word game to me. The gun dealer is running a scam and should be tried for fraud.

[cbkaty]

He had a woman who failed the background check. He explained to her that although she paid for the gun, he could not legally let her have possession. To help out however, he would resell it for her for a 20% commission.

The firearms dealer is making a sale to a illegal purchaser if he is reselling "her" firearm....and collecting a 20% commission. It's either that or extortion...

[ctdonath2]

Then he was guilty of selling, as an FFL, without performing a NICS check - not a trivial crime.

[Pistolshot]

This story doesn't pass the smell test.

For one, the media, who doesn't like us to have guns at all, would be broadcasting the name of the dealer from the rooftops.

Secondly, denials, are rare in the NICS system. This is because most of those that know they will get denied are not stupid enough to go to a gun shop to purchase. There are the clueless ones that answer 'YES' to "Are you a convicted felon?"

Most of the time there are delays, which can last 30 minutes to 3 days, and on a lot of ocassions as I call one NICS in, they have decisions on others that have been delayed. If there is a delay, we offer a lay-away process that keeps the gun off the floor and if it is a deny, goes back out and 100% refund.

[Kirkwood]

The gun dealer is a crook and should be prosecuted.

[Paladin2]

Don’t forget thought crimes, some of which may occur while one is sleeping/dreaming. If you don’t report those illegal thoughts and images, you may be in BIG trouble komrade.

[SoothingDave]

Is this dealer so unfamiliar with the english language that he thinks one can only be a “buyer” in the past tense?

I am just as much a “buyer” while in the process of buying as I am when I am finished. If for some reason the transaction can not be completed (e.g. my credit card is refused), then I cease being a “buyer” even though I failed to buy anything.

[2nd amendment mama]

Ping

[Concho]

The problem lies in that she paid for it before they did the check. I bought a Saiga a while back. They were going to do the same thing,,,I said,,,Uhhh,,,you run the check, then I will lay out the cash......”huh?”,,,,I repeated myself, no money till they had clearance. They didnt like it but they ran the check and of course it came back clean. She got the $$$ and I owned the gun. It was mine to do with as I saw fit.

[MileHi]

This story is absolutely true, the dealer is a couple miles down the road from me. I have used their ‘smithing services, never bought a firearm there.

[VeniVidiVici]

I know of at least several dealers in Florida that run the NICS check after the sale is complete.

Then if the NICS fails, charges a 15% restocking fee to take the gun back.

[ArrogantBustard]

He explained to her that although she paid for the gun, he could not legally let her have possession. To help out however, he would resell it for her for a 20% commission.

If this is actually true ...

I think the store owner is a chiseling weasel.

[Leisler]

Totally guilty.

Probably need a brain wipe, new Obama OS install.