The gun you bought legally may be a stolen gun, new law needed to protect gun buyers.

11/30/2006 | Trteamer

[Trteamer]

I am going to be going to the legislature to get a gun law passed an I would like to get you FReepers input and advise. It's not an anti-gun law I want to pass, but one to protect us gun buyers........

[Publius Valerius]

The law already requires merchants regularly dealing in goods of the kind warrant that such goods be delivered free of any rightful claims by a third party.

You're flipping the burden here--merchants are simply in a better position to ensure the goods that they sell aren't stolen. It's just better policy.

[Old Student]

"A lawyer would cost me a heck of a lot more than a new shotgun."

Sure, but then the sheriff gets away with stealing the gun again. Which just encourages them to do it again, and again. You need to make the point, forcefully, that you bought the gun legally, and if possible get a quit-claim from the person who it was originally stolen from. You're going to be busy as heck on this project anyway, you might as well add that into the process. Someone else suggested small-claims court, I'd follow up on that, as well. What they did may not be illegal, but it did leave you holding stolen property.

[kerryusama04]

You're flipping the burden here--merchants are simply in a better position to ensure the goods that they sell aren't stolen. It's just better policy.

I'm an individual rights/individual responsibility guy. People who want to sue dealers for their poor decisions don't usually post on FR in my experience.

This guy spent more money going hunting in a foreign country than he did on his used Mossy. Next time, he ought to go hunting in the US with a newly US manufactured gun and there won't be any trouble.

Receiving stolen property is receiving stolen property. Let the buyer beware.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

pass this bill just like 20,000 other laws to trap and you will be just like the anti-gun fools.

How is that you say? One more gun law will fix this loophole.

Get real and get a life.

Chicagofarmer
12 generation patriot

[Publius Valerius]

I generally agree, but how, in many cases, is a buyer in a position to know?

Let's say that I go to a local electronics store and I see a good deal on a television set--not a great deal--but a good deal. Owner says he just got the shipment in that morning and he'll sell it to me for 10% off the marked price. I say "great" and buy it and the store owner delivers it to my house.

A couple weeks later, the police come to my home and seize my television set. They tell me that the shipment of television sets that the store owner received was actually stolen. The police caught the thief and he confessed selling the TV sets to the store owner, who produced the receipt of the people to whom he sold and delivered the sets.

Now, under your theory, you'd make the consumer bear the burden of that loss? How is that good policy? First, the consumer is in no position to determine whether or not the goods have good title; second, wouldn't that potentially chill commercial transactions because few people would make large purchases because they would have no assurances that they were receiving goods with good title?

[ExpatGator]

Hi, and this is an interesting post. I'm a gun dealer and think that this is a good idea, if it adds no more burden to us, as we are already the MOST REGULATED INDUSTRY IN OUR COUNTRY. What would be ideal is for federal and state agencies to complile a database online and allow us to run a search of all guns that come into our shop. If a gun hit on the search we could contact our local law enforcement office prior to us shelling out good money for a hot gun. Hell, I'd be willing to do that, but if your law is gonna increase the amount of paperwork/BS that we have to deal with then I will donate money to whatever organization that fights your bill. If there is not also ironclad privacy protection in regards to names and serial numbers of guns that show up not hot, I will not agree with the effort.

The best thing that could be done is an NRA administered program that works hand in hand with law enforcement.

[Publius Valerius]

Next time, he ought to go hunting in the US with a newly US manufactured gun and there won't be any trouble.

By the way, how do you know that a new gun isn't stolen? A shipment of brand new guns could easily be hijacked and then sold to a sporting goods store by the theives. How does buying only new guns solve the problem?

In fact, in my hypothetical in the above post, I had rather envisioned--though I didn't make it clear--that the shipment of television sets were brand new.

[Petruchio]

Ok.

Your cynical.

Feel better now?

[Holicheese]

I am glad I wasn't the only kid that watched this stuff.

[TC Rider]

It is my belief that in NC, gun stores are under the same rules as pawn shops in having to check S/N with local police lists.

When you say 'legislature' are you referring to the CO or US house?

Does CO currently have a law governing pawn shops? Maybe it could be ammended.

[kerryusama04]

The chain of custody for manufactured guns is a whole lot more meticulous than it is for TV's. It does not eliminate the risk that your purchase is stolen, it greatly minimizes it.

TV's aren't generally used in crimes. Buying a used gun is a very risky business, which is why they are so much cheaper than new guns. You could be buying a gun that was used in a crime or worse, one that malfunctions and can kill you.

It is also very unlikely that a new shipment of stolen TV's, guns, or anything can be delivered to a dealer because money is not going to change hands COD style in that type of business arrangement. Purchase orders generate invoices which generate checks. There is a trail.

At any rate, I have always been taught and will teach my kids to look out for themselves. If a deal is too good to be true, then it likely is. The dealer is in a better position to verify his purchases are legitimate and ultimately bears more responsibility, but let the buyer beware nonetheless.

Beyond this, I can see no reason to put a gun issue before any legislature. The idea that it will come out looking anything like it did going in is incredibly naive'. Giving politicians another crack at anything gun related ought to be very low on a conservative's agenda for another election cycle or two.

[kerryusama04]

And another thing!

I really hate it when one-off situations like this generate legislation. We have a draconian car seat law here in MO that is the product of one kid dying in a car accident. This law has nearly doubled the price of a car seat.

The Ralph Nader, Sara Brady, and Jesse Jackson types have really messed up our country.

[Grampa Dave]

"How can I get this into law? How much help will the NRA and Gun Owners of America be? What is you FReepers opinion on this? I do not intend for this to be abused and contorted by the anti-gunners, I just don't want to be sold another hot gun in the future. I can't believe you have to verify the VIN number on a car, boat, atv, etc., but not the serial number of a firearm when trading it in."

I'm in total agreement with you. However, we may be in the minority here.

We have two adult male friends who love to go to the various gun shows to buy collectibles. They are conservatives and could become real targets if $inator Hilliarily becomes president in 2008.

I need to do some research in my old files to see if I still have the paper work on some shotguns and rifles bought decades ago for our sons. One son would like to have his kids get those guns eventually.

[Tinman]

Just "take one for the team", my FRiend.

We do not need any more laws. There are too damn many now.

Regards

[Old Professer]

Today ought to be a good day.

[Atlas Sneezed]

What I think is really needed is for the ATF to grant access to some sort of on-line database for gun dealers.

---

ATF records of stolen guns should be PUBLIC records accisible to all. As with the list of criminals who are ineligible to buy firearms.

And I should be able to check on someone without the whole serial number transaction and their identity being recorded.

[ModelBreaker]

They sold you merchandise with a defective title. They purchased the gun without performing due dilligence in determining the legality of the merchandise. They also are a Federally licensed firearms dealer, and if they are selling stolen guns, they could have their license revoked.

I second that. In the UCC, a version of which Colorado has, there are warranties that are included in every sale of merchandise. But typically, I would suspect one of those warranties could be read to mean the merchandise isn't stolen.

That said, you should consider the implications of doing this, it could make it even more difficult for gun users to get guns because insurance companies raise premiums to defend yet another type of lawsuit that the store can't protect itself against--that is, if the store really can't check if it's stolen, they stop buying used guns or the insurance companies raise premiums.

[Yo-Yo]

If the store couldn't check to see if the gun was stolen, then I'd agree. But clearly the store can easily check to see if the gun is stolen, it just chose not to.

The original poster wanted to have a law passed in CO to force the dealer to check.

Having said all that, you should consider that I recommended small claims court, not a class action lawsuit. If this store deals in so many stolen guns that their insurance would go up as a result of the avalanche of lawsuits, then that would be an economic incentive to check the background of the guns they buy.

[Mat_Helm]

I worked for a Sporting Goods dealer in the Gun department when I was in college. With every used gun purchased the seller had to wait until an FBI database check and local law enforcement check was done (paid for by seller)before they could receive their money. This usually required up to 10 days to clear. This protected the store from any liability or legal issues. Buy telling the seller up front it prevented criminals from attempting to sell stolen guns. It however did not prevent irritated wives from selling their husbands guns which occurred a few times.

It would appear that the gun dealer is liable for selling stolen property dependent upon the laws of your state. If the dealer was decent he would reimburse you the cost of the gun to stay out of legal jeopardy unless he had you sign a release absolving himself. The federal 4473 form you completed with the dealer will not cover liability issues and I would not want a federal registration as such using this form which is what your legislation would require and it is a bad idea. In California handguns are registered by serial number and are in a DOJ database. This is now also the case for those that have registered their so called assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles as well. So in one sense California already knows who all the legal gun owners in the State are.

[William Tell]

Publius Valerius said: "A shipment of brand new guns could easily be hijacked and then sold to a sporting goods store by the theives."

I think that most manufacturers of firearms do not sell directly to the public, but rather sell to distributors, probably in bulk amounts. The typical dealer would have to have a distributor as a source of new guns. Buying "new" guns from anybody other than a regular distributor of the firearms would be exactly the type of transaction of which a dealer should be wary.

Many of the firearms I have bought were obtained by the dealer from a distributor who adds their own lifetime replacement warranty to the firearm, promising to replace the firearm if it fails. I don't do much bargain hunting when I am buying guns, because I wan't to support the dealers, and this is an added bonus when I am paying full retail.