doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Not Accepting a C&R for 50+ year old gun

I was interested in a shotgun on an auction site. The gun is over 50 years old, and the seller in his description stated only FFL. I wrote to him and asked if he would accept a C&R. Came back and said no, that there was no way for him to check an 03 on the ATF site. I wrote back and said that it should not concern him as I would be the one going to jail for fraud.

I have had this happen another time when the seller said the same thing.
A seller does not need either license to ship a shotgun to a person that does posses either license as long as gun is older than 50 years for the C&R.

Are these people just paranoid or just don't want to understand the laws of the ATF?

Cabelas told me they wouldn't honor my C&R when I was looking at a gun in one of their stores. I guess it falls under the "...right to refuse service...".

I stopped telling sellers that it was a C&R and just send the copy. It's a FFL, just not a full dealer's type.

Chuck, the Cabela's here in Pa. has taken my C&R a few times that I dealt with them. It seems that like anyplace else, some do and some do not know the law.

To play "devil's advocate", I would take a C&R from someone face to face and compare his photo ID with his appearance and the name and address on his C&R. Through the mail, and with no way to check the address on the C&R with the ATF website, I might suspect a homemade C&R copy. I have no idea why ATF does not allow verification of the C&R on their website. After all, the C&R is a licence, just a different class of license from a dealer's license.

Bill, That is one way, it should be like most state's photo driver's license on the C&R, BUT whether my C&R is out of date, fake, should be no concern to the seller as his responsibilty was upheld by the rules of the ATF when he shipped it. It is I who will get jailed or a very heavy fine for falsifying my license.

If the ATF wanted to do a spot check, they could take my C&R license from the seller and call the local police department to have them check if this gun did arrive at the address on the C&R since I have to have a record of it.

I have a hard and fast rule here. I will NOT buy a C&R eligible firearm from someone who refuses to accept my license. Anyone selling me a firearm can easily verify I live at the address on the license in a few seconds.
This B.S. IMO is perpetrated by 01 FFLs who don't like the loss of business. I had a real run in with one FFL who wanted $100 + shipping to send a C&R firearm to me.
He lied to the seller and told them they couldn't ship the firearm to me legally and told them the consequences would be severe if they were caught.
These license's are available to upstanding citizens hobbiest collectors with no criminal record. The efforts to circumvent this intent is to undermine the whole program.
It's really ironic that the Federal Government will go after States for purportedly ignoring Federal law but has done nothing to get after that liberal pit New Jersey which refuses to recognize C&R licenses.
If we the collecting community don't take a stand here no one else will.
Jim

My recollection is that the law simply states that a person shipping a gun must ship it to an FFL holder and, like most of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), it does not give a method on how to comply.

In the past, the ATF had provided advisory information that a signed copy sent by mail was an acceptable method on how to comply. Later, they created the web listing and said that was another acceptable way to comply.

What it boils down to is that neither the signed copy nor the web list is required, it is just an acceptable method and other methods may be acceptable, if I read the law correctly and if it is similar in philosophy to our Federal Aviation Regulations. In other words, if you do what they have previously accepted as a verification method, they won't prosecute you for not complying if it turns out the signed copy or the web is not accurate.

If you know that Remington has an FFL and want to send them a gun, you likely won't recieve a FFL copy from them. Yet you know they are a FFL and you know that the ATF won't challenge you on shipping to Remington. Since you are simply required to send it to an FFL, you are compliant because Remington is indeed an FFL. It's a matter of knowing if you are complying to the law that says you must send it to an FFL, or, if you are wrong, was your method of verification 'due diligence' in the eyes of the ATF.

"...Are these people just paranoid or just don't want to understand the laws of the ATF?"

Either or both... and in todays world paranoia is probably the main reason.

I accept either. You do your best to establish ID, that is what the law requires you to do as far as I recall.
It's the Fed authority that has established the system and it's available ways of alternative ID,,or not.
Nothing to do with the individual FFL. So you do your best. If you suspect something,of course you deny the transfer.

Like a bad check,,the person passing it off is the offender, not the one that gets unknowingly stuck with it.
..and like a check, if the FFL is a fake, the ID to back it up is most likely the same.

Seems as if the addition of 03FFL to EZCHECK would solve a lot.

Since MI passed the "Shall Issue" law for issuance of a CCW and mine, as does everyone who has one here, has my photo ID, same as my driver's license and passport-- the FFL regs for sale and background checks can be waived, at the seller's option. There are two Gander Mountain retail outlet stores in Kent County-I bought a 12 LC Smith Field grade from one store about 5 years ago, I had to fill out the 4473, the clerk as if I had a valid CDCW, and when I showed it to him, along with my driver's license, he rang up the sale and didn't have to call in the NICS check- done deal. This past January I bought a Winchester Model 25 from the other GM outlet store, filled out the 4473 and showed them both my driver's license and my valid CCW- and they called in the BICS check anyway (I passed) go figure, hey???

I think were veering off course here. The original issue has nothing to do with concealed carry as the discussion is the use and validity of a C&R FFL license.
My position is I will NOT deal with anyone selling a C&R eligible firearm who refuses to ship it to me as a valid C&R licensee. We are just undermining our rights as collectors when we do so.
I know the BATF regulations are convoluted and they apparently have no one on staff that can link two coherent sentences together but that's not an excuse.
Hopefully when we get a change of administration this November we can begin getting some of this corrected.
Jim

David: I don't agree with the premise that, if a fraudulent license were presented or in some other way, a would-be buyer falsely convinced the seller he was properly licensed, that the faux pas would rest with the BUYER. If the seller shipped the gun to a person not properly licensed, the problem would be with the SHIPPER, presumably the seller or his agent; at least the way I read the regs.
Gil

Gil, it is very hard to distiguish the seal on a a copied license to determine if it is real and that I will agree on. But my address that the gun is being shipped to and the address on the license, plus my name on either money order and address on such would be should be enough for the seller.
I don't see how he would be at fault for shipping said gun if license was fake, I think that would fall on me.

I wouldn't send to someone who's FFL I couldn't verify.
Sorry, it's my tail too.
and, let's be honest, the ATF doesn't go after gangbangers, they go after well made people with money with something to lose.

Just pay the $20 transfer fee at a FFL, everyone is covered.

"I wouldn't send to someone who's FFL I couldn't verify.
Sorry, it's my tail too."

I think I'm still missing out on something here, how can it be your fault if everything matches and why would the ATF come after you?
If something was erased or written over on the copied license, then I can understand there would be a problem, but again, if everything matched you are doing what the C&R called for.

I do think it is more paranoia, than the legality of it, and why should I pay the fee to an 01, that is the reason I went through the process of getting the C&R so that I wouldn't have to go through one.

Around here, the cheapest fee is $85.

I've seen fees as high as $150 and even paid Ivory Beads $75 for a transfer of a gun they were selling to me. From what I gathered on the ATF site, the regulations did not allow for a fee that high.

You are right, Jim- my faux pas- but MI laws state that if you have a valid CCW (as I do) the seller does NOT have to call in the Stevie-Nicks checky-check, that is presumed to have been done when the CCW was issued-- same conundrum as with the pre-1896-97-98 WTFever "Antiques" FFL situation- some out of State dealers think it only applies to Black Powder guns, some think it only applies to rifles and shotguns (aka- shoulder arms) and some don't give a BRA about it, they will ONLY ship to a valid FFL- sort of a CYA scenario-what can you expect with the current "leadership??" from the Disneyworld on the Potomac anyway??

About 6-7 years ago, Ivory Beads told me they really didn't want to do any more out of state transfers but would if I insisted. New fee: $225 IIRC. Jerry just hated all the paperwork associated with bringing in guns from private sellers. Some of the fees are for CA paperwork, I think. One shop we know gets around some of the fee limitations by "renting" you their FFL for $50 to do the transfer, plus the cost of the transfer itself.

Ummmmm
seriously?
on a gun board you have to ask this question?????
F troop????????

that's ridiculous
Even if you live in mid-town Manhattan.

ETA: I get the feeling you live in Kali. If so there are a LOT of stupid rules around out of state transfers in Kali. that $85 might not be so out of range as I originally thought.

We have more stupid rules than we know what to do with. The latest, according to today's L.A.Times, is a bill working its way through the state legislature that would prohibit sale of table saws that do not have the auto-stop brake that stops the blade instantly when the blade contacts meat. There is only one patent and one current manufacturer for that technology. Wonder who is pushing the bill?