Excellent - best i did in a box was it turned out there were about 80 cents inside the suitecase, all the silver was pre-64

$10 for a Model 36??? Well, gee, I don't know... did it come with a holster and some ammo?

Last time I bought from KFC, I didn't need to fill out a 4473! That's the rub that needs some..****bbing, I guess.

My question is whether a "company" can sell a gun without a FFL transfer.

This little blurb from the ATF seems to put the company (and the buyer) in the clear. See page 10.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

I am not offering legal advice, but it seems like the buyer got a heck of a deal and I seriously doubt the BATF would give a hoot for this one case.

I see no crime here, congrats on the new gat.

IMO, if the family was in such a hurry to dump all of granny's "stuff" that they did so without even looking through the boxes, and then chose to use a slip-shod (probably discount) auctioneer who didn't bother to do a thorough and decent inventory of the stuff, then I have no problem with someone getting an unplanned bargain on the contents of a "take it all or nothing" box.

If one of the teacups had turned out to be some rare Louie the 14th piece that was worth a small fortune would the buyer be obligated to go back and inform the auction house and pay the difference or return the item? I think not, and I don't see this as any different.

Just my opinion of course - and yours may vary...

Again, not to rain on your parade, but you said you were on vacation visiting your mother. Does she live in the same state as you? You could be in a legal jamb by transporting it across state lines. Plus I agree, they did not intend to sell it with teacups and might report it as stolen when they realize its missing.

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

Jeez folks! First the family didn't do their job in knowing what they were consigning to aution. Second, the auction service didn't do their job in knowing what they were selling. And now some of you want to take it back to these same incompetents for moral reasons? Sorry...not me. I'm keepin' the $10 Md 36.

__________________
I'm gonna grow fins.

Not even close. Last I heard there were no serial numbers, nor federal laws concerning the transfer of fried chicken

__________________
Support your Police, & NRA

Suppose it was a box of books that he bought for $10. Upon going through it he found that one of the books was a rare first edition worth thousands. Would anybody be saying there is some duty to "go back to the estate" and ask if they really wanted to sell it as cheaply as they did?

In the context described - professional liquidation of an estate - I think the correct answer is that if the liquidator offers a box for $10, then ten bucks gets the buyer whatever is inside. Period. If there's a diamond ring in there, you've got a $10 diamond ring. Same thing if there's a gun. The estate owners had a chance to go through and evaluate all the stuff before handing it over to the estate liquidator. The liquidator also had a chance to check the goods they were offering, and see if there were any hidden "finds" in the various lots being offered.

If both parties failed to do so and thereby overlooked something of greater value (a rare book, a nice gun, a diamond ring) in a box they thought held stuff of lesser value, they should be the ones to bear the "loss" of not getting as much for their stuff as they might have if they'd been more diligent. I see absolutely no reason for a buyer to have the slightest remorse for finding and keeping anything they bought through the estate liquidation process.

Not exactly the same. First he (or his mother) bought an advertised item as teacups. If it was labeled "teacups and S&W revolver" then there would be no problem as everyone knew what was being sold.

As far as the example of buying books then finding a first edition, that is not a problem. You were buying a box of books, and nothing else.
I guess it boils down to how he feels about it. If his is not bothered by it, then there is nothing we can say to change his mind.

Buying undervalued lots is part of the game at estate sales and auctions. I have no moral dilemma when it happens in my favor, and I don't cry (much) when it works against me. I've bought pieces of glassware for $10 and sold for $500 because the sellers didn't know the value. I've also bought pieces for $100 that went right in the trash because I missed a serious crack. It's up to the auction house to go through the items and prepare them for sale. They didn't do their job. Part of the game, and nobody owes the estate or the auction house anything. It's a done deal once the hammer drops.

I agree, not to mention you take it back to auctioneer, I guarantee he'll just pocket it.

I think that I want your Mom to adopt me. I'll get the papers prepared, Little Brother.

Since we are turning this into an ethics class, it was remarked by Randy Cohen "The Ethicist" that you have no moral duty to uphold unreasonable laws. Since I think we can all agree that the amount of paperwork and regulation on buying the gun in question is unreasonable the OP has no duty to go back and correct other people's mistakes.
Good find, way to go Mom for hitting up the estate sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We got the FDA doing the food thing, and my vet is bar coding dogs and cats, and who knows about chickens.

Charlie

It was not advertised as "teacups". It was offered as a "whole box" and that's what she bought.

Charlie

Then, there's the chance the auction house will try to cover their mistake and claim that she took the gun from elsewhere on the table, stealing it. As-is, they are not be able to account for it.


If the family demands to know about the gun, the auction house may well claim it was stolen. That was the basis of my post. But if the family knew the gun was there, would it not have been set aside, marked as such? It seems they were careless, maybe just eager to sell off the deceased person's things and move on.


It has been my experience at estate sales that the families are usually pretty greedy if they think anything they didn't keep has any value. Garage sales tend to be more reasonably priced.


The company's insistence that the mother buy the whole box of cups makes me see her side a little better. Arrogance on the part of a negligent seller arouses none of my sympathy.


The allusion to a pawn shop won't fly. They rip people off as a rule, so I relish the idea of a pawn dealer pricing something reasonably, through error. And Walter Rego's billfold on the sidewalk also doesn't really compare, for it was probably lost. There was no careless transaction involved.


SIG P-220 spent a career as a FBI agent and before that as a USAF cop. I think he knows the legality of the matter, so I appreciate his posts. That clears that up.




But if the missing gun is reported as stolen, that opens a different can of beans, unless the mother can prove how she came by the gun. Personally, I think that if she keeps her receipt, if any, the police and DA may see the matter as too questionable to prosecute.


Unless the state requires a formal record of the purchase of a gun, the matter is probably ended. Private sale, not a FFL transaction. BUT is the auction house authorized to sell firearms? Do they need a FFL? If so, they'll probably be mum, unless they have such a license and know about the gun.


It 'll be interesting to see how this plays out . Maybe the best idea is to keep the gun, document how it was obtained and see if anything is said. If the family misses the gun, it'll be when the proceeds of the auction reach them, and that'll be soon. If the gun is never found in a search of the new owner's car if he has an accident or is just searched for something like a cop smelling marihuana smoke, etc., that gun will probably never be officially checked. If it's stolen in a burglary, it won't trace to the new owner, but unless he plays it straight and reports the loss, he also can't hope to recover it.

This was apparently a private sale, not needing a 4473, unless the auction house has an FFL.


BTW, paying ten bucks for a set of decent teacups is a pretty good buy in itself. And suggests that the family is just trying to sell what they didn't keep.

Just a thought, if driving behind an armored truck and a bag of cash fell out, would you keep it? Would you chase down the truck and return it? Or would you buy a new expensive car with it?

I see your an LEO, or former. You advocate receiving stolen property.
I won't say what I'd like to say. We can "what if" this thing to death and there is but one conclusion. The gun is stolen.

__________________
Don Mundell

"Receiving stolen property" is a legal phrase with a technical meaning that defines a criminal act. Is there anybody here with experience as a prosecutor who would charge the mother with receiving stolen property for keeping the contents of a box she bought under the circumstances described? (I prosecuted people when I was an Air Force JAG, but that was over 40 years ago and I've done no criminal work since, so I'm not going to opine formally on the matter.)

If not, we should stop talking about "stolen property," unless a serial number check reveals that the gun actually was stolen before it was sold in a box that contained teacups.

What dilemma?

Different standards for due diligence apply to professionals (e.g. Auction service) than an individual. (e.g. "little old lady")

An auction service promotes/represents itself and its services as a knowledgeable and professional service. Similar to a gun store or auto dealer.

The auction service has/had a fiduciary duty to the estate hiring it.
Failing to fully inspect the contents of a box was a failure of their duty.

The buyer had NO fiduciary duty to fully inspect the contents before making an offer.
The buyer seems to have only inspected the top layer of the box.
Seeing items that were desirable and made an offer. All other unsuspected items were of unknown value. They could be a bonus or just trash to be hauled off.

Years ago at an estate auction I looked through several boxes of miscellaneous stuff. One box held extension cords.
Several were the cheap zip cords. Two 50 foot 12 gauge cords and one 100 foot 12 gauge cord were also in the box.
Apparently nobody else paid any attention. The auctioneer had been asking for opening bid of $5 for the miscellaneous boxes.
With no bid of $5 the price usually went down to $2 or $3. I made the opening bid of $5.
NO other bids. The auctioneer had a duty. I had knowledge.

If I walk in to a gun store and am offered an old 357 for $400.
I have NO DUTY to inform the dealer that it is a Registered Magnum before counting out the cash.
(Shop is representing itself as knowledgeable and professional.)

I do feel a moral obligation to inform an individual of their mistakes/misunderstandings.
There have been cases where I paid the seller MORE than the asking price; because it was the right thing to do.

Bekeart

I think I would try to find the family and follow Walter Regos' idea. Several years ago I would have just kept the pistol and thought nothing of it but since then I have gotten religion and my conscience is more developed. But that is just me. Giving more money to the auction company would be rewarding their incompetence.

Weeping with joy for the buyer.....Weeping with remorse for a "crooked deed" ! All in just one thread.
I hate to get so conflicted this early in the day.

__________________
wanna do right-- not right now

I worked with a guy who had this exact thing happen, believe it or not. This was in the early 80's when we were probably making less than $10 an hour. And out falls a bag with $78,000. He returned it, and the armored car company made a big show of giving him a very cheapskate reward. $300 I think. I'd return it, but I don't think I'd try to run down the armored car. Too dangerous.

I'm having a hard time with all the "morally superior and holier than thou" posturing, internet lawyers and kangaroo juries. Does it make you feel superior hammering on the man? What're ya gonna do... send out a posse and string him up?

Leave the guy in peace, for God's sake!

We need a face palm icon. This will have to do for now...

Attached Images

imsdddfsages.jpg (4.7 KB, 14 views)

Nope. Don't believe everything you see on TV.

WOW, lots of opinions. The way that I see this is there are two dilemmas here. The MORAL one and the LEGAL one.

According to the ATF information that was posted, one does not need a license to sell firearms for an occasional sale where one is not engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit. Certainly no profit here.

Secondly is the moral issue. Since it is fairly obvious that neither the family nor the auction company realized what was in the box, does the buyer have a moral obligation to go back and let them know the true contents of the box. I think that decision can only be made by the OP. I always ask myself, what will St. Peter say when I explain my story??????

As far as the gun being stolen, I have to disagree. I have been to auctions where boxes of wrapped items were sold as a box and its contents with no inventory being offered. If the gun was part of a box that was purchased as a whole, then the gun was PURCHASED and not stolen. The price may be way under market but not the buyers fault.

Is it possible that the gun was stolen by someone prior, possibly. One could certainly find a friend in law enforcement and have the serial number checked.

The one factoid that the OP left out was whether this estate sale was held at the Barrow or Parker estate??????

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Awesome find congrats. And give your mother a hug and a kiss. Wish I could hug mine one more time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

__________________
Hillbilly with a gun

Oh Yeah. Stolen indeed. From Whom?
Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

In an off Forum discussion with one of my good LE friends the term "theft of lost or mislaid property" came up. I can think of any number of ways, both honorable and dishonorable of how the S&W Revolver came to be in the box. How ever I do not believe the original poster or his mother did anything wrong in buying the box. Their thought was we bought the teacups{more than we wanted} but purchased them just the same. I myself agree with Walter Rego and several others above. All my very best, Joe.

And your police buddy will be committing a crime, making him an accessory after the fact. Nice way to end a career in Law Enforcement. What are you going to tell him why you want the numbers run? My mother found this in a box of tea cups. This makes him as guilty as you and mom.

__________________
Don Mundell

Not intended to be take as Legal Advice:

The OPs mom bought a "box of stuff" at an estate sale for $10.......most of which was wrapped in newspaper and the contents were unknown to the buyer and seller.....two tea cups were displayed on top..... there is not a reference in any of the OPs post (that I recall) that the box was labeled "Tea Cups". The seller set a value on the "box of stuff"...... the OP's mom paid the price asked.

there was no theft.


There are all sorts of stories of people selling and buying "stuff" without knowing its true fair market value......... I bought a revolver at a LGS that was on consignment for $325..... the asking price........I recognized it as a
98% Registered Magnum.............did I steal it? I knew it was worth more than the asking price..... but had no idea of it's fair market value. A local gun shop had a 3 inch Model 66 for sale .....labeled " S&W Model 66 .357 $325" (325 is my lucky number)...... at the time 3inch 66s were selling here for between $500-600..... did I steal it.


Gun dates to 1977....... could the "heirs" even have legal possession? (In Pa "maybe" depending on their relationship to the deceased.)

Did the estates Executor have legal possession?......was the estate settled. Or was she liquidating assets? Was she exercising due diligence in her role as Executor?

Did the firm conducting the sale have legal possession? ( LOL If the "seller" was "in the business of" selling estate goods... did they have a legal duty to collect sales tax on all sales?)

Was there a legal transfer of the ownership of the handgun?


Those are totally separate legal questions.

OK, you buy a house and in the attic hidden under some insulation you find a gun or guns.

Are they stolen??? You bought the house and everything included therewith.....

__________________
James Redfield
LM #497

Where am I when these deals come up?

Not intended as Legal Advice:

No not stolen ; but do you have a"legal right" to keep them?.......

IMHO they should be returned to the prior owner. As they are not "fixtures" (ceiling fans/lights), included in the sales agreement ( appliances/ window treatments)...... never seen a sales agreement that includes "everything therein" Generally the seller needs to leave the home in broom clean condition.

Unless you are only the second owner of the home...................(if there have been several prior owners)......... I would.............
ask the prior owner if he forgot any "guns/firearms"? Can he establish ownership? Bill of sale etc. If he/she says yes but can't document it ........ ask for make/type/caliber......if he can establish ownership return them!!!!

If not I would probably treat them as abandoned...................

Geeze Louise! Are you that jealous?

I don't think there is anything to be jealous of.

I don't think there is anything to be jealous of.
I guess we were brought up in a different era.

Why the pics of Patrick Stewart? He's anti-gun and has another characteristic that I can't mention here. And he drinks Earl Grey tea, which seems affected and which tastes awful.


Oh: the Queen also likes Earl Grey , probably as supplied by Twining's, one of my favorite tea merchants, est. in London in 1706. I drink some of their other tea. No disrespect meant to Her Majesty.


As for Capt. Picard (Stewart), the only one of those Star Trek spin-offs I liked was, Enterprise, mainly for T'Pol. But I've never seen her do those face palm poses.


Folks, this has gone as far as it needs to. I think we've covered all angles. Now, we just wait and see if the auction company or the bereaved family reports the gun as stolen.
Even if so, unless the gun comes to police attention in some way, probably nothing will happen. If the present owner/holder ever sells the gun and someone checks on it, the cat will be out of he bag, if a stolen report was issued.


That's why I urge the OP to get a note from his mom, telling how and when the gun came into her possession, date and all, and the place involved, and the insistence that she buy the entire box of stuff.


Photograph that box and the other contents.


Then, Mom can sell the extra teacups at a garage sale and come out with a profit. But check out those cups: they may be valuable china on their own!

WOW!!! This is better than Facebook,You Tube. The Tea Cup Scandal. I see Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb in the jury room. Forum members smoking, pacing the jury room floor, arguing among themselves. Did mother have criminal intent when she bought those boxed, paper wrapped tea cups? The jury could be out for DAY'S!!!

If the box had contained a wallet with ID and $500 dollars in it under the tea cups, would it be OK to keep that also?

Folks have worked themselves in a frenzy because this is a nice gun. Let's face it we are all addicted to some degree in that regard. My point is if it were not a firearm would we be having this discussion?

Most folks would realize it was an error and return the money,right? Is this really any different?


Some moral compasses are spinning with wild abandon.

There isn't an episode of "Antiques Roadshow" that doesn't have a story of a "find" in a box of stuff. Are they all felons and/or immoral low-life's?
The ONLY difference in this case is that it is a firearm.
Is there not a single lawyer on this forum that can state authoritatively whether or not this purchase was legal?
PS - If OP and mom live in different states, then a felony has been committed. In that case, he purchased a handgun and transported it across state lines without an FFL.

Do not, repeat, do not waste your money on lotto tickets or any other game of chance.
I think you have burned up your good karma for a while with this one!
Congrats!!

Might depend on the locale. But you already have the statement of a retired FBI agent that it is legal.


My concern is that they may have to prove they got the gun that way.

Thanks, I missed that one.
But my PS does stand.

PSS - Can you purchase a gun in Texas (assuming that that is where this took place) without showing any ID or making any record of it?

Good grief! I would never have imagined such controversy about something so simple.

Family and auction company (or whatever they are) are guilty of "epic fail" to do their jobs. Mom bought the gun fair and square, even though she didn't know she was buying it. I imagine this kind of thing happens from time to time in these situations. If I was one of the survivors and I learned of this I would just think it's my "tough luck" for not being more diligent.

SIGP220.45 says it's not a stolen gun, presumably based on what Mom knows. Given his background, that's good enough for me. It's not a quarter-million dollar Faberge egg!

What should the OP get his mother for Mothers Day, a bar of soap with a hacksaw inside?

__________________
Don Mundell