There is no such thing as a free lunch. Universal background checks would just further bloat an already bloated bureaucracy and have little impact on crime.
An interesting phone call from a LEO
- Thread starter ColbyBruce
- Start date
SnidelyWhiplash
Member
In the late 1980s I had a Smith Model 19-4 stolen from the trunk of my car when at a gun show. I reported it immediately. About twelve years later I received a call from a different agency asking me if I wanted my gun back. It seems it was recovered in a drug raid three weeks after being stolen...since the original agency I reported the theft to had yet to add it to the NCIC data base it did not show as stolen when the recovering agency ran the numbers.
Before destruction the recovering agency ran the numbers one more time per their protocols and that's when they found it was mine. It was not abused in any way but the original box was no longer there.
I had been paid off by my insurance years before...I wrote them, explained the situation and asked if I owed them the money back. They replied no...I didn't owe the money back but they would not pay off should the gun be stolen again. That was fair.
Before destruction the recovering agency ran the numbers one more time per their protocols and that's when they found it was mine. It was not abused in any way but the original box was no longer there.
I had been paid off by my insurance years before...I wrote them, explained the situation and asked if I owed them the money back. They replied no...I didn't owe the money back but they would not pay off should the gun be stolen again. That was fair.
LVSteve
Member
Nothing in this post makes makes any sense at all to me.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- 6,190
Whee! This has been amusing. 1) Because it is an interesting situation; 2) because of how few people read the OP, the clarifications to the OP or the prior responses before posting; 3) because of the number of sea lawyers who have the only opinion any reasonable person could hold and 4) because of the case it brought to mind.
Ages ago in a state where firearms changed hands like used tires and with the same paperwork I busted a couple of car burglars. They had a stack of pawn tickets at local shops about as thick as the phone book. With the DAs OK I offered them a deal: show me where they got the items on the pawn slips and they would only be charged with what I could already prove.
One of the items was a Victory model. It was negative NCIC They showed me the truck where they got it (still parked in the alley behind the owner's house). I ran the plate, called the owner, identified myself and asked if he owned a S&W .38. He informed me in no uncertain terms that it was no blank blank business of the PD whether he owned a gun or not, this was still a free country, etc. I suggested he look under the seat of his Ford pickup and if anything was missing, call me back. By the time I refilled my coffee he was calling, but his attitude was only slightly improved. How the blank did I know where he kept his gun and how long had I had it and what was I doing with it anyway? Told him the thief who stole it told me about it and the only reason I had called was to see if he wanted it back or if I should return it to the pawnbroker who bought it from the thief. I'm just as glad I wasn't in the office when he came to claim it.
Yeah, we're all running around trying to entrap innocent people and no, I was not at Ruby Ridge. Pretty close, but not there.
Ages ago in a state where firearms changed hands like used tires and with the same paperwork I busted a couple of car burglars. They had a stack of pawn tickets at local shops about as thick as the phone book. With the DAs OK I offered them a deal: show me where they got the items on the pawn slips and they would only be charged with what I could already prove.
One of the items was a Victory model. It was negative NCIC They showed me the truck where they got it (still parked in the alley behind the owner's house). I ran the plate, called the owner, identified myself and asked if he owned a S&W .38. He informed me in no uncertain terms that it was no blank blank business of the PD whether he owned a gun or not, this was still a free country, etc. I suggested he look under the seat of his Ford pickup and if anything was missing, call me back. By the time I refilled my coffee he was calling, but his attitude was only slightly improved. How the blank did I know where he kept his gun and how long had I had it and what was I doing with it anyway? Told him the thief who stole it told me about it and the only reason I had called was to see if he wanted it back or if I should return it to the pawnbroker who bought it from the thief. I'm just as glad I wasn't in the office when he came to claim it.
Yeah, we're all running around trying to entrap innocent people and no, I was not at Ruby Ridge. Pretty close, but not there.
otis24
Member
I hope it is saved from destruction, no matter what. The last Security Six I owned was about 35 years ago. I just picked one up about a month ago. In my parts, you rarely see them. I had been looking for an affordable one for about 10 years before I came across this one.
Yendor357
Member
Legally owning a gun is a 2 step process. That is because a firearm is in its own category; like a title of a vehicle. The 2 steps to LEGALLY own a firearm is (1) You pay for it. (2) You fill out the paperwork.
Now, if you buy guns from individuals, and don’t want to do the paperwork, who cares? It’s not illegal. But by filling out the paperwork, there is at least a slim chance that if the gun gets stolen, you’ll get it back; thus a little bit of protection to the buyer. I don’t know for sure, but I’ll bet if you file an insurance claim for an unregistered stolen gun, State Farm who is notorious for denying claims, won’t pay for it. Sorry I didn’t spell that out more clearly earlier.
Legal and ethical are often not the same thing. Me personally, I see no difference morally, that Colby retakes possession of a gun that the buyer that did not legally complete the transaction by having the gun put in his name. However flawed, society needs to have laws in place.
I do not believe inanimate objects contain a curse, bad karma, etc. The police obviously think the gun belongs to Colby. I agree with them. All of the sellers on this forum, when they sell a gun state: From my FFL to yours. I agree with that as well. Having the gun destroyed makes no sense to me either.
Now, if you buy guns from individuals, and don’t want to do the paperwork, who cares? It’s not illegal. But by filling out the paperwork, there is at least a slim chance that if the gun gets stolen, you’ll get it back; thus a little bit of protection to the buyer. I don’t know for sure, but I’ll bet if you file an insurance claim for an unregistered stolen gun, State Farm who is notorious for denying claims, won’t pay for it. Sorry I didn’t spell that out more clearly earlier.
Legal and ethical are often not the same thing. Me personally, I see no difference morally, that Colby retakes possession of a gun that the buyer that did not legally complete the transaction by having the gun put in his name. However flawed, society needs to have laws in place.
I do not believe inanimate objects contain a curse, bad karma, etc. The police obviously think the gun belongs to Colby. I agree with them. All of the sellers on this forum, when they sell a gun state: From my FFL to yours. I agree with that as well. Having the gun destroyed makes no sense to me either.
Last edited:
Again, no. Filling out a 4473 is nothing like a vehicle title. A title is a state-mandated process that affirms you are the vehicle's owner until you sell the vehicle to someone else, whereupon you have an obligation to transfer the title.
If your state is not one that requires registration of firearms, you have no firearms registered to you. A 4473 is a Federal form for selling firearms at retail and to try to ensure the purchaser meets GCA '68 (and amendments/additions) requirements. It in no way imputes permanent ownership until transferred again using a 4473. If you buy a firearm Monday, take it home, decide you hate it, and sell to an obvious adult at a garage sale later that day, it matters not one whit and you are NOT, let me underline this, NOT the 'registered' or 'titled' owner. If your state separately requires firearms registration, that is another matter.
For pity's sake.
If your state is not one that requires registration of firearms, you have no firearms registered to you. A 4473 is a Federal form for selling firearms at retail and to try to ensure the purchaser meets GCA '68 (and amendments/additions) requirements. It in no way imputes permanent ownership until transferred again using a 4473. If you buy a firearm Monday, take it home, decide you hate it, and sell to an obvious adult at a garage sale later that day, it matters not one whit and you are NOT, let me underline this, NOT the 'registered' or 'titled' owner. If your state separately requires firearms registration, that is another matter.
For pity's sake.
Last edited:
There sure are a bunch of Authoritarians on this Forum. The fact that members of this forum actually believe that it's okay to require people to get a license to buy a gun tells me that we have lost the fight for the Second Amendment.
I'm going to assume that the person that Colby sold it to is no longer active on this forum. If possible I would contact him and see if the gun was stolen from him before I did anything else.
My problem is Is questioning whether or not the police would accept The second person saying that he was the owner of the gun without any documentation.
I'm going to take a bunch of people off right now and I kind of don't care.
If the choice was between me claiming the gun Possibly returning it to the other member Who bought it going to the smelter, I think I'd claim the gun.
ETA Not 5 minutes after I posted this I read in a very important book this line,
"Wealth you get by dishonesty will do you no good, but honestly can save your life."
I'd give the cop the name and contact information of the person I sold the gun to and let it go.
I'm going to assume that the person that Colby sold it to is no longer active on this forum. If possible I would contact him and see if the gun was stolen from him before I did anything else.
My problem is Is questioning whether or not the police would accept The second person saying that he was the owner of the gun without any documentation.
I'm going to take a bunch of people off right now and I kind of don't care.
If the choice was between me claiming the gun Possibly returning it to the other member Who bought it going to the smelter, I think I'd claim the gun.
ETA Not 5 minutes after I posted this I read in a very important book this line,
"Wealth you get by dishonesty will do you no good, but honestly can save your life."
I'd give the cop the name and contact information of the person I sold the gun to and let it go.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- 6,190
You're in good company. That's what Colby did. See post #7.
The whole situation is still in the hands of the PD. I suspect they are proceeding without checking this forum for advice on the law. If they are able to track down the most recent lawful owner, all well and good. He/she may have reported it stolen but not had the serial number readily available, or the agency may not have yet entered it in NCIC, or like the gun owner I mentioned in post # 67, may not even know it is gone yet.
My experience tells me at this point they are mostly interested in finding out how the individual from whom they seized it came into possession, if in fact, it wasn't just fished out of the river. Depending on the answer returning it to anyone may be years out.
BTW I share your taste in literature.
Last edited:
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Maybe I'm missing something here but as I see it, The poster sold a Ruger to person X. For money. He is happy and done with the Ruger and has moved on with life. Suddenly he gets a phone call from someone who has the gun and wants to know if the poster wants it. Poster says he sold the gun to Y. Pretty much the end of the story as far as I am concerned. If poster was me, and the gun was sold in Louisiana by me after looking at the buyer's DL, I could not care less if the gun was used to assassinate the president. T'aint my gun any more and under Louisiana Law I ain't liable for squat. There is no requirement under federal law to document a private sale and under Louisiana law sale of a moveable is perfected upon delivery of said immoveable. (If you deliver it before you get the Benjamins, shame on you). Pretty simple really. Do I want the gun back? Nope! Already sold it, got the money and blew it on hookers whiskey and cheap cocaine. Any other response is just plain greedy.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 3,417
I know you are a lawyer and all Caj, but there should be a guy along shortly to tell you the gun still belongs to the OP because he filled out the 4473.
The OP mainly wanted to know if there was any way he could legally get the gun back. I and a few others advised if the PD ever auctioned it off then that would be his only legal way.
Then we went down the rabbit hole of the minds of many, self included, and here we are.
The OP mainly wanted to know if there was any way he could legally get the gun back. I and a few others advised if the PD ever auctioned it off then that would be his only legal way.
Then we went down the rabbit hole of the minds of many, self included, and here we are.
No, no, no, no...
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
No that is NOT true. I'm not going to argue this point because I am correct. All the 4473 does is provide a mechanism for introducing the gun into general commerce. After that there is absolutely no federal law dictating the use of a 4473 for transfer. THAT is governed by state law.
If you have law that says otherwise-show it to me. I get this question countless times over my legal career and after doing the research, I am on solid ground with this, at least in Louisiana.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 3,417
I am in full agreement with you in case you haven't seen my previous posts.
I didn't say I said it was wrong but the person who keeps saying it is the 4473 that shows ownership.
Sorry, I wasn't more clear for you.
I didn't say I said it was wrong but the person who keeps saying it is the 4473 that shows ownership.
Sorry, I wasn't more clear for you.
luvsmiths
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2016
- Messages
- 1,130
- Reaction score
- 2,172
Let me tell you about Al Bundy. Back in his glory days, the man was a legend. He scored four touchdowns in a single game for Polk High in 1966—four! The crowd went wild, the scouts were there, and for one brief shining moment, Al Bundy was the hero. But that was decades ago. These days, he’s selling shoes to people who can’t tell left from right. Still, every now and then, when life gets him down, he reminds himself—he was once the guy who could do it all. Four touchdowns. In one game.
Last edited:
Through my son I have had two firearms "disappear" while in the custody of a police dept. You cannot file a stolen gun report if the police office is the last known handler. Believe me as I have tried.
Where I live legally owning a gun is a 2 step process. You pay the owner what he wants for the gun, he hands it 2 you. 100% legal and 100% yours no matter if it was originally purchased from an FFL and someone else signed the 4473. The 4473 DOESN'T establish ownership or confer a title of any kind. It is simply an acknowledgement of A transfer involving a FFL.
The only thing that I've learned is that some people will argue with a fence post!
Similar threads
