Petersburg Police: Cash for Guns!!

Perhaps a FOIA request to determine who is funding the gift cards? The article/police spokesperson certainly makes it sound like the police department is, if so then I believe they would still fall under the state law, regardless of who is organizing it.

"The whole point is to not have something where people will be penalized for bringing their weapons to police," said Esther Hyatt with Petersburg Police. "They will actually be rewarded. We are attempting to help people get rid of guns for whatever reason."

Click to expand...

Sent an email to the City Manager since the city's website doesn't show an email address for the Police Chief. Just asked what the departments role in the buy back is. Maybe he will answer without having to do a FOIA request, save some time.

Grapeshot said:

This buy back is not taking place at a LEA, but on private property by private individuals that would seem to be in violation of BATFE rules related to FFLs.

Click to expand...

Ok, and which rule would that be? Provided they meet the caveats outlined by Markand (state of residency for handguns, no class 3 items, legible serial number) it shouldn't be illegal.

Private sales, private individuals, on private property within the state of VA and both parties are residents of VA. I don't see where that is against the law/rules.

jegoodin said:

Ok, and which rule would that be? Provided they meet the caveats outlined by Markand (state of residency for handguns, no class 3 items, legible serial number) it shouldn't be illegal.

Private sales, private individuals, on private property within the state of VA and both parties are residents of VA. I don't see where that is against the law/rules.

Click to expand...

First and foremost, these are not private individuals operating independently of each other. They are a cohesive group offering to buy a quantity of guns as a primary business at a fixed location. I realize this may stretch the definitions of when one is required to have an FFL, but it is not one I would want to test.

How do you think it would fly if 50 of us got together once a month to buy and sell guns to the general public from a fixed location?

Just sent an FOIA for all documentation relating to the hosting and relationship between the Petersburg Police, City and any other parties involved.

Grapeshot said:

First and foremost, these are not private individuals operating independently of each other. They are a cohesive group offering to buy a quantity of guns as a primary business at a fixed location. I realize this may stretch the definitions of when one is required to have an FFL, but it is not one I would want to test.

How do you think it would fly if 50 of us got together once a month to buy and sell guns to the general public from a fixed location?

Click to expand...

That is not my take on this.

Every couple of months or so a bunch of us (several thousand) get together at a fixed location (Dulles Expo) and buy and sell guns to and from the general public (any one who pays the $10 entrance fee that is). Its called a gun show. Yes, I understand the vast majority of guns sold at guns shows are through licensed dealers... I'm talking about the few individuals that are using the gun shows as a venue to buy and sell for or out of their personal collections.

So the MCAV and the Eagles are getting together at a local Baptist church (or two) and having themselves a gun show. As I understand it, they won't be selling any of their own guns out of their collections; however, they are going to expand their own personal gun collections. How is that against the law?

Of course, the only flaw in this is that they claim no questions will be asked. At some point in the transaction the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident and would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident. They would also have to examine the firearm to ascertain whether or not it is a class 3 item or if the serial number has been altered and if so they would have to decline the transaction.

(*** Let me clarify, I am NOT maintaining that they have to do any of the three things in the paragraph above by law. I am merely describing how they could reasonably do their gun buy back as private individuals and not as an organization in collaboration with the Petersburg police and not run afoul of federal law. ***)

The only question remaining is... how do they legally dispose of the guns? They would need to do it as individuals not as an organization, although they could cooperatively through their organization locate a business that would grind up or melt down the part of the gun considered to be the firearm (the frame).

I'm not suggesting that this is their plan or that they have even thought through how to do this in a legal fashion, but I do see it as possible.

If anyone is familiar with these two places....I'd like to know the layout in relation to city property.

jegoodin said:

That is not my take on this.

Every couple of months or so a bunch of us (several thousand) get together at a fixed location (Dulles Expo) and buy and sell guns to and from the general public (any one who pays the $10 entrance fee that is). Its called a gun show. Yes, I understand the vast majority of guns sold at guns shows are through licensed dealers... I'm talking about the few individuals that are using the gun shows as a venue to buy and sell for or out of their personal collections.

--snipped--

Click to expand...

No cigar. Gun Shows are run by a promoter who is not personally involved in direct buying or selling.

I would find it very interesting if a large group were to try to put on a show wherein they sold only from their private collection and bought only from private parties. Go a bit further and exclude FFLs. Might work, but I'm not offering my house as a guarantee.

Grapeshot said:

No cigar. Gun Shows are run by a promoter who is not personally involved in direct buying or selling.

I would find it very interesting if a large group were to try to put on a show wherein they sold only from their private collection and bought only from private parties. Go a bit further and exclude FFLs. Might work, but I'm not offering my house as a guarantee.

Click to expand...

I belonged to the Newport Gun Club in Newport, RI. They have a nice range facility, but held their monthly membership meetings at a local VFW. After the general membership meeting broke up it basically turned into a swap meet. Pieces, parts, and whole firearms were traded and sold.

I don't think that the VFW or the Newport Gun Club were violating any laws.

jegoodin said:

At some point in the transaction the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident and would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident.

Click to expand...

Cite please.
Thanks

Blk97F150 said:

Cite please.
Thanks

Click to expand...

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

it's a little far for me to go (4hrs), but i hope that some of you in the Richmond and close areas will make an attempt to be there and buy all you can

Blk97F150 said:

Cite please.
Thanks

Click to expand...

18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5)

Grapeshot said:

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

Click to expand...

That does not state that "the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident " or "would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident".

I'm looking for a legal citation that specifically says these two statements are required.

jegoodin said:

18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5)

Click to expand...

Your 'cites' do not support the two statements you made. Nowhere in your 'cite' does it indicate that "the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident and would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident."

Edit. I read your cite again.. perhaps its just a difference of semantics. Thanks for the link.

Blk97F150 said:

That does not state that "the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident " or "would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident".

I'm looking for a legal citation that specifically says these two statements are required.

Click to expand...

Read the actual text of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5).

Grapeshot said:

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

Click to expand...

Blk97F150 said:

That does not state that "the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident " or "would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident".

I'm looking for a legal citation that specifically says these two statements are required.

Click to expand...

Specifically required? No, but absenting that determination, one runs the risk of being in violation.

Grapeshot said:

Specifically required? No, but absenting that determination, one runs the risk of being in violation.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Not specifically required.

Understand that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done..... but it is not specifically required as stated.

Blk97F150 said:

Bingo. Not specifically required.

Understand that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done..... but it is not specifically required as stated.

Click to expand...

I think you are probably over analyzing.

There is no statute/law the requires a private citizen specifically to ask whether a purchaser is a convicted felon either; however, you break the law if you enter into such a transaction.

Blk97F150 said:

Your 'cites' do not support the two statements you made. Nowhere in your 'cite' does it indicate that "the "private individual" receiving the gun would have to attest to the fact that they are a VA resident and would have to ask the private individual handing over the gun if they are also a VA resident."

Edit. I read your cite again.. perhaps its just a difference of semantics. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;


The above establishes that an unlicensed (FFL) person may only receive a firearm in and from a State in which they reside.


(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;


The above establishes that an unlicensed person may only "transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm" to another unlicensed person they reasonably believe resides in the same State the transferor resides.

The State in question is VA, therefore, the two parties need to "reasonably believe" that they are both from VA.

IANAL, but my interpretation is that as a matter of practicality that would mean a brief conversation in which the two parties at a minimum state they are both from VA.