Sellers request CPL when selling rifle

[virgil47]

imported post

Well it seems the ATF got the governments point across. Pretty soon you'll have to do a total background check and report every sale. That is what the ATF is trying to get passed when it comes to gun shows . By the way you have only to say you had no reason to believe the individual you sold to was a criminal or intended to use the weapon for criminal purposes. That is the total extent that you have to comply with when it comes to a private sale. The gov. does not want there to be any "private" gun sales.

If and when I purchase another hand gun it will only be a truly "private" sale. No paperwork , no I.D. and no names. It is no business of the gov. what weapons I purchase ,when I purchase them or how I dispose of them. I simply will not do business with anyone that wishes to act as a gov. surrogate. Also it is impossible to determine if an individual has a criminal record that would preclude them from owning a firearm by looking at a drivers license. If of course you require a CPL then you are in effect performing a background check on the prospective buyer. I'm sure the gov. thanks you.

 

[G20-IWB24/7]

imported post

I'm headed out the door in a few to a FTF trade--- one of my pistols for another guy's rifle (plus some cash). I've already asked if the other guy had a CPL, and he said that he did and that he would bring it with him to the deal. I'll have mine as well. He had no problem with each of us looking at each other's ID to verify that a background check has been done in the last 5 years.

This argument has come down to roughly the same as the Personal Property rights of an individual VS. Open Carry rights of the general public. If a property owner does not want you OCing on his or her property, their rights to control actions on their property trump the OCers right to carry a gun on their property. This is very similar to the discussion about requiring ID, CPL, etc. for a private firearm sale. If the seller (property owner) wants to "require" something of a purchaser, then that is their right to do so, and their freedom to decide to whom they sell their firearm trumps the purchaser's right to dictate the terms of the sale. If you don't want to get trespassed for OCing on a certain person's property, then either 1) don't OC, (CC instead, maybe), 2) don't go on the property, or 3) change the opinion of the property owner. Same goes for a private seller requiring ID, CPL, etc.---if you want to purchase from them then,1) submit to the ID check, 2) change the seller's mind, or 3) go buy elsewhere.

In nowhere can you "require" a private property owner to allow you to OC onto their property, just like you can not "require" a private seller to sell a firearm to you on your terms. That's pretty much what it comes down to.

I'm gone. Don't want to be late for my CPL-verified trade deal!:celebrate

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

A hearty +1 to OP. A gun is a tool with no will of its own. Like most tools, it can be dangerous, used for good or bad. I see no reason to take a page out of the statist playbook and check government ID for a gun sale any more than for a hammer or chainsaw sale.

Seeing an ID/CPL flashed isn't a guarantee of anything. If I had some kind of reason to believe a tool I was selling would be used in force or fraud I wouldn't make the transaction. But ID and CPL give me no information about that.

When I'm in the market and I see listings requiring a CPL, I typically move on. If I wanted that kind of treatment, I'd visit a government-authorized gun store.