Entrapment Of Stupid People Selling Guns Online

Agreeing to make an illegal sale of a firearm is a no no:

The law is pretty clear when it comes to the criteria for possessing a firearm legally.  You can read up on who is considered a prohibited person over at the ATF site.

For the love of god, if you’re doing a private sale and someone says something stupid like “I probably couldn’t pass a background check”, take that as a red flag and don’t go through with the transaction.  I’m glad we have the freedom in most states to do face to face transfers, but some discretion definitely needs to be used.

Sure there are different degrees of “felons” out there, but why bother making your own judgement call, putting your own freedom in jeopardy just to make a quick sale.  If you’re a risk taker like that though you should probably click the picture below and buy the book.

The youtube video doesn’t say what these “investigators” ended up doing with the information.

Thoughts?

Hat tip: Ross C.

 

31 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Joe December 15, 2011 at 12:25 am

If you read the original story carefully (not the edited msm news crap) they bought the guns through the intertubes alright, but they were first shipped to a cooperating FFL and then legally transferred (including a background check) to the buyers.

Reply

ENDO-Mike December 15, 2011 at 12:30 am

Where’s the original story?

Regardless I’m sure this happens lots even with face to face transfers. I didn’t see anything in the videos that said that the guns were going to FFLs. In fact one guy even wanted to make sure the caller was from the same state which to me would suggest they were going to do it face to face.

Reply

Frank December 15, 2011 at 01:38 am

Even then, what does “background check” mean? The buyer has bad credit? I have to pay money to investigate someone? No seriously, what does “background check” mean? Will it prove if the buyer is some angry fucker or whether or not they go to church?

If you aren’t convicted of a felony or presently have felony charges pressed against you, I would sell. Why? My state allows such within reason. :D FTF FTW.

Reply

Komodo Saurian December 15, 2011 at 01:56 am

>>>Even then, what does “background check” mean?
It means checking if the guy in question is a prohibited person: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

Reply

Komodo Saurian December 15, 2011 at 01:58 am

>>>Even then, what does “background check” mean?
It means checking if the guy in question is a prohibited person or not. The link is in the blog post above.

Reply

Frank December 15, 2011 at 11:19 am

I’m aware of that, but when a guy says, “I probably couldn’t pass.” What does that really mean? Does it mean he has a traffic felony? Or he was 18 and dumb enough to make a mistake, but he’s 40 now and has no idea about expungement? How does he know what he can and cannot pass?

Of course, I’d probably ask “Are you a felon?” If the answer is “Yes I am.” I would not sell. If they said, “No, but I’ve got a minor record (i.e. no felonies)” then what? Is it for violence? “No.” Okay, then I’m good to sell. Also how do you prove someone hasn’t been in an asylum before?

So when they say, “I probably couldn’t pass a background check.” I have no idea what a guy is really saying, in fact he might not even understand the law, be it state and/or federal.

It would be worse if a buyer refers to 33 round magazines as “extendos” (see vid here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIlhiCQQ5Xg). If I heard questionable gun-slang like that, I would leave.

Reply

ENDO-Mike December 15, 2011 at 01:21 pm

I’m sure a judge would consider “I probably couldn’t pass” indication that the person admitted they were a prohibited person. Better safe than sorry if you ask me. I don’t know what the punishment for knowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person is, but i’m sure it’s not light.

Hahha “extendos”, that’s gold.

Reply

Frank December 16, 2011 at 12:34 am

+10 to Judge commentary, but I still stand to my questions! :D
I don’t think anyone knows how to answer that!

Reply

Frank December 16, 2011 at 05:43 pm

Does the 5th amendment apply as a way to avoid discussing the issue?

Reply

JJ December 15, 2011 at 09:01 am

Joe you’re dead on the money. There is neither a need nor a requirement for me to even ask you if you’re felon or otherwise cannot own a firearm legally… nor is there a requirement for you to be honest when you answer. While I have seen idiots ay yes to one or more of the questions on the registration form… even when you pick up the firearm I agreed to sell you from the FFL holding dealer you told me to send it to – you can lie all you want. It’s the actual check they do when you hand them the form that gets that particular ball rolling. THEN, if the dealer gets the “OK” from the background check whose at fault then? NOT the seller… not the Dealer… and do they admit they’re at fault?

Reply

ENDO-Mike December 15, 2011 at 09:06 am

I totally agree with you guys, that in the case of FFL transfers the onus is on the dealer so it really doesn’t matter what kind of a “I probably won’t pass the background check” joke the buyer cracks. It’s a whole different beast when someone that you plan on meeting up with offers up the fact that they couldn’t pass a background check.

Reply

Corey December 15, 2011 at 09:50 pm

Do you have a link to the original story? that would blow this mess out of the water

Reply

Vhyrus December 15, 2011 at 02:19 am

I have a strong feeling that this was/is some anti gun backed stuff, but I’m actually ok with this cause people who sell to crooks need to be called out. I think a lot of it has to do with ignorance of the law most of the time, but still, if someone says “I can’t own this legally” you probably shouldn’t be providing it to them. The guys who said shit like ‘I feel ya I’ll do this for you anyway even though I shouldn’t’ need to have their teeth kicked in.

Reply

DB327 December 15, 2011 at 06:36 am

This.

Reply

ZCORR December 15, 2011 at 06:35 am

It was a mayor bloomberg study so it was very anti gun backed.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-14/new-york-city-probe-of-internet-gun-sales-finds-62-will-break-the-law.html

To me this is very embarrassing to law abiding firearm owners. As usual, they only show the one side of the story instead of including some of the phone calls that actually went the legit way.

Reply

ENDO-Mike December 15, 2011 at 08:13 am

Thanks for the article. I agree it’s very embarrassing considering the high % of people (61.6% or 77/125) that agreed to sell.

Reply

Ernest Young December 15, 2011 at 08:27 am

I was expecting them to let us hear at least 1 conversation were the seller says “I’m sorry, I cant do that”. But, nope. All we get is the whitewash.

Reply

Vhyrus December 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm

If you actually check their channel they do list some of the legit people that turn them down. I found this after a short dig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nb6NRoJFNA

Reply

matt RRC December 15, 2011 at 10:34 am

Eh. You never see the same thing with people selling firearms legally. There are good guys and bad guys. Personally I sell any weapon in the parking lot of the nearest police station. If they can’t go inside to get it registered legally……see ya!

Reply

Josh December 15, 2011 at 03:18 pm

“No background checks? Good, ‘cause I probably couldn’t pass one. Ha ha ha.” Sounds like the caller is joking to me. Unless they’re saying, “I couldn’t pass a background check because (insert reason here),” it doesn’t sound like much of a problem to me. Perhaps what needs to be happening in these tapes is the seller needs to be asking the prospective buyer questions to determine if he is prohibited from purchasing the weapon. There should probably be available (if there isn’t already) a form to have a private purchaser of a firearm fill out attesting that he is legally allowed to purchase a firearm. Then the seller can say, “I asked him the appropriate questions, he signed an affidavit swearing that he was not prohibited from purchasing a firearm, what else do you expect me to do?”

And it’s only entrapment if the police are enticing someone to commit a crime that they are otherwise unlikely to commit. It sounds like these guys didn’t need to be talked into selling a firearm to someone who may be barred from purchasing one.

Reply

Cameron December 15, 2011 at 05:32 pm

One thing that people do here is ask to see a CWP, guard card, or other document that says you can own a firearm/have passed a check.

I would probably ask to see a recent sales receipt from a licensed dealer for a previously purchased firearm at the very least. . .

Reply

jpcmt December 15, 2011 at 06:20 pm

I’ve probably sold 6 guns in private transactions and 2 out of state gun sales. For the out of state ones it’s easy, just get their FFL to send a fax to my FFL and I let them worry about the lawful transfer. For the private transactions I’ve always told my customer “for my own peace of mind I’m going to prepare a simple bill of sale to release my liability of the gun as you assume it.” In that bill of sale they sign saying they are legally able to buy and possess the gun and that they assume liability for it and that they’re a Montana resident. I don’t check licenses or ask them legal questions because it’s hearsay. I’ll take a legal document (bill of sale) and the cash in my hand and drive away knowing that if they gun down someone 10 minutes later, I was not liable (not that I could be, but still..I’m paranoid from being a Californian gun owner for many years).

Reply

Josh December 15, 2011 at 07:17 pm

I don’t check licenses or ask them legal questions because it’s hearsay.

Neither checking a license nor a purchaser’s statement that he is legally able to purchase a firearm are hearsay. And both would be a good idea on your part as a seller. You think a bill of sale is a better example of a legal document than a license? I could run off a phony bill of sale in a couple of minutes and show it to you… if you had seen a permit to purchase a firearm or had me sign a document asserting that I was not barred from purchasing a firearm, you’d be in a much better position, liability-wise.

Reply

jpcmt December 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm

I am actually not required to even ask or check ID and be completely safe in a private party transaction. The only danger is if I had knowledge that my buyer was not lawfully able to buy and possess. I’ve had a deputy sheriff (who is an FFL friend of mine) and my county’s chief prosecutor (also a friend) corroborate what I’ve said..and Gary Marbut (the guy who started the Firearms Freedom Act that 18 states followed suit with after Montana started it) has stated what I do as legally “safe.” I just do the bill of sale and they sign, and that’s more than enough to say I made a good faith effort and it is legal insurance for me. I don’t know if you need to ID people in other states, but here in Montana it’s almost rude..especially since most private party buyers are guys doing their best to stay off the grid, yet are lawful gun owners.

Reply

Josh December 15, 2011 at 07:24 pm

for my own peace of mind I’m going to prepare a simple bill of sale to release my liability of the gun as you assume it

I’m trying to do too many things at once. I skimmed over your post and kind of missed this part. That’s a good idea. I still think you should be checking licenses and such as well. I’d ask the question to gauge their reactions to them. I’d be uncomfortable selling to someone that I thought might not be on the “up-and-up.” But still, no hearsay! :)

Reply

Josh December 15, 2011 at 06:46 pm

In my state, in order to purchase a handgun, you have to have a permit to purchase one. You go to the Sheriff’s office, they do a background check, and give you the permit dated for three days later (for the waiting period). The permit is good for a year, and it’s not just good for purchasing one handgun; you just show it and they give it back to you – you can purchase as many as you like as long as it’s still valid. It also allows you to skip the background check when buying any other firearm. I’m almost 100% certain that this is required for obtaining a handgun from a private seller (unless the transferor of the gun is related to the transferee within a certain degree). So, in the case of handguns, that would serve to prove that someone was legally able to purchase a firearm. That would take care of handguns, but long guns could still be a problem. Those reading this might be shocked that I would be kind of anal about something like this, but I think if I were going to sell a firearm to someone I didn’t know, I’d type something up for them to sign stating that they were not banned from purchasing or owning a firearm, in an attempt to absolve myself of liability.

Reply

John December 15, 2011 at 09:02 pm

Eh, here in Texas we are not required to do paperwork but for any reason that gun comes back to bite you in the ass because it was used in a crime, you would do well to show that you made a reasonable effort to know your buyer by writing a bill of sale and retaining a copy of their TX driver’s license, and then file that sucker away somewhere safe in case you need to find it later.

Reply

John December 15, 2011 at 09:04 pm

Most criminals are assumed to NOT want to leave their identification with a gun purchase.

Reply

Ben Branam December 15, 2011 at 10:17 pm

We shouldn’t be wasting a lot of time on this stuff. They are obviously anti gun and will call a thousand people just to get 2 or 3 bad ones. We know most anti gun people are liars, so why waste your time with them. Look at what they said and you can see that they are trying to make people look bad.

The biggest thing about this story is there are no facts, just a shock value of what they could find.

Horrible, and just wrong.

Reply

Steve069 December 15, 2011 at 11:31 pm

They shouldn’t use “probably” in their wording, just my opinion.

Reply

peter ringer December 16, 2011 at 12:16 am

Just spin or damage control from Fast and Furious/Gun Walker SNAFU.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: