PDA

View Full Version : If a receiver is accidentally shipped to a non FFL


RANGER295
01-18-2007, 8:32 AM
Hypothetically, lets say that someone buys a .22 rifle barrel for a rifle made in the 1940ís on Ebay. When the barrel comes it turns out that the receiver tube is still on there so really it is a barreled receiver. Technically this should go to an FFL but the description does not indicate that the receiver is included. Does the buyer have anything to worry about legally by accepting that? If so what are the buyers options?

mike100
01-18-2007, 8:40 AM
long guns over 50 years old can be ppt transferred face to face without an ffl..even in this state, so i have learned.

that scenario wasn't face to face and , if from out of state, become a federal interstate issue, which is the basis for a lot of gun laws.

Those are pre registration and I'm not sure the manufacturer kept records of sale back then. at this point... I don't even know if an ffl would transfer it. no need since the 22 is in the new owners posession. I guess youde have to ffl it or take the "what they don't know doesn't hurt them" route.

Matt C
01-18-2007, 8:50 AM
The only real worry I would have is a set-up, but even that seems unlikely here. Personally, I would destroy the part that makes it a receiver to be extra safe.

bwiese
01-18-2007, 8:55 AM
There have been problems with "over helpful" vendors drilling way too many holes in "80%" crap.

Beware.

Frankly, I'd notify ATF and return the product. I'd keep multiple copies of the Ebay listing page in a safe place. BATF is looking at EBay activity, as one Calgunner is now aware.

I believe Calguns activity is a bit higher up on ATF scope now too.

Hello, Agent Ho in SF office.

Dont Tread on Me
01-18-2007, 9:01 AM
I believe Calguns activity is a bit higher up on ATF scope now too.

Hello, Agent Ho in SF office.

Should I update my signature to "two" officials watching everything you type?

bwiese
01-18-2007, 9:04 AM
Should I update my signature to "two" officials watching everything you type?

I believe the biggest thing ATF is looking for is stuff that could be full-auto (i.e., constructive possession of a tube that's close enough to a receiver of a full-auto gun, plus a parts kit with 'bad' parts)...

Other stuff is secondary/lower priority.

Still, Ho has a hardon (as opposed to having a hardon for a Ho... ;) )

Beatone
01-18-2007, 9:14 AM
The only real worry I would have is a set-up, but even that seems unlikely here. Personally, I would destroy the part that makes it a receiver to be extra safe.

+1 to that!

RANGER295
01-18-2007, 9:43 AM
So the general consensus is that it would not be a good idea to keep it. Would anyone have a different opinion if the buyer already had 10 to 15 of a combination of assembled rifles and barreled receivers and the parts minus the receiver tube for another 15 or so all identical all before serial numbers?

Matt C
01-18-2007, 9:56 AM
Treelogger:

I typed up a sizable post in response to yours, then had to delete the whole thing because it was too offensive to post. Sufficed to say, I think you are dead wrong.

zenthemighty
01-18-2007, 2:31 PM
Treelogger,

If the DoJ and ATF were playing by the rule's, I'd agree with you. But by your own admission they are not. Which goes to prove that this is a personal issue for them and not a work issue (cummon, when's the last time a Government employee did more than the bare minimum required, without a personal stake in the job? )

Simply put, they made this a personal Vendetta of theirs, so Bills attacks outside the typical "Scope of Law" discussion are justified in this instance. Its also good to let the Watcher's know that they are being watched. Bill has also toned down is approach on this, so I have no problem with what's being done now.

hoffmang
01-18-2007, 6:16 PM
tree,

There is a long history of tarring and feathering in the United States. Verbal tarring and feathering officialdom when they are violating the law themselves is a time honored tradition in this country and well protected under the First Amendment.

Whether that's the best political stance can be debated. Also whether that is (yet) appropriate for ATF Agent Ho is debatable. What's not debatable is that ATF has been on a well documented witch hunt for FFLs. While I'm not sure Ho has been a part of that, I think the benefit of the doubt may be lower.

-Gene

Matt C
01-18-2007, 6:38 PM
I have not seen evidence that the ATF is outside the rules, in its investigation of full-auto / NFA and 80% issues. The DoJ is clearly outside the rules.



I have seen the evidence. It's called the 2nd amendment. DOJ cannot even follow the rules they make up as they go along, although it's questionable that the 2nd applies to them. In addition, sarcasm and ridicule are powerful political tools, and have been for hundreds of years. In fact, they were both particularly important factors in garnering support for the first revolutionary war.

zenthemighty
01-18-2007, 7:39 PM
I have not seen evidence that the ATF is outside the rules, in its investigation of full-auto / NFA and 80% issues. The DoJ is clearly outside the rules.

I know of two FFL's in the Bakersfield area that were strong armed into giving up their licenses this year. For nothing more than a few simple clerical errors.




Disagree. Even if Mr. Chinn and Mrs. Merrilees are outside the law, and actually actively breaking it, there is no point discussing their personal life. And there is no point aggravating them with rhymes, nicknames, and silly quotes. We can be justified in saying that Mr. Chinn breaks the law and Mrs. Merrilees doesn't know the law, but we are not justified in attacking them personally, or annoying them. Whether they have acne or are overweight is not relevant to the legal and regulatory question we are discussing (I deliberately picked two things that have never been discussed here, just as arbitrary examples, I have no idea about their skin condition or weight).

Well as you admitted yourself, nothing that personal has been spoken of. Instead what is demonstrated is a basic knowledge that we know who they are. It is a physical threat in anyways. Its just putting them on notice that we know who the "enemy" is.


Absolutely. If they don't know that we know, they are fools anyhow, but it is still good to remind them. But that doesn't mean that we have to let them know by taunting them.

Heh! And they're not doing the same with the BS unsigned memos?

RANGER295
01-20-2007, 4:52 PM
Well the hypothetical buyer now hypothetically has a little less oxygen and acetylene in his tanks.:(

dondo
01-20-2007, 7:23 PM
..If he's good at teaching his kid how to shoot well, I would love to meet him some time at the range, and maybe the two of us could work together on making our little ones into better shooters

If you guys like one another maybe you can have children of your own. Ahhh....love.