Thanks but I'm willing to cut the buyer pool for piece of mind

I require BOS for all of the guns I sell and have never had an issue, the only people that I don't have do BOS are family and close friends. If they don't want to do a BOS I have and will continue to decline to sell to.

I don't know why people fuss about BOS.
I require them on my gun sales and have never had an issue.

and if you had an issue with it, cool, because I don't want to sell an AR15 to you anymore.

Nice guns good luck with the sale

Let's agree to disagree

Not sure why you feel the need to detail any thread selling a firearm with the same statements about BOS.

Let the BOS crusade go…

agsalaska said:

---

TXJD2012 said:

---

Let's agree to disagree

---

As long as you understand that I am right and that all you are doing is opening yourself to unnecessary liability with local State and Feds. Then we can agree to disagree.


Tell me, how exactly are you storing that information?

---

Can you tell me what liability issues you're talking about?

The two most obvious are records retention and being in the business(ATF).

The last one has been kicked around in the ATF for a long time. They used personal records in Alaska to justify a warrant on a case when I lived there 20 years ago, long before they changed the language.

I feel as though doing a background check also implies you're "in the business" too.

So throw your crusade out the window please and quit being a curmudgeon.

Absolutely not. Consider what you just said for a second.


Going to an FFL and having a background check done is just due diligence. That has absolutely nothing to do with receipt and record retention. Zero.

A bill of sale is a documented record of a business transaction. Period.

And the last part as long as a certain percentage of y'all are working on feels and not on logic will NEVER happen. Ever.

I read every single thread you post on about this and every single time I've read every single post and I still have to go try to figure out why it's a bad idea. Can you perhaps outline a specific example? I do not ask for bills of sale. But I also have no problem signing one if someone wishes to have it. In fact, I don't even ask for CHL. I have a firearm. You have cash. Let's make a deal.

For my own education, and I fully understand and accept ridicule, can you explain to me like an epic dummy how I can shoot myself in the foot by asking for a bill of sale and ALSO how I can shoot myself in the foot by signing one?

And I am being totally serious. I want to fully understand because I do sell firearms as I trade around and make my collection cooler. This is clearly a big deal to you and if someone is that worried about it then maybe I should at least find out why because maybe it should be a big deal to me too.

I'll do my best off of a cell phone.

The risk is really on the seller more than the buyer. That is assuming you as a buyer do not give any information like your DL number.

But there are a few reasons

1. The ATF has very loose rules(intentionally) about being 'in the business.' And a bill of sale is by definition a business transaction. You can go ahead and challenge that all you want(not you) but I have seen firsthand the ATF use personal records. Another poster that we all know well said earlier that he always gets a BOS. He also sells a lot of guns. I'm sure the ATF will appreciate all of that information being put together for them.

2. Records retention. You are responsible for protecting the records of others while in your possession. Especially if you are possessing it in a business transaction. Depending on jurisdiction it could be anything

3 the last is the most obvious to me. What would you rather tell a cop? Or a defense attorney? Let's say you sold a gun two years ago to some dude named Kenny. Kenny killed a rich kid in a bad drug deal. Rich kids parents are coming for blood. 1. I have no idea what happened to that gun. 2 I sold it to the killer and was concerned enough about his background that I made him sign a BOS(instead of going the 4473 route). Have fun with those attorney fees. And of course the cops are. It your friends. We should all know that.


It just doesn't do you any good for anything ever. In any circumstance. There is not a single circumstance that I can think of where it helps you and plenty of real world scenarios where it ****s you. All it does is make people feel better. It's about feels.

If you are concerned about who you are selling to there is a procedure in olace(4473). Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

[If you want to make comments on this board about POS use this type of post and not just that it is a bad idea without any other explanation. -Staff]

agsalaska said:

---

I'll do my best off of a cell phone.

The risk is really on the seller more than the buyer. That is assuming you as a buyer do not give any information like your DL number.

But there are a few reasons

1. The ATF has very loose rules(intentionally) about being 'in the business.' And a bill of sale is by definition a business transaction. You can go ahead and challenge that all you want(not you) but I have seen firsthand the ATF use personal records. Another poster that we all know well said earlier that he always gets a BOS. He also sells a lot of guns. I'm sure the ATF will appreciate all of that information being put together for them.

2. Records retention. You are responsible for protecting the records of others while in your possession. Especially if you are possessing it in a business transaction. Depending on jurisdiction it could be anything

3 the last is the most obvious to me. What would you rather tell a cop? Or a defense attorney? Let's say you sold a gun two years ago to some dude named Kenny. Kenny killed a rich kid in a bad drug deal. Rich kids parents are coming for blood. 1. I have no idea what happened to that gun. 2 I sold it to the killer and was concerned enough about his background that I made him sign a BOS(instead of going the 4473 route). Have fun with those attorney fees. And of course the cops are. It your friends. We should all know that.


It just doesn't do you any good for anything ever. In any circumstance. There is not a single circumstance that I can think of where it helps you and plenty of real world scenarios where it ****s you. All it does is make people feel better. It's about feels.

If you are concerned about who you are selling to there is a procedure in olace(4473). Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

---

You should post this every time you need to mention it. THIS makes sense to me and it has a practical example. Especially item 3, and 1. Thanks for the explanation.

Well, y'all have really done a great job derailing this guy's thread. Have some self awareness.

agsalaska's premise is that a BOS establishes that the transaction is a business transaction. But it doesn't. Lots of people do BOSs for personal transactions. I use them frequently for all types of transactions and am not in any sort of business.

agsalaska said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I'll do my best off of a cell phone.

The risk is really on the seller more than the buyer. That is assuming you as a buyer do not give any information like your DL number.

But there are a few reasons

1. The ATF has very loose rules(intentionally) about being 'in the business.' And a bill of sale is by definition a business transaction. You can go ahead and challenge that all you want(not you) but I have seen firsthand the ATF use personal records. Another poster that we all know well said earlier that he always gets a BOS. He also sells a lot of guns. I'm sure the ATF will appreciate all of that information being put together for them.

2. Records retention. You are responsible for protecting the records of others while in your possession. Especially if you are possessing it in a business transaction. Depending on jurisdiction it could be anything

3 the last is the most obvious to me. What would you rather tell a cop? Or a defense attorney? Let's say you sold a gun two years ago to some dude named Kenny. Kenny killed a rich kid in a bad drug deal. Rich kids parents are coming for blood. 1. I have no idea what happened to that gun. 2 I sold it to the killer and was concerned enough about his background that I made him sign a BOS(instead of going the 4473 route). Have fun with those attorney fees. And of course the cops are. It your friends. We should all know that.


It just doesn't do you any good for anything ever. In any circumstance. There is not a single circumstance that I can think of where it helps you and plenty of real world scenarios where it ****s you. All it does is make people feel better. It's about feels.

If you are concerned about who you are selling to there is a procedure in olace(4473). Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

[If you want to make comments on this board about POS use this type of post and not just that it is a bad idea without any other explanation. -Staff]

---

Questions about your concerns:

1. Has there ever been a documented case of someone being charged for operating as an FFL without a license based solely on their requirement of a bill of sale for a personal sale? If so, what was the outcome of the case?

2. What responsibility do you have to protect their records from? Identity theft? What law is this responsibility stated under, and what are the required document retention timelines for these records?

3. In what case has someone been criminally charged or civilly held liable for selling someone a firearm they used in the commission of a crime based on their requirement fact they had them sign a bill of sale?

I don't necessarily disagree with your opinions (nor agree with them) but I'm curious if they are actually based on precedent or conjecture.

---

I am very short on time.


1. Yes. I was involved in a case in 2007 in Alaska where the ATF used the personal records against him during prosecution. This was LONG before the language change too. In all fairness the guy was absolutely buying and selling guns for a profit and was exporting. He was a crook. When he was out on bond he was arrested for felony theft and that was the last I heard about it. But yes, the ATF uses personal records against defendents, especially when being charged with dealing without a license.

2. Depends entirely on the State. In Alaska I think it was DL or SSN numbers it had to be behind two different locked doors with two different keys.

3. The last one would be civil charges. Not criminal. Think of it as civil liability. Then it makes a lot of sense.

Got to go.

---

1. So, one case, 2 decades ago, before a change in regulatory language, where someone who clearly was running an unlicensed gun shop and committing other felonies, including exporting firearms without a license?

2. Fair enough. I know records retention responsibilities can vary from state to state, business to business, and based on type of records. But I'm not aware that an individual has any legal requirement to protect another individual's info. Otherwise, there would be a law telling me I have to keep my daughter's SS card behind two locked doors, etc.

3. Do you (or anyone else) have an actual case where someone was held civilly liable for this?

As it stands, you have a very strongly held opinion based on one twenty year old anecdote that isn't really a strong representation of your opinion, and supposition and conjecture. Again, I'm neither disagreeing or disagreeing with your opinion. But I'm also not seeing any concrete evidence behind your supposition.

maverick2076 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I'll do my best off of a cell phone.

The risk is really on the seller more than the buyer. That is assuming you as a buyer do not give any information like your DL number.

But there are a few reasons

1. The ATF has very loose rules(intentionally) about being 'in the business.' And a bill of sale is by definition a business transaction. You can go ahead and challenge that all you want(not you) but I have seen firsthand the ATF use personal records. Another poster that we all know well said earlier that he always gets a BOS. He also sells a lot of guns. I'm sure the ATF will appreciate all of that information being put together for them.

2. Records retention. You are responsible for protecting the records of others while in your possession. Especially if you are possessing it in a business transaction. Depending on jurisdiction it could be anything

3 the last is the most obvious to me. What would you rather tell a cop? Or a defense attorney? Let's say you sold a gun two years ago to some dude named Kenny. Kenny killed a rich kid in a bad drug deal. Rich kids parents are coming for blood. 1. I have no idea what happened to that gun. 2 I sold it to the killer and was concerned enough about his background that I made him sign a BOS(instead of going the 4473 route). Have fun with those attorney fees. And of course the cops are. It your friends. We should all know that.


It just doesn't do you any good for anything ever. In any circumstance. There is not a single circumstance that I can think of where it helps you and plenty of real world scenarios where it ****s you. All it does is make people feel better. It's about feels.

If you are concerned about who you are selling to there is a procedure in olace(4473). Otherwise you are doing more harm than good.

[If you want to make comments on this board about POS use this type of post and not just that it is a bad idea without any other explanation. -Staff]

---

Questions about your concerns:

1. Has there ever been a documented case of someone being charged for operating as an FFL without a license based solely on their requirement of a bill of sale for a personal sale? If so, what was the outcome of the case?

2. What responsibility do you have to protect their records from? Identity theft? What law is this responsibility stated under, and what are the required document retention timelines for these records?

3. In what case has someone been criminally charged or civilly held liable for selling someone a firearm they used in the commission of a crime based on their requirement fact they had them sign a bill of sale?

I don't necessarily disagree with your opinions (nor agree with them) but I'm curious if they are actually based on precedent or conjecture.

---

I am very short on time.


1. Yes. I was involved in a case in 2007 in Alaska where the ATF used the personal records against him during prosecution. This was LONG before the language change too. In all fairness the guy was absolutely buying and selling guns for a profit and was exporting. He was a crook. When he was out on bond he was arrested for felony theft and that was the last I heard about it. But yes, the ATF uses personal records against defendents, especially when being charged with dealing without a license.

2. Depends entirely on the State. In Alaska I think it was DL or SSN numbers it had to be behind two different locked doors with two different keys.

3. The last one would be civil charges. Not criminal. Think of it as civil liability. Then it makes a lot of sense.

Got to go.

---

1. So, one case, 2 decades ago, before a change in regulatory language, where someone who clearly was running an unlicensed gun shop and committing other felonies, including exporting firearms without a license?

2. Fair enough. I know records retention responsibilities can vary from state to state, business to business, and based on type of records. But I'm not aware that an individual has any legal requirement to protect another individual's info. Otherwise, there would be a law telling me I have to keep my daughter's SS card behind two locked doors, etc.

3. Do you (or anyone else) have an actual case where someone was held civilly liable for this?

As it stands, you have a very strongly held opinion based on one twenty year old anecdote that isn't really a strong representation of your opinion, and supposition and conjecture. Again, I'm neither disagreeing or disagreeing with your opinion. But I'm also not seeing any concrete evidence behind your supposition.

---

1.). Why do you insist on a paper trail?

2.). Why do you insist on a paper trail?

3.). WHY DO YOU INSIST ON A PAPER TRAIL?


I like to operate for cash only, no papers, no signing anything whenever I can. I don't want a receipt. I don't want anything that indicates in any form that I purchased or sold a firearm if I can help it. If I must sign a BOS and I really want it, I will. But it will have my name, no signature, no address, no license number, no CHL, no social security, nothing other than my name printed and the firearm info.

I think what we can glean from the commentary is …


A BOS has a huge potential of screwing you in the future and zero potential of being beneficial right now.

I think the next best question to ask is "for anyone insisting on a BOS, what are your reasons for doing so?"

No, we cannot glean that a BOS adds any liability or opens you up for some type of legal scrutiny or penalty.

That is strictly the opinion of one poster that found one case 20 years ago where the BOS was obviously used as a mechanism in already ongoing case against a guy that was skirting the laws. And his opinion is that anybody that does a BoS is doing it because the transaction was nefarious and the seller wants some type of insurance, which is a faulty premise to begin with.

It is really simple, and i posted this already but it was deleted for whatever reason:

If you want a BoS, do it. If you dont want one, dont do it. It really is that simple and why this board insists on making it anytbing more than that is just dumb.