Selling pistol to private party

It should go to the owner that reported it stolen. I had seven guns stolen years ago and they were reported. Most were bought by my dad from dealers or individuals and then given to me. When one was recovered, it was returned to me as I was the owner when it was stolen. And there were no BOS's or paperwork transferring them to me. I just had to "buy" it back from my insurance company since they had paid the claim when they were stolen.
 
beamernc said:
It should go to the owner that reported it stolen. I had seven guns stolen years ago and they were reported. Most were bought by my dad from dealers or individuals and then given to me. When one was recovered, it was returned to me as I was the owner when it was stolen. And there were no BOS's or paperwork transferring them to me. I just had to "buy" it back from my insurance company since they had paid the claim when they were stolen.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the law has changed or if this guy is making it up as he goes along.
 
Krusty said:
I bought the pistol new so it's registered to me. If I had transferred it at an FFL it would go to the transferee.
Click to expand...
That is not how it should work, IMHO.

Even if you had transferred it through an FFL, how would he know that unless you told him. I wonder if he would have even bothered to check. I think it was a combination of laziness and cya on his part.
 
Toprudder said:
That is not how it should work, IMHO.

Even if you had transferred it through an FFL, how would he know that unless you told him. I wonder if he would have even bothered to check. I think it was a combination of laziness and cya on his part.
Click to expand...

They did a trace. The police agency calls up the ATF , the ATF calls the manufacturer and it goes down the line until the last buyer in the original chain of ownership is located . For used guns that get transferred through a dealer it gets a LOT murkier . Unless you are in a handful of states that actually have registration that 4473 is just a transfer document . It does not imply continued ownership.
 
I clicked on this thread when there were a few responses & thought it was complete.
I clicked today to see how the hell is this thread still at the top of new posts???
@idbdan @keepcalmandcarryon I came to the conclusion da gubmint is interested in disarming its citizens, if it’s easy, when S&W got in bed with the Clinton gun bans. I decided to try to purchase my guns going forward from individuals, preferably one’s that I know. I have a CCP, an NO interest in a BOS or going through an FFL.
I’ll probably get flamed for this, if I were to actually sell a gun, and I don’t know you, I’d like to see a CCW, only for my peace of mind.
 
Redsoxfan said:
It always kills me when a liberal friend says "why do you need a handgun or assault rifle for hunting?😊
Click to expand...
Some kid asked me that once. He asked me what kind of guns I had and I told him I had an AR, and some other rifles but I had a bunch of AK 47s. He said "why? Do you use those for hunting?" I said " Nope. I just keep them for sometime in the future if I need to hunt politicians." He got an absolutely blank stare, and I am sure he ran to call the FBI or ATF. Whatever.
 
wired said:
For used guns that get transferred through a dealer it gets a LOT murkier .
Click to expand...
That was my point. If you were the original purchaser and sold the gun, there is no link from the first 4473 (original purchase) to the second 4473, except by your own statement to the investigator.

Of course, the leftists hope to fix all of this with universal background checks. They will get some sort of UBC law passed, and then “discover” that it won’t work without registration, and then pass a new law requiring that. Taking away our rights, one nibble at a time.
 
Toprudder said:
That was my point. If you were the original purchaser and sold the gun, there is no link from the first 4473 (original purchase) to the second 4473, except by your own statement to the investigator.

Of course, the leftists hope to fix all of this with universal background checks. They will get some sort of UBC law passed, and then “discover” that it won’t work without registration, and then pass a new law requiring that. Taking away our rights, one nibble at a time.
Click to expand...

I suspect digitized 4473s will simplify things further as well when/if they can just do a database search for a firearms serial number.
 
Having once been in the position of managing a database with north of 15 million data elements, I know this can be tricky.

If you ever want a view of now NOT to manage a database, looking through existing data elements in the NFA registry will give you some clues. Since they allowed free form data entry, the ability to actually do effective searches has to be pretty low.

Let's say you want to find all Bushmaster AR15s . Should be easy, right? Well, it SHOULD be, but because they had orangutangs as data base managers you'd need to structure a search that would look something like:

"Find all Rifle or rifle or Rifle with manufacturer Bushmaster or Bush Master or bushmaster or BushMaster or BUSHMASTER and with model AR-15 or ar-15 or AR15 or Ar15 or ar15 or ar-15 or Ar-15 or AR 15 or ar 15 or Ar 15......" etc. It's totally chaotic, and this on the database of items you'd think the ATF would want to keep the closest eye on.

It's a PITA to standardize the design of a database before deployment . It's impossible to fix it after the fact. Presumably it's somewhat better on manufacturer data , but I wonder....

(Edit: Are engineer, cant spel.)
 
Last edited:
JohnFreeman said:
Having once been in the position of managing a database with north of 15 million data elements, I know this can be tricky.

If you ever want a view of now NOT to manage a database, looking through existing data elements in the NFA registry will give you some clues. Since they allowed free form data entry, the ability to actually do effective searches has to be pretty low.

Let's say you want to find all Bushmaster AR15s . Should be easy, right? Well, it SHOULD be, but because they had orangutangs as data base managers you'd need to structure a search that would look something like:

"Find all Rifle or rifle or Rifle with manufacturer Bushmaster or Bush Master or bushmaster or BushMaster or BUSHMASTER and with model AR-15 or ar-15 or AR15 or Ar15 or ar15 or ar-15 or Ar-15 or AR 15 or ar 15 or Ar 15......" etc. It's totally chaotic, and this on the database of items you'd think the ATF would want to keep the closest eye on.

It's a PITA to standardize the design of a database before depliyment . It's impossible to fix it after the fact. Presumably it's somewhat better on manufacturer data , but I wonder....
Click to expand...
I suspect that they‘ll do better with digital forms, presumably they never expected to capture the data from the manual forms rotting away in the basements and closets of FFLs. But you’re spot on, getting all the old forms into a workable database would be a monumental task.
 
JohnFreeman said:
Having once been in the position of managing a database with north of 15 million data elements, I know this can be tricky.

If you ever want a view of now NOT to manage a database, looking through existing data elements in the NFA registry will give you some clues. Since they allowed free form data entry, the ability to actually do effective searches has to be pretty low.

Let's say you want to find all Bushmaster AR15s . Should be easy, right? Well, it SHOULD be, but because they had orangutangs as data base managers you'd need to structure a search that would look something like:

"Find all Rifle or rifle or Rifle with manufacturer Bushmaster or Bush Master or bushmaster or BushMaster or BUSHMASTER and with model AR-15 or ar-15 or AR15 or Ar15 or ar15 or ar-15 or Ar-15 or AR 15 or ar 15 or Ar 15......" etc. It's totally chaotic, and this on the database of items you'd think the ATF would want to keep the closest eye on.

It's a PITA to standardize the design of a database before depliyment . It's impossible to fix it after the fact. Presumably it's somewhat better on manufacturer data , but I wonder....
Click to expand...
Even more fun since Bushmaster lowers are often XM15s. 🤣
 
GymB said:
I suspect that they‘ll do better with digital forms, presumably they never expected to capture the data from the manual forms rotting away in the basements and closets of FFLs. But you’re spot on, getting all the old forms into a workable database would be a monumental task.
Click to expand...

I would think they should, but since the existing legacy data is a dogs breakfast, they'd either need to leave the fields as free form (leaving it vulnerable to corruption) , -or- split the database into old (unstructured) and new (structured with valid value choice only).

It's really a PITA to mend poorly structured data after the fact. The company I worked for purchased many others, and the task of integrating the data was enormous. Farming it out to India to do fixed some datasets and broke others. "Fixing" old data is also fraught with problems, since there's rarely any one around years hence willing to act as the reference.

I believe a significant amount of the data for fully auto stuff is still on 3x5 cards.

>Even more fun since Bushmaster lowers are often XM15s.

Yay! More "or" structured searches.

Then of course as in my Gwinn Industries arm pistol, the model is the Bushmaster , not the manufacturer. ;-)
 
Last edited:
JohnFreeman said:
I would think they should, but since the existing legacy data is a dogs breakfast, they'd either need to leave the fields as free form (leaving it vulnerable to corruption) , -or- split the database into old (unstructured) and new (structured with valid value choice only).

It's really a PITA to mend poorly structured data after the fact. The company I worked for purchased many others, and the task of integrating the data was enormous. Farming it out to India to do fixed some datasets and broke others. "Fixing" old data is also fraught with problems, since there's rarely any one around years hence willing to act as the reference.

I believe a significant amount of the data for fully auto stuff is still on 3x5 cards.

>Even more fun since Bushmaster lowers are often XM15s.

Yay! More "or" structured searches.

Then of course as in my Gwinn Industries arm pistol, the model is the Bushmaster , not the manufacturer. ;-)
Click to expand...
all of those issues may be obviated by having the serial number. They can fill in from manufacturer data that will be less messy.

But until a couple years ago was anything about the specific firearm recorded on the 4473? I thought there were boxes for long gun, handgun, and other, but nothing else. Am I remembering this incorrectly?
 
Manuf, Model, S/N , "type" , Caliber or Gauge at the moment. That form changes so often these days it's hard to keep track.

I remember the bit about "long gun, handgun, other" when purchasing my first bare AR lower years ago though.
 
Last edited:
I run fastbound and even with that system I can put in a serial number and part of a model name etc and it will give me all the options. Scale that up . Its not rocket science.
 
JohnFreeman said:
Let's say you want to find all Bushmaster AR15s . Should be easy, right? Well, it SHOULD be, but because they had orangutangs as data base managers you'd need to structure a search that would look something like:
Click to expand...
A standard SQL query :p
 
noway2 said:
A standard SQL query :p
Click to expand...
yeh its really not difficult at all once digitized. getting their hands on paper is the biggest challenge and seems like they are working on that

i went to academy while back and they dont even do paper anymore - you enter in a tablet.

NOPE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom