Official T4R "Firearms" thread

[bradze]

does anyone store a pistol under their drivers seat? im thinking about doing this with my Taurus spectrum .380. I changed my mind about getting one of those dash magnets because I can't carry my weapon at work so it will sit in my 4runner all day. were it on the dash it could be seen and vehicle likely broken into, at least no one will know its there if I mount under seat and also easily accessible? however im wondering if I permanently mount a kydex holster if it will be strong enough to hold the gun in place if I slam on brakes or an accident. I like some sort of guard over trigger so I don't wanna get a magnet.

 

[mrblah]

does anyone store a pistol under their drivers seat? im thinking about doing this with my Taurus spectrum .380. I changed my mind about getting one of those dash magnets because I can't carry my weapon at work so it will sit in my 4runner all day. were it on the dash it could be seen and vehicle likely broken into, at least no one will know its there if I mount under seat and also easily accessible? however im wondering if I permanently mount a kydex holster if it will be strong enough to hold the gun in place if I slam on brakes or an accident. I like some sort of guard over trigger so I don't wanna get a magnet.

I have a console safe, but I do know people who hide pistols under their driver seat and it works for them.

 

[BillyM]

- Ruger LC9 1st gen, don't like the long trigger pull, but it's my pocket carry gun. 9mm
- Jericho 941, Israeli made gun, heavy full metal, got it used was very nice to shoot, double stack. 9mm
- Tri Star T100, made in a NATO plant in Turkey. Smooth shooting double stack.
- Soviet pistol in 9mm, can't remember the name. Single stack and not that fun to shoot.
- Beretta Jetfire in .22 short. Fun tiny gun to plink with, flip up barrel. Sometimes hard to find 22 short ammo, lol

This thread reminded me I need to get to the range!

 

[ran]

That Tri Star reminds me of 3rd Gen S&W 5906. nice
____________________
2007 SE V6

 

[hstexan]

Been wanting to get into competitive shooting so I've been eyeing SP-01's for awhile. Finally bit the bullet when I found one local to me that already had all the CGW goodies on it for barely more than a new SP-01--it's essentially a CGW Pro Package with an SAO trigger, only thing it's missing is the DA/SA reach reduction kit. Setup for 3gun now with the SAO trigger, but I'll probably swap it back to the DA/SA so I can start USPSA. Took it out and shot it for the first time last week and all I can say is wow. Incredibly soft shooter and ridiculously accurate.

 

[BillyM]

That Tri Star reminds me of 3rd Gen S&W 5906. nice
____________________
2007 SE V6

It's basically a clone of the CZ 75. I got it at a pawn shop brand new, never been fired, for $250 I think... new at Sportsmans Warehouse they were $350.
If memory serves...

Everyone who shoots it loves it. Easy to handle. But the black finish is flaking off in a couple spots already.

 

[Inv4drZm]

When a new neighbor asks if you know of the guy that lives nearby that owns a lot of guns.

 

[ndcent]

My brother in law owed me $250, called me and said did I want it or should he throw it towards a holiday gift. I said gift. I chose right.

Kimber Micro 9 ESV..

 

[Samson01]

My brother in law owed me $250, called me and said did I want it or should he throw it towards a holiday gift. I said gift. I chose right.



Kimber Micro 9 ESV..

That’s a straw purchase and is illegal in most states so might want to be cautious when wording posts in public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ndcent]

That’s a straw purchase and is illegal in most states so might want to be cautious when wording posts in public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yikes! You’re right. Hadn’t thought of it like that, thanks!

 

[tb-av]

That’s a straw purchase

No it is not.

 

[Wingman707]

That’s not a straw sale

That does not constitute as a straw sale. Typically if you are not eligible to purchase a firearm and attempt to have someone else purchase it for you is considered a straw sale. Giving a gun as a gift is an American tradition. However you should surely do the private party transfer at an FFL. Otherwise it would be an illegal transfer and possession of a firearm that is not registered to the possessor.

 

[jcoleman]

That does not constitute as a straw sale. Typically if you are not eligible to purchase a firearm and attempt to have someone else purchase it for you is considered a straw sale. Giving a gun as a gift is an American tradition. However you should surely do the private party transfer at an FFL. Otherwise it would be an illegal transfer and possession of a firearm that is not registered to the possessor.

The purchaser answers the question "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm?" In the case of a true gift, then this question can be answered "yes", as the purchaser is using his/her own money to make the purchase.

The instance in question falls in a gray area, due to the money owed the recipient put towards the "gift". It would concern me.

 

[2016 4Runner SR5]

Anyone in MD have anything old and cheap for sale? I enjoy collecting and restoring old rifles. Before anyone gets all up in arms, cash sale face to face is 100% legal in MD between two MD residents. No transfer is required by law, it is a cash and carry sale.

 

[Wingman707]

Doesn’t matter if money is owed, traded or given

The purchaser answers the question "Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm?" In the case of a true gift, then this question can be answered "yes", as the purchaser is using his/her own money to make the purchase.

The instance in question falls in a gray area, due to the money owed the recipient put towards the "gift". It would concern me.

It doesn’t matter how a firearm is paid for, traded or gifted to a registeree. The question you are referring to has no implication on how it’s being paid for. It’s actually not even the delers business. The question is “are you the actual purchaser? Not how much or who owes you money and how they intend to trade to make even with the firearm registered owner.
Please do not take these statements as argumentative or being a dick. One of the reasons gun shops have so many issues is because we deal with Mis-truths that customers have instilled from people that have less or little experience. Take it from a guy who has sold thousands of guns in the last 17 years with out a blemish on my FFL.

 

[tb-av]

The instance in question falls in a gray area,

The money stopped being owed when he made the choice of "cash' or "what's behind door #3"

He could have bought him golf clubs. It was a gamble.

Person A - I have my money and know I owe you some which I can now pay OR I will buy you a gift.
Person B - Keep your money I'll take my chances. Surprise me.

The money belongs to Person A. Person B has no money tied to the purchase of a firearm and the firearm was never mentioned.

Plus can you imagine if family members had to account for what one may owe another? Well we bought dinner last time, ok, but i borrowed your truck and returned it with a full tank of gas. Yep, but I loaned you a box of ammo.

It would be no different if he had received the gift and then said, you know that money you owe me... just forget it.

 

[tb-av]

It doesn’t matter how a firearm is paid for, The question you are referring to has no implication on how it’s being paid for.

Tha's not what Kagen said.... That's exactly how Abramski got found guilty. His Uncle wrote him a check, put Glock in the memo section, and then Abramski wrote a receipt for it. So it was perfectly clear the Uncle paid for the gun and thus was the true purchaser but Abramski checked the YES box as being the purchaser.

Which is nothing like this gift situation. But it does matter where the money comes from when it is clear beyond a doubt that the fore thought was to have the secondary person be the source of funds for a specific purchase.

The reasoning they use is that this creates a registry so they can track weapons and solve crimes. At the same time Democrats say the Universal Background Check is not a gun registry. The irony of the SCOTUS telling the Dems they are lying but they win the decision none the less.

From Form 4473:

A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire
the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

EX: Also from Form 4473

Actual TRANSFEREE/buyer examples:
Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited) . Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer "NO" to question 11.a

You can't get much clearer than that with respect to mattering how it is paid for. You can't have two parties working in concert to purchase a firearm where Party A checks the YES box and Party B supplies the money.

I agree with you on the rest though and especially in the case here. No money was given to facilitate a purchase regardless of debts owed and the like.

 

[Rhinle]

Not a HUGE gun guy, but I've got a few:

Glock 27 and Glock 43 (for concealed carry)
Glock 22 (for the full size)
Colt LE6920 (w/ Magpul stuff)
Hardened Arms AR Pistol 10.5"

 

[Hydguy]

Tha's not what Kagen said.... That's exactly how Abramski got found guilty. His Uncle wrote him a check, put Glock in the memo section, and then Abramski wrote a receipt for it. So it was perfectly clear the Uncle paid for the gun and thus was the true purchaser but Abramski checked the YES box as being the purchaser.

Which is nothing like this gift situation. But it does matter where the money comes from when it is clear beyond a doubt that the fore thought was to have the secondary person be the source of funds for a specific purchase.

The reasoning they use is that this creates a registry so they can track weapons and solve crimes. At the same time Democrats say the Universal Background Check is not a gun registry. The irony of the SCOTUS telling the Dems they are lying but they win the decision none the less.

From Form 4473:


EX: Also from Form 4473


You can't get much clearer than that with respect to mattering how it is paid for. You can't have two parties working in concert to purchase a firearm where Party A checks the YES box and Party B supplies the money.

I agree with you on the rest though and especially in the case here. No money was given to facilitate a purchase regardless of debts owed and the like.

And the firearm was transferred to a dealer in PA IIRC, so the uncle wasn't even trying to avoid a background check.

 

[tb-av]

And the firearm was transferred to a dealer in PA IIRC, so the uncle wasn't even trying to avoid a background check.

That's correct. The guy was not a LEO. He was kicked off the force for theft.