Bill of Sale
- Thread starter TacMedic
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
what pisses me off is the one that states must have a az dl and ccw preferred....to me that means it is an option but not necessary, just preferred. but when you say i don't have ccw, you don't even get a response back....i can carry w/o so i don't need one plain and simple.
I figure that if it’s a condition of the sale then it’s the seller’s prerogative. I’ve had buyers ask to see my ID though. I think that’s weird and am not going to show them my home address.
I don’t ask. Not like I’d keep the records anyway.
I don’t ask. Not like I’d keep the records anyway.
If you need a bill of sale or want a receipt just go to a gun store or use one of the many online gun auction sites. No one thinks any less of you. I enjoy meeting many members here and buying and selling guns face to face. If you are not comfortable with this as is, use a different venue. You don't need to defend yourself just as you do not need to impose your irrational need to control everything on me. The end.
I've only done one deal that a seller requested a bill of sale. It was during the Obama era of AR madness and it was the first private party deal I ever did. I way overpaid for a couple of Rock River lowers and LPKs. I've bought on back page, CL, the old forum and haven't had anyone ask since then.
Just to add my $.02...while I'm not a fan of having to sign a bill of sale to buy something, I do agree it's the seller's right to request such...if that's what it takes to unruffle their feathers. In general, though...I will turn away from an ad as soon as I see that the seller is requiring a signed bill of sale, unless it is truly some sort of *screaming* deal! I don't mind at all flashing my AZDL, & CCW.
What really upsets me, is when I see an ad, it may or may not mention AZDL & CCW, I communicate with the seller, we agree on a deal, and a place/time to meet. Then, on meeting...the seller announces that they want a BOS, and/or they want to copy down my DL info! I've had this happen on a couple occasions. Not cool, at all!
I've also showed up at at a gentleman's house one time to purchase a pistol from him, and *after* I paid him, he produces a 4473. When I ask what this is all about, he states that he's got an FFL, and can't sell it without the 4473! Well...why wasn't that stated in your ad? I went ahead and bought it...because it was a decent deal, and I really have no huge issue with doing paperwork. BUT...I do not appreciate feeling as if I've been sandbagged!
What really upsets me, is when I see an ad, it may or may not mention AZDL & CCW, I communicate with the seller, we agree on a deal, and a place/time to meet. Then, on meeting...the seller announces that they want a BOS, and/or they want to copy down my DL info! I've had this happen on a couple occasions. Not cool, at all!
I've also showed up at at a gentleman's house one time to purchase a pistol from him, and *after* I paid him, he produces a 4473. When I ask what this is all about, he states that he's got an FFL, and can't sell it without the 4473! Well...why wasn't that stated in your ad? I went ahead and bought it...because it was a decent deal, and I really have no huge issue with doing paperwork. BUT...I do not appreciate feeling as if I've been sandbagged!
It seems some folks in this debate, have missed one scenario, in all of this. So, let me illuminate! 
If I was a prosecuting attorney, for an Az municipality, I would assume upon investigating a crime committed with a firearm, and tracked it back to the seller, who presented a multitude of documentation of the sale, because he didn't like the looks or attitude of the buyer.
I would come to the conclusion that the seller thought the buyer was a questionable buyer at best, and a a prohibited possessor at worst.
Annnd,... since knowledge of an individual being a prohibited possessor is the only restriction to a firearm sale in Arizona,... any actions taken by a seller, that would be evidence to them having knowledge that the buyer was questionable, at the very least,... would give me grounds to prosecute for, selling to a prohibited possessor.
Might be a tough row to hoe,... but, the cost wouldn't be on the prosecutor,... if you get my drift!
If I was a prosecuting attorney, for an Az municipality, I would assume upon investigating a crime committed with a firearm, and tracked it back to the seller, who presented a multitude of documentation of the sale, because he didn't like the looks or attitude of the buyer.
I would come to the conclusion that the seller thought the buyer was a questionable buyer at best, and a a prohibited possessor at worst.
Annnd,... since knowledge of an individual being a prohibited possessor is the only restriction to a firearm sale in Arizona,... any actions taken by a seller, that would be evidence to them having knowledge that the buyer was questionable, at the very least,... would give me grounds to prosecute for, selling to a prohibited possessor.
Might be a tough row to hoe,... but, the cost wouldn't be on the prosecutor,... if you get my drift!
I have never indicated the need for a bill of sale in my listings. However, when I get response from people on Armslist who seem shifty, I will ask them questions like do they have a valid Arizona drivers license, are you prohibited from owning firearms, etc. Usually the shifty characters will never reply.
Ballistic Therapy
Member
When I was on the federal Gand jury we had a few cases of stolen guns , straw buyers , illegal possessors and such.shooter444 said:It seems some folks in this debate, have missed one scenario, in all of this. So, let me illuminate!
If I was a prosecuting attorney, for an Az municipality, I would assume upon investigating a crime committed with a firearm, and tracked it back to the seller, who presented a multitude of documentation of the sale, because he didn't like the looks or attitude of the buyer.
I would come to the conclusion that the seller thought the buyer was a questionable buyer at best, and a a prohibited possessor at worst.
Annnd,... since knowledge of an individual being a prohibited possessor is the only restriction to a firearm sale in Arizona,... any actions taken by a seller, that would be evidence to them having knowledge that the buyer was questionable, at the very least,... would give me grounds to prosecute for, selling to a prohibited possessor.
Might be a tough row to hoe,... but, the cost wouldn't be on the prosecutor,... if you get my drift!
In every case regardless of what it was about the US Attorney started out with
" they new or should have known ".
shooter444 said:It seems some folks in this debate, have missed one scenario, in all of this. So, let me illuminate!
If I was a prosecuting attorney, for an Az municipality, I would assume upon investigating a crime committed with a firearm, and tracked it back to the seller, who presented a multitude of documentation of the sale, because he didn't like the looks or attitude of the buyer.
I would come to the conclusion that the seller thought the buyer was a questionable buyer at best, and a a prohibited possessor at worst.
Annnd,... since knowledge of an individual being a prohibited possessor is the only restriction to a firearm sale in Arizona,... any actions taken by a seller, that would be evidence to them having knowledge that the buyer was questionable, at the very least,... would give me grounds to prosecute for, selling to a prohibited possessor.
Might be a tough row to hoe,... but, the cost wouldn't be on the prosecutor,... if you get my drift!
Unfortunately that thinking is bull sh!t. Not. All but if I showed up to buy a gun and just got done working and look like sh!t that makes me look sketchy? The looks of a person does not tell if a person is a illegal possessor of a forearm. Lets say he or she shows up with a polo on nice hair looks good ,dresses good, nice truck but turns out to be a serial killer that hasn't been caught yet. So now a attorney can say looking at a person can tell if he is a bad person. That can be argued in court. What if.
Similar threads
