FFL transfers: seller's responsibility

phermes1

I'm wondering about 1 thing mentioned on the Gunbroker site. I understand that the seller does not have to have a license or go through an FFL dealer to send a long gun to another state, (amazing how many dealers do not know this!).
Gunbroker says that the seller should get a copy of the buyer's FFL license, (or his dealer's), signed in blue or red ink, as verification.
So my question; is this a LEGAL requirement, or more of a CYA sort of thing? I've been doing research and I can't find anything official that tells me that the seller must have this. It makes sense from a CYA point of view, though.
In either case, I'm asking the question because my dealer is very hesitant about sending a signed copy of his license to a private, Joe Blow citizen. He'll do a fax copy, or possibly a mailed copy with certain parts blacked out, but anything past that concerns him; can't blame him too much either. SO, I'm stuck in a hard place; the seller wants assurances and is following the letter of the Gunbroker site, while the dealer is rightfully protecting his license.
Any help is appreciated!!

oro

Some good questions.First,if I understand ya right,your dealer would be sending a copy of his FFL to another dealer.The gun must be recived by a FFL or C&R holder (if it is a C&R gun)...I allways right FILE COPY in marker on the copys of my FFL I send.Also,there really isn't alot someone can do with his FFL number,as far as ordering from wholesalers and stuff,becouse they can only ship to the address on the FFL....Hope this helps. Oro

mark christian

This subject has come up quite a few times on these boards. The letter of the law states that if the seller is a non dealer he does not have to have a certified copy of the buyers FFL. He does however need to verify that the buyer has an FFL and the license in question is valid. Without getting a certified copy of the FFL the only other way to verify this information is to run the buyer's FFL number through the BATFE FFL Easy Check system and look over the information it provides. As a dealer myself I can understand why some folks are touchy about sending out certified copies of their FFL to private individuals, although these copies can be easily marked to make them useless for puposes other than identification of dealer status. Faxed FFL's are not valid for dealer to dealer transactions, although they will serve for the purposes of establishing dealer status and you canuse the FFL number to run the Easy Check on the BATF web site.

Mark T. Christian

phermes1

Mark, you had it right. I'm buying the gun from a private citizen - no dealer is involved on his end whatsoever. I'll talk to my dealer, see what we can do.
Gun Broker seemed pretty specific about saying that the seller must get a copy of the FFL license signed in BLUE or RED ink. Do you know why that is?

mark christian

The reason behind the blue or green ink is to insure that the signature is actually hand signed and not reproduced from a copy machine. My old boss (God rest his soul) used to make all of his FFL copies on green paper and hand sign them all in red ink- no way you could question that those were original copies! I always sign my FFL's using red ink...sort of gives an indication of the profitability of the gun industry as a whole. There is however no BATFE regulation stating that the signature be in any one particualr color, only that the signature be an original signature on each copy of the FFL. The signature certifies the FFL copy and a reproduction of a dealers signature is not valid for the purchase of a firearm from another licensee.

Mark T. Christian

sck

Dear Mr. C:
I liked the comment about the red ink. Thanks

playthings

For several years I've heard that copies of ffl's should be signed in colored ink to assure the signature is original and not a photocopy.
Colored photocopiers have been around for quite some time and I've wondered if a colored signature really provides much protection.

Prebanparts

With the colored ink its easier to verify that signature is original and not a copy ..however with the new generation of color copiers that is not exactly the case..

JIM STARK

More important than the color or originality of the signature, is to be sure the license location has not been altered....

WebSiteMaker

From strictly a technical perspective, colored ink means nothing these days. I used to do signature verification on contracts before they were fed into an imaging system.

Using cheapie printers and software you can lift a signature, clean up the background, change its color and print it out on top of whatever you want with decent results. Get fancy and use better stuff and the thing will be genuine to any naked eye.

So get a big magnifying glass. Zoom in on a digital signature done by a color laser or digital copier and you'll suddenly see a lot of little squares making up the image. If it was done on an inkjet printer the image will look a little hairy (literally). Signing a document with a ballpoint will often compress/dent the paper where the pen strokes over it.