Question

Hub

Hub

Member
Benefactor
Joined
Dec 17, 2016
Messages
1,214
Location
Triad
Rating - 100%
52   0   0
I have a gentleman that wants to trade me pistol for pistol, however he doesn't have his CCW or a pistol permit
He advised to used his last pistol permit to get the pistol he's trading me. Anytime I've sold or traded a pistol always made sure I saw one of the other but is it required when trading pistol for pistol?
 
Hub said:
I have a gentleman that wants to trade me pistol for pistol, however he doesn't have his CCW or a pistol permit
He advised to used his last pistol permit to get the pistol he's trading me. Anytime I've sold or traded a pistol always made sure I saw one of the other but is it required when trading pistol for pistol?
Click to expand...
Yes sir it is.
 
I thought, by the letter of the law, that the acquisition of a handgun required a PPP or CCW. His part of the trade is a new acquisition. The single PPP is good for one handgun.
 
Are PPP required for private transactions? Does the seller have to keep them?

I can't imagine that there is any difference between trading a gun for money and trading a gun for another gun.
 
Last edited:
Charlie said:
Are PPP required for private transactions? Does the seller have to keep them?

I can't imagine that there is any difference between trading a gun for money and trading a gun for another gun.
Click to expand...

Yes, the buyer has to provide a PPP (or CHP) for private as well as FFL transactions. Doesn't matter if you're trading or buying outright, only that the pistol is changing hands.
 
Last edited:
trcubed said:
Yes, the buyer has to provide a PPP (or CHP) for private as well as FFL transactions. Doesn't matter if you're trading or buying outright, only that the pistol is changing hands.
Click to expand...
The law says the buyer must have a permit for a private sale. It does not say the seller must take it.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
 
GoWolfpack said:
The law says the buyer must have a permit for a private sale. It does not say the seller must take it.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but it does say that each permit if good for the purchase or transfer of one handgun. If you don't take it or mark it in some way with the gun transferred, the holder could use it to break the law and obtain another handgun. The question becomes am I as seller required to make sure the buyer follows the law? I retain the PPP as CYA.
 
Whether or not the other person complies with a "law" is not your concern, nor should you feel any duty towards ensuring that they do.

While it may be the implied intent that you retain the PPP that's not what is explicitly stated and hence you're not required to do so. Personally, as I believe the "law" to be a bunch (unconstitutional) bull spit, I would be inclined to do the minimum required.
 
Last edited:
Woohoo!

I don't think we've had a good one these on here yet.

Let the games begin!

*Obviously you should always follow the letter of the law, as written, and you will have no problems.
 
I keep an original pistol permit if I trade/sell to someone without a ccw. It's not explicitly stated that is required in a private transaction, but I state that from the get go on any pistol I sell or trade. If a buyer is not ok with that, good for them, they won't be buying or trading for what I have to offer. If a buyer/trader has a ccw, I generally record their permit #, name and serial # of the pistol being sold. I get a signed bill of sale if I don't know the guy.

All of the above works for me and my interpretation of the law. I get why some folks may do less. Stipulations for private sales aren't really clear outside of the fact that the party receiving the pistol must either have a permit or ccw.
 
Thanks y'all. I declined the trade. Him needing a PP or CCW was my understanding of the law i just wanted to get a second opinion. In reality the pistol permit (just like the NFA) it's stupid but this isnt the hill I'm planting my flag on.
 
I suppose that, assuming the prospective buyer is really serious, you could take a cash deposit in exchange for holding the gun until he has a permit. Permits are $5. If he's not willing to give you a little cash and invest $5 in a permit, I'd smell fish.
 
With the permit in hand tell the buyer your friend at the pawn shop will do the transfer for free,
if he gripes about that then you know something is wrong.
 
He didn't try to encourage me to do the deal at all. He simply said if you need a PP to do the trade we'd need to cancel the trade because he used his last one to buy the pistol he was trading.
 
dmarbell said:
It doesn't, but it does say that each permit if good for the purchase or transfer of one handgun. If you don't take it or mark it in some way with the gun transferred, the holder could use it to break the law and obtain another handgun. .
Click to expand...

That's someone else's problem (like the company who is selling the $5 pistol permits).

I'm obligated to see that he has one and that's it.
 
JohnFreeman said:
That's someone else's problem (like the company who is selling the $5 pistol permits).

I'm obligated to see that he has one and that's it.
Click to expand...


The issue in this case is that the buyer has already admitted he doesn't have one. Can't really step back from that at this point.
 
No question... I agree with you on that point. We're all obligated to ensure a buyer/transferree has a valid pistol permit.

But not to keep or copy it :)
 
JohnFreeman said:
No question... I agree with you on that point. We're all obligated to ensure a buyer/transferree has a valid pistol permit.

But not to keep or copy it :)
Click to expand...

I do not agree. I believe we are obliged to make sure it's not used again. We are talking about laws on the books, and not equity under the Constitution.
 
Hub said:
Thanks y'all. I declined the trade. Him needing a PP or CCW was my understanding of the law i just wanted to get a second opinion. In reality the pistol permit (just like the NFA) it's stupid but this isnt the hill I'm planting my flag on.
Click to expand...
Drat.

I was hoping for a FNFC entry, but this thread is on life support!







:) Sounds like letting it go was the correct thing to do.
 
Since I live so close to the border, I always just have the other guy meet me on the side of the road in SOUTH Carolina. No permit required there, so the short drive is totally worth it.







</sarcasm>
 
Tim said:
Since I live so close to the border, I always just have the other guy meet me on the side of the road in SOUTH Carolina. No permit required there, so the short drive is totally worth it.







</sarcasm>
Click to expand...

To be honest, that's exactly how things should be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom