Private Sale (EFA-10) of an AR-15

rwfishman

NES Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
135
Likes
71
Location
Central Mass
Feedback: 136 / 0 / 0
Can anyone definitively and accurately answer this question as there seems to be a lot of speculation? Is it legal for someone to sell their legally purchased, pre Healey AR-15 privately to a properly licensed person?

Also, what is the seller's culpability after the sale is complete? In other words, can the seller be held responsible for the buyer's actions after the sale and transfer is completed?
 
In other words, can the seller be held responsible for the buyer's actions after the sale and transfer is completed?

Have not seen anywhere that a seller has been held criminally responsible for what happens after a sale.

This DOES NOT mean that some family can't sue you and make you waste money on a defense. There is the old adage "Anyone can sue".
 
Can anyone definitively and accurately answer this question as there seems to be a lot of speculation? Is it legal for someone to sell their legally purchased, pre Healey AR-15 privately to a properly licensed person?

Yes, it is perfectly legal. Not sure about what speculation you have heard. I would not be surprised if some FFL want to stay away from a transfer but FTF on an eFA-10 you are good to go. Some FFL's don't care.

Also, what is the seller's culpability after the sale is complete? In other words, can the seller be held responsible for the buyer's actions after the sale and transfer is completed?

No more than any other firearm.

IANAL
 
Yes, it is perfectly legal. Not sure about what speculation you have heard. I would not be surprised if some FFL want to stay away from a transfer but FTF on an eFA-10 you are good to go. Some FFL's don't care.



No more than any other firearm.

IANAL
Yes, it is perfectly legal. Not sure about what speculation you have heard. I would not be surprised if some FFL want to stay away from a transfer but FTF on an eFA-10 you are good to go. Some FFL's don't care.



No more than any other firearm.

IANAL
Have not seen anywhere that a seller has been held criminally responsible for what happens after a sale.

This DOES NOT mean that some family can't sue you and make you waste money on a defense. There is the old adage "Anyone can sue".
Just make sure that you wipe all your prints off it. Jack.
 
It is exactly as legal to sell it as it is to possess it. Because possess and transfer are in the same sentence of the guidance letter separated by commas and "or".

So since she hasn't come after anyone for possession, then its legal to transfer.
 
Hmmmm... Since one is buying a pre-Healey AR-15, and that's ok, can it be resold though by the new buyer? It would be sold by the new buyer as a post=Healey AR-15. If I were the new buyer i'd want a copy of the original sales slip to prove it is a pre_Healey down the road. Confusing, isn't it?
 
Hmmmm... Since one is buying a pre-Healey AR-15, and that's ok, can it be resold though by the new buyer? It would be sold by the new buyer as a post=Healey AR-15.

I've wondered about this myself! Since the AG says:

"What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?
If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault Weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016...."
 
Hmmmm... Since one is buying a pre-Healey AR-15, and that's ok, can it be resold though by the new buyer? It would be sold by the new buyer as a post=Healey AR-15. If I were the new buyer i'd want a copy of the original sales slip to prove it is a pre_Healey down the road. Confusing, isn't it?

"The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016."

Transferring a "pre-Healy" gun doesn't make it no longer a "pre-Healy" gun. It was "obtained" before July 20, 2016, and that status doesn't change no matter how many times it is transferred.

Interpreting "obtained" any other way is a trap, since any transfer that takes place necessarily means that the recipient personally received it after 7/20/2016, which would put them in violation of the enforcement notice's re-interpretation of the law. It wouldn't even matter if they then transferred it on to a third person - merely receiving it after 7/20/2016 would mean they "obtained" it after the cutoff, so off to jail they go.

There's a term for what that would be: entrapment by estoppel. A reasonable person would believe that the above-quoted statement in the enforcement notice means that it is legal to be both the transferor and transferee in such a transaction. If that is not, in fact, the case, then the government has misled you into the belief that the conduct is legal.
 
op, let us know if you go to jail, we'll do a go fund me for ya so you can buy snacks from the commissary.
 
Back
Top Bottom