There is nothing in the BATF regs that state that a non licensee must have a copy of an FFL license in their possession before shipping out a firearm to that FFL. (It sure does help though!)
There is in the regs a rule that a common or contract carrier must be 'notified' that the parcel contains a firearm upon shipment of that parcel. In writing on the shipping bill is the obvious place but it does not state 'in writing'.
Hard copy FFLs, FAXed copys and Emailed copys are all acceptable as proof as of 01/01/08.
An FFL not willing to supply a copy of his/her FFL copy to a non-licensee is not someone who is 'not up to speed' On the contrary it it someone who understands the regs as they are printed and that the copy is not needed by the nonlicensee.
BATFE agents on a compliance check will advise against such actions as it is well to keep a strict account of your license and where it goes. It is difficult enough to keep it from being used w/o your knowledge for all the copys that must be handed out by the regs w/o scattering more about.
With that said, I fully understand the position the nonlicensee is placed in when trying to legally ship a firearm. No one wants to be the odd man out and not have his bases covered. Everyone wants a copy of that license and only one person has it and doesn't have to give it to anyone other than another FFL.
The preceding has some really bad suggestions on how to cut corners:
Kutter says, "Nothing in BATF regs that state that a copy of the out-of-state dealer's license has to be in possession of the non-FFL shipper."
I'm looking at a FFL which says on its face:
"PURCHASING CERTIFICATION
I certify this is a true copy of a license issued to me to engage in the business specified.
____________________________________________
(Signature of Licensee)
The licensee named herein shall use a reproduction of this license to assist a transferor of firearms to verify the identity and the licensee status of the licensee as provided in 27 CFR Part 178. The signature on each reproduction must be an ORIGINAL signature."
How this "ORIGINAL signature" provision on the FFL itself is implemented now that a FFL can be faxed or e-mailed is problematical. However, the verification and certification provision can only be implemented by the sender having a copy, mailed, faxed, or e-mailed.
Also referring to the regs, 27 CFR Part 178.31 (a) "Delivery by common or contract carrier: (a) No person shall knowingly deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract carrier for transportation or shipment in intestate commerce...in which there is any firearm..without written notice.
Subsection (d) says, "No common or contract carrier shall knowingly deliver in interstate commerce any firearm without obtaining written acknowledgement..."
The guy who asked the original question was not trying to find out how to cut corners or debate technical issues with the BATF; he wanted to be beyond reproach. Someone helpfully provided an IRL to something supposed to be case on point in re: Frequently Asked Questions at "(B.) Unlicensed Persons." I have a hard copy of this as part of the
Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, which BATF often hands out at gun shows.
My hard Copy at section (B8) says, "...A carrier must be notified that the shipment contains a firearm. [and cites 27 CFR 178.31]." These Q & A's do not supersede the regulations and the omission of mandatory written notice in the Q & A's is no defense if you fail to comply with the regs. The 178.31 reg requires a written notice at (d), which was cross-referenced and thus controls. Don't rely on Q & A's to FAQ's when there are laws and regulations.
The Internet IRL provided shows the Q & A's changed measurably in the transposition from hard copy to cyberspace, going from 4 paragraphs in my hard copy to one on the Internet, which says cryptically, "(B8) ...Federal law requires that the carrier be notified." The omission of the details of "written" notification in the Q & A's is not an invitation to ignore the Law and Regs. The regs say "written notice," and it should be obvious that making an off-hand verbal comment to someone at the post office or to your UPS driver does not comply.
My prior advice to write it on paper and get it initialed by the receiving shipper is good advice; my advice to have a FFL in hand is good advice; calling the FFL for a "heads up" and to confirm open-hours availability to receive the shipment is good advice. There is nothing about this advice that is onerous to either party; an abundance of caution is prudent and necessary to be beyond reproach in these most difficult of buy/sell transactions, given the maze of Laws and Regulations. Besides, having an in-hand FFL and a piece of paper proving notice is just good business.
The idea as stated by Kutter that "BATF agents on a compliance check will advise against such actions [providing a copy of their license to verify and assist]..." flys in the face of what is stated on the FFL itself. Maybe the part about an "ORIGINAL signature" has changed with the renewing of FFL's since 1/1/08, and the allowing of e-mail and fax copies, but if such "non-original-signature" copies are allowed now, why would the BATF tell a FFL not to provide them? And the idea that "...Everyone wants a copy of that license and only one person has it and doesn't have to give it to anyone other than another FFL." is strange in so far as the FFL's I have in my possession require the exact opposite as stated on their face and quoted above. Strange that there are so many opinions on how to avoid simple compliance. EDM
