Home Forums Gear Free Classifieds Please someone explain

How hard is it for a private citizen in the US to get an FFL?

Here in Canada, all I need is a PAL to sell/send a firearm through the mail or FTF, but the buyer must have a current PAL as well.

Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL)

Follow up question. Is there one available to FFL holders, like the one available to law enforcement agencies?

Among other things, an FFL holder is required to enter the name and address of the person who he/she receives a firearm from and the name and address of the person who he/she delivers a firearm to into his/her bound book records if the firearm isn't coming from or going to another FFL. I believe that it is in the dealer's best interest to have hard copy documentation for anyone who they do business with that show that those people are who they claim to be. It is called "due diligence" and provides authorities a place to go if there are ever any questions about who the firearm came from or who the firearm went to.

I don't do transfers.

It isn't hard to get an FFL, a routine background check by the FBI like anyone in the military has to pass to get a security clearance.

Thanks ......... Do a lot of folks here on the Fire have an FFL?

BUT, big but, you have to pay like $600 a year to keep it.

Deal breaker right there.

Here’s a question:

Why can’t I get “preapproved” to purchase whatever I want, full background check and all that crap, and have it delivered to my house?

Doesn’t the whole “fill out this paper” seem a little dated?

Right on the money!!!!!

Not true.

The renewal fee is $90 for three years, $30 per year, less than $0.10 per day.

I think that I paid $300 in 1990 to get my initial FFL and have have paid $90 every three years to renew it since then.

I agree.

I think that there should be a Federal Firearms Purchase Permit (FFPP) that would allow any U.S. citizen who is allowed to own firearms to make retail purchases from anywhere in the 50 United States and have those firearms shipped directly to them. An FFPP wouldn't be applicable for wholesale purchases, those would need to go to a business with an FFL.

Tico is correct. This is a huge misnomer and a mistake many make. It is the obligation of the seller to get the firearm into the hands of the buyer or the buyer's agent (FFL). The long and the short of that is, from a legal standpoint, a firearm lost, stolen or damaged during shipping is on the seller, not the buyer. It may be the FAULT of the carrier; but, that is a fight for the seller, not the buyer. The exception to this is if by agreement of the parties. It always makes me want to cram a fork in my eye when I see a seller write, "insurance is at the buyer's expense". I think, if a buyer agrees to this, and buys without insuring, then the buyer has accepted the responsibility (risk) for any loss or damage that may occur during shipping. Having said that, said buyer would still need the seller to initiate any action on buyer's behalf; but, the seller is off the hook monetarily.

Not a lawyer, but Chief Finance Officer for longer than I will admit. The seller turns the item over to a common carrier and it is the carrier's responsibility to deliver. The seller has done his job. He can and does buy insurance for the buyer, but it is the buyer's property and the buyer has to file the claim.

The last two times I had a problem with an item damaged in shipping the carrier made the person who shipped the package file the claim. One was as the shipper, the other as the buyer. In both cases they claimed the shipper is the one who deals with it as that was who started the deal. It may not be that way in corporate contracts but it has been my experience dealing with both UPS and the post office. The shipper files any claim.

I'm not trying to pick a fight; but, this is not correct:


This is partially correct in that it is the carrier's responsibility to deliver ON BEHALF of the seller. The seller has done part of his job (arguably most of his job).


No. Unless he and the buyer have agreed otherwise, he has purchased insurance for himself. If lost or damaged, seller must file the claim for the insurance he purchased.


It is not the buyer's property until the seller has delivered it. The carrier is in a bailment arrangement with the seller, not the buyer. Buyer can't file a claim. Seller must file a claim. He purchased the insurance. Arguably, the buyer can, through assistance from the seller and possession of the "insurance documentation", file the claim.

Generally speaking, absent a contract or goofy state law to the contrary, if the seller is a non-merchant (Joe Blow), risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller tenders the goods to the buyer. When the buyer has provided the funds to the seller, he has successfully upheld his end of the bargain. Not until the buyer, or his agent (FFL), receives the item as agreed, has the seller fulfilled his obligation or his part of the agreement. He has a contract with the carrier to deliver the goods. If the carrier fails to do so, the seller is liable to the buyer and the carrier is liable to the seller. Only an agreement to the contrary changes that.

A nice little caveat to the above for those of us who sell quite a bit on forums such as this is, if the tracking says it was delivered and the buyer says it was not, the seller is "off the hook".