Firearm history ethics/legal question

[KBCraig]

I selected "A", although I disagree with the wording. Instead of, "No history of use should be given", I would say, "The seller is not obligated to reveal any history unless asked."

I'm unaware of any legal requirement to disclose the history of a firearm. I do not know what the requirements are to get a FFL, but wouldn't this have been discussed when you were getting yours?

There's no discussion, no class, and no test to get an FFL. They send your license and a thick stack of books covering the laws and rules, and warn you that it's your responsibility to learn them.

Kevin

[Venus Pax]

I had to vote no on all. Is the gun somehow "tainted" if someone was shot with it? Is it haunted? Will evil spooks come out and get me if I take it to the range?

[apowell]

Yes, you have guessed it. The gun is very haunted. When you take it to the range and shoot it, you will receive a phone call and it will say, "7 days" and hang up. The gun also knows what you did last summer and can attack you in your dreams. It also wears a hockey mask and is a short red headed little doll. You may pick the gun up at Camp Crystal Lake or Camp Blood for short. :-)

(Adon's wife-sorry, I had to respond to that excellent post).

[srothstein]

I have to agree with Kevin that the wording of A should be changed to not required.

There are people who want to know the history of the gun. Without commenting on mental issues, there are people who collect firearms that have been used in suicides or shootings. I found this out with a friend who had used his in the line of duty and kept it with the ammo that was in it and a copy of the police report on the shooting. He was offered quite a bit more than the normal retail for the revolver by a collector. Then there are the cases where everyone would agree that the history would increase the value, such as famous cases.

As far as I know, the only thing you are required to notify the person would be any known defects or dangers in the weapon. It could be considered fraud if you sold someone a pistol that had been used for over pressure testing and did not disclose this to them since it might weaken the chambers. Other than that, it you know it, judge the situation and either keep it quiet or tell it. Any two customers might react in different ways.

[Thane]

"Buy the gun, not the story."

[HankB]

Unless a gun has a well-documented and verifiable history, it's prior use is irrelevant - it's an inanimate object.

There are some people who would, for example, pay big $$ for Wyatt Earp's buntline, Doc Holliday's shotgun, Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle or Jack Ruby's revolver, or guns linked to any of a number of famous heros or desperados . . . the key word being famous. (or in some cases, infamous.)

But if some obscure John Q. Public committed murder, suicide, or whatever, the gun's history matters not at all.