gunderwood wrote:zephyp wrote:@Garrett, yes any document can be forged but in the scenario I described it was far better for me to have something in hand (even if it could be proven rightfully or wrongfully that is was forged) than nothing at all...
That is your perception of it, but the challenge is to show me where the law agrees with your assertion. If someone can show me in the case law where a BOS provided genuine legal protection against the future criminal misuse of a firearm, then I'll back off. Until then, the legal protection from a BOS is a myth and if you really think you need that for any sale, go through an FFL.
If you want criminal protection, go through an FFL. If you want some civil protection, a proper BOS is a good route, but those being passed around the Internet are often lacking. Trusting a non-witnessed/non-notarized BOS for criminal protection and suggesting to others that it provides such, without any supporting case law, can be a real harm to them. Until someone can show me that, I can't in good conscience recommend a BOS for anything other then basic civil protection.
It can't be said more strongly, if you want criminal protection, use the FFL.
Gunderwood, I've just reread your last post on the thread, and I have a more specific observation about what you'd said about the myth of legal protection.
The first thing that is really important to remember is about the law of evidence. That's what the piece of paper is designed for, after all - if one never anticipated a future need for evidence in a legal dispute, there would be no need for written contracts, wills, deeds, etc. Generating the piece of paper is specifically for the purpose of making sure things will go your way when the poop hits the fan, to use the technical, legal phrase.
Secondly, "real" or "direct" evidence in Virginia does not consist of documents, pictures, or objects. It's the testimony of a live witness, given under oath, as to facts within his personal observation and knowledge. The documents, pictures and whatnot only support the evidence and are "indirect". They have to be identified and authenticated by a live person who knows, firsthand, what they are. Only then can they be admitted into evidence (with a few statutory exceptions - ATM pictures don't need someone to say, "I saw the person being photographed and the photograph truly and fairly reflects what I saw.", while taped phone conversations are not admissible, period, unless the recording itself contains certain information).
So, with a bill of sale form, presumably someone will show up and say, "Yup, I signed that form, Joe Blow, the seller/purchaser was there at the time, and I saw him sign it, too. We both identified ourselves to each other, and I had no idea he was actually someone else who'd recently escaped from Talledega Federal Penitentiary where he'd been imprisoned for bank robbery and murder."
The point is that the piece of paper establishes a specific date on which the seller cut off his liability, both civil and criminal, for what may happen with the gun thereafter (e.g., to take care of the question, "We, the police, have information from BATFE that you purchased the gun that was used in the murder. What did you do with that gun?"); and the purchaser is cut off from liability for what happened prior to that date (e.g., the gun had already been used in a murder, had been stolen, etc.).
By the way, as to stolen guns - in Virginia, a bona-fide purchaser who gives value for stolen property is the true owner of the property. The rights of the "real" owner were cut off by the theft. He has recourse against the thief, but not against the third-party BFP. The state can take the stolen gun as evidence, pursuant to a subpoena, but cannot simply seize the gun, and has to give it back.
I think it's a good idea to use the piece of paper. I do not think people should go overboard in requiring documentation such as photocopies of operator's permits (it may be a crime to make such copies, btw). They ought to look at some kind of state-issued photo id and verify the address, but should not write down any personal information. They need to be able to testify that they identified the person to their own satisfaction, and had no reason to believe he was anyone other than who he said he was.
A critical factor in criminal cases is intent. The form takes care of that by showing that the innocent party had no reason to know at the time of the transaction that there was anything wrong.
So you're clearly not wrong in suggesting the use of an FFL; but in my opinion, that will not do everything the form will do, but the form (in conjunction with live testimony) will do what the parties need to have done.