Bill Of Sale Arizona Personal Property: Fill & Download for Free

In Arizona your firearm is private property and can be sold the same as your TV. You still need to be aware of the prohibited possessor restrictions in that you would be in violation of the law to sell it to someone you know or suspect is a prohibited possessor. Some smaller gun shops may accept the firearm on consignment to sell it for you thus they would then run the normal background checks. A local gun show is a good spot, put on a sign with what the firearm is and your asking price.Personally I only transfer a firearm to someone I know or who has a CCW permit.Some dealers will do the transfer for you for a fee if you are doing a private sale’ You bring the person wanting to buy it into the store and they can run the background checks and fill out the 4473 which will be in their files then.If doing it on your own, make out a bill of sale identifying the firearm including serial #, your name and address and the buyers name and address and note the used, i.e. drivers lic # and exp date. Supply one copy to the buyer and keep one in your files for our protection in case the person does something stupid/criminal with the firearm.

Arizona and Colorado - four methods of purchase.I've done this four different ways.1. Gun store - this is the way most guns are purchased. Ignore anyone who says otherwise, most guns are purchased by law-abiding people from gun stores. 70% of my personal guns were purchased this way. The process is time-consuming but not complicated. You pick out a gun to purchase, show your ID (must be from the state you're in), fill out the background check form, wait for the NICS to clear you, pay the money, leave with your gun.2. Gun show - this is basically the same as buying from a store in most cases because the dealers at gun shows are FFL dealers, not private sellers. The only difference is I usually pay cash and don't get much of a receipt at gun shows. A hand-written bill of sale is good enough though.3. Internet (through FFL dealers) - I've done this twice. In one case, I was able to pay with a credit card, and in the other I had to mail an actual check. The firearm is shipped from the out of state dealer to my local dealer. My local dealer performs the background check and if it's clear he hands you the gun. I have paid $25 for this service in one case, and in another case I got the "free to friends" deal.4. In person (from a stranger) - I met a guy at a gun range and he had something I wanted, and he didn't really like it any more. I was able to convince him to sell it to me on the spot. There was no background check, but we were both shooting personally owned weapons at a range, so that indicates "able to pass" and doing the actual check would have been a pointless waste of money. I gave him cash, he gave me a handwritten bill of sale on a business card with his contact info, and we traded property for cash. Haggling was involved but it was a friendly transaction, he didn't want that gun any more and I did.It is important to note here, that I have no criminal record. For violent felonious criminals, the process is actually easier.As for cost, in general guns are expensive. You can research the current market rates for new guns by going to any web site of a company which sells them: Brownells, Cabela's, GunBroker, etc. Market values change according to political climate and supply and demand. Some sought-after guns are over-priced, some common guns are cheap. Not always.The gun world is like any other hobby - there is a lower limit to cost but there's no upper limit. You can spend ridiculous amounts of money on guns if you want to. Here's some typical examples from my collection though...Cheapies (under $400)Here is a young man posing with my Remington 870 - It's a cheap pump-action 20-gauge shotgun. $299 (Dick's Sporting Goods)And, here's a cheap handgun - I hated this weapon actually and gave it to my son as his first personal handgun. ($399 from G&G Guns in Colorado)And, here's a couple thousand-dollar guns...Kimber Eclipse Pro II ($1050 from Healey in Mesa, AZ)Smith and Wesson M&P 15 "Standard" ($1099 from Machine Gun Tours in Lakewood, CO and there's $1200 of mods visible in the photo, mostly the scope)

Oh, good God, how long do you have?Do you want just Supreme Court blockbusters that are well-known, or do you want subtle cases in arbitration and administrative law that are virtually unknown outside of specific legal areas but that have a massive influence on how state and federal government is run? Are circuit court opinions all right? State court? I mean, we could really be here a while depending on how broadly you want to go.Here’s just some highlights from law school. I could go on like this for days. Months. I am not being facetious here. I promise I’m not going to just dump my law school outlines. That could get really long. Just my Constitutional Law outline was 40 pages.Constitutional Law - PowersJudicial ReviewMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Establishes the concept of judicial review as part of the United States judicial powers.Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). Extends judicial review to being able to overrule state decisions if they conflict with the Federal Constitution.Enumerated PowersNecessary and Proper ClauseMcCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Defines the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution to essentially turbocharge all enumerated Federal powers. “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”The Commerce ClauseGibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). The Federal government has the plenary power under the Commerce Clause to regulate “channels of commerce,” including waterways, roads, and railroads.Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), decides that the freedom to contract is a fundamental right that the Federal government may not infringe upon by petty regulations like prohibiting bakeries from forcing bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day.Hammer v. Dagenhart, (I’m getting lazy and I’m going to stop putting in the Bluebook cites,) (1918) key case of the “Lochner Era,” where the Court viewed itself as a sort of super-legislature and overrode Congress frequently where they didn’t think Congress made good policy. The Court decided that manufacturing is not “commerce” and struck down child labor laws.Carter v. Carter Coal (1936), decides manufacturing and labor rights are local issues, strikes down labor laws as an invalid exercise of the tax and spend clause.West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), generally accepted as the end of the Lochner Era. Upheld a minimum wage requirement in Washington.Wickard v. Filburn (1942), upholds New Deal price controls on wheat, establishes the concept that economic activity can be viewed in the aggregate to see if there is a “substantial impact” on interstate commerce, which gives Congress the power to regulate activity under the Commerce Clause. The Court will not strike down another Congressional act based on the Commerce Clause for more than fifty years.Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), held that the movement of people is always considered commerce; upholds nondiscrimination laws barring segregation.Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), holds that refusing to serve black people at a restaurant has a substantial effect on interstate commerce because it’s connected to interstate commerce through interstate interactions - suppliers bring in things from out of state. Viewed in the aggregate, this has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and so Congress can regulate it.Lopez v. United States (1994), strikes down federal gun-free school zones because Congress did not sufficiently research or articulate how guns in schools are related to commerce. First time the Court strikes down a law passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause since before Filburn.United States v. Morrison (2000), after Lopez, Congress does a LOT of fact-finding when making laws pursuant to the commerce clause. Makes a ton of factual findings when passing the Violence Against Women Act about how violence against women impacts commerce in the aggregate; women who aren’t safe don’t buy things, have jobs, and so forth. The Court looks at it and goes, “ehhhhhhhh… ok, new rule - if it’s not inherently economic activity, then you can’t aggregate it.” They decide that individual violence against women isn’t economic activity, so it can’t be aggregated, and therefore, can’t be regulated under the Commerce Clause.Gonzales v. Raich (2005), decides that things that could end up in the marketplace (any commodity and the manufacture or growing of such commodity) is economic activity, can be regulated, and upholds the use of the Controlled Substances Act to slap a California grandmother growing small amounts of marijuana in her basement for personal use with a Federal crime.Sibelius v. NFIB (2012) Part I: The Attack of the Roberts Court, holds that non-participation in the market is not commerce and can’t be regulated; people cannot be forced into the marketplace.The Tax and Spend ClauseSouth Dakota v. Dole (1987) held that it’s perfectly fine to spend federal funds to dictate policy to the States, so long as it’s an unambiguous national interest (here, preventing drunk driving accidents on the federal interstate highway system,) and it’s not coercive (can’t compel the state to adopt the policy). Withholding federal highway funds from any state that didn’t raise the drinking age to 21 was not coercive enough.Sibelius v. NFIB, Part II: The Revenge of the Tax and Spend Clause; Roberts decides that the mandatory ACA Medicare expansion was coercive because it would have taken away all Medicare funding from any non-complying state, but also holds that the individual mandate was OK under the tax and spend clause, because the penalty for not having health insurance was a tax, collected by the IRS, and spent on paying off the assholes who show up at the ER without insurance and no money that the rest of us pay for through our premiums.Treaty PowersMissouri v. Holland (1920). Height of the Lochner Era, mass extinction-level hunting of migratory birds going on. The Court keeps striking down all sorts of Federal regulations on migratory birds under the Commerce Clause; birds and hunting are not commerce according to the Court. But, Woodrow Wilson got Canada to sign on to a treaty regarding migratory birds in 1916. The Court finds that valid, and regulations passed pursuant to that treaty are valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause.Executive AuthorityYoungstown Sheet and Tube (1952); Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills and nationalize the steel industry failed because Congress told him no, you can’t do that. Special concurrence by Justice Jackson establishes various “zones” of presidential powers.Constitutional Law - LibertiesFundamental Rights - Substantive Due ProcessBarron v. Baltimore (1833), decides that the Federal Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states unless it explicitly says so. States and municipalities can seize property without compensation to their hearts’ delights.Lochner v. New York (1905) - decides that there is a fundamental right to contract, and that the more important a right is that is infringed upon, the more the Court should insist upon a close fit between the means of governmental intrusion and the ends.Palko v. Connecticut (1937) establishes that to find a fundamental right, it must be “deeply rooted in the traditional conscience,” and “essential to our notions of ordered liberty.” Fundamental if no potential system of justice would be complete without it.United States v. Carolene Products (1938), “magic footnote four” establishes the idea that infringement upon certain rights should be granted a higher level of scrutiny, significantly clarifies the notion laid out in Lochner.Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) refines Palko, must be necessary specifically to American scheme of justice. Starts the road of “incorporation,” which applies the Constitution to the States through the 14th Amendment. Starts with “strong selective” incorporation, generally assuming that the Bill of Rights applies, but still only on a case-by-case basis.Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), fundamental right to parent your children as you see fit, no legitimate end in prohibiting teaching of German language.Buck v. Bell (1927), Oliver Wendell Holmes decides that forced sterilization of mentally ill patients is just fine because, and I quote, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” This has never been overruled.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson (1942), strikes down forced sterilization of prison inmates and establishes the concept of bodily autonomy and integrity for the first time in U.S. jurisprudence. Recognizes that there may be fundamental rights to marriage and procreation.Rochin v. California (1952), strikes down conviction for drugs after police forcibly pumped the man’s stomach to retrieve them; upholds idea of bodily integrity.Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), finds a fundamental right to personal medical privacy under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights; strikes down Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception or aiding someone in obtaining it. Establishes the idea that government does not belong in the bedroom, sets the stage for a huge abortion fight that will last at least the next 55 years.Loving v. Virginia (1967); holds that marriage is a fundamental right and strikes down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide.Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), finds that the right to choose whether to procreate or not is fundamental, covering married people using contraception only in this case. Applies strict scrutiny; while preventing adultery is a legitimate governmental interest, it is not served here. If the right to sexual privacy is to mean anything, the Court reasons, it must be an individual one.Roe v. Wade (1973). Probably the biggest landmark decision affecting U.S. politics as a matter of fundamental rights ever. The Court applied the lines of cases stretching back to the beginning of fundamental rights, bodily integrity, sexual and medical privacy, and found that the right to an abortion falls under these rights. The Court holds that a fetus is not a person by definition of the Constitution.Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) found that there was no specific right to engage in sodomy in the Constitution.Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ditches the rigid trimester framework that Roe came up with in favor of the “undue burden standard” and drawing the line when government can fully regulate or ban abortion at viability (then generally accepted at 24 weeks.)Also established a framework for when to overrule precedence, requiring balancing four factors: 1) how unworkable the previous standard has become, 2) the amount of reliance on the previous decision there has been, 3) whether the previous decision has been undermined or evolved, and 4) factual developments since the previous decision. This has a great deal of impact on our politics by providing lawmakers the criteria needed to undermine prior decisions and develop a factual basis to overrule prior cases.Lawrence v. Texas (2003), while there is no specific right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution, consensual sex in the privacy of one’s own home is a fundamental right and discrimination against homosexuals is not a legitimate state interest.Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); extended fundamental right to marry found in Loving to same-sex marriages.Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt (2016); struck down admitting privileges and other various TRAP laws as violating the undue burden standard laid out in Casey; reaffirmed Casey and Roe’s essential holdings.Equal ProtectionFrontiero v. Richardson (1973). Laid out the criteria for finding suspect classifications under the Equal Protection Clause. Suspect classifications get strict scrutiny. These are politically protected classes of people.Korematsu v. United States (1944). One of the most infamous decisions of the 20th century; established national security as a compelling state interest, allows facially racial discrimination. (Overruled since.)Brown v. Board of Education (1954), struck down racially segregated schools as a matter of equal protection. Overruled Plessy v Ferguson (1896) that upheld Jim Crow laws as “separate but equal”.Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016), upheld affirmative action programs on a narrow basis, so long as race is only one factor among others and there is no other race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity.Also, states themselves can prohibit affirmative action programs after Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014). This is affecting US politics on a state level as legislatures are pushing to ban affirmative action programs.Voting RightsBaker v. Carr (1962). Allowed the Court to intervene in redistricting at all; it had generally been viewed as a political question outside of judicial review prior to this.This case literally broke two justices. Justice Frankfurter had a stroke because of it and was forced to retire, and led to a psychological breakdown of Justice Whittaker, who never recovered and retired from the Court without a decision on Carr.Reynolds v. Sims (1964), established the “one person, one vote” principle.Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969), the right to vote is a fundamental right and requires strict scrutiny review. This is still impacting politics today as various politicians try to find ways around it, notably felon disenfranchisement.Nixon and his cabinet were furious about this decision and it was a piece of the reason for the War on Drugs; if they couldn’t simply undo the voting rights act and couldn’t restore Jim Crow, they’d basically have to find a way to criminalize being black. The War on Drugs specifically targeted drugs favored by the black community with greater enforcement. This is still a problem today.Bush v. Gore (2000), held that the right to a uniform process outweighed the individual’s right to have their vote counted because the electoral college operated on a deadline. This decision gave the election to George W. Bush.Evenwel v. Abbot (2015), after a naked attempt by Texas to reduce the influence of districts with a high population of non-citizen immigrants, the Court decided that districts should be drawn based on total population, not just eligible voters. The Court noted that this was explicitly debated and considered in the drafting of the Constitution and the people who wrote it explicitly went with total population.This is currently impacting the 2020 Census as the Trump Administration has been actively trying to get a citizenship question on the census for the first time in 70+ years for the purpose of trying to get undocumented immigrants not to answer the census, thus undercounting the number of people in those areas and decreasing representation for those districts.Free SpeechNew York Times v. United States (1971), ruling that even where the government has a compelling interest to restrict speech as a prior restraint (prevent someone from speaking,) it can’t be a pretense and the Court will really look at whether that compelling interest is real or not.Buckley v. Valeo (1976), held that money is the same as speech and struck down spending limits by campaigns. Upheld individual contribution limits.Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980). Held that commercial speech (advertising) is able to be regulated by law with a lesser degree of scrutiny.Texas v. Johnson (1989), burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment, and conservatives have been fucking pissed about this ruling ever since, including proposing actual constitutional amendments to overrule the Court.Citizens United v. FEC (2009). Struck down corporate contribution limits to campaigns, allows disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but severely weakened the FEC’s ability to regulate electioneering. Allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), struck down aggregate limits on contributions as impermissible abridgement of First Amendment rights. People can now donate up to the individual limits to every candidate they want, and if you’re the Koch Brothers, you can now use corporations to get around individual limits.This also severely restricted the definition of quid-pro-quo corruption to require basically an explicit bribe-for-performance.Free PressBranzburg v. Hayes (1972), can try to protect your sources all you want, but if a grand jury calls you up, reporters get no special exemption. If they ask you and you refuse, that’s contempt.Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989); you can publish information gathered illegally by others so long as you didn’t gather it illegally yourself. And you can publish public records all you’d like.So, if someone wants to send a copy of the Mueller Report on over to the Times…Freedom of Religion and Establishment ClauseReynolds v. United States (1878), the government has no right to compel you to believe anything or punish your religious beliefs. Congress cannot do anything about your “mere opinion.”Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), a prayer before sporting events, even if the students are the ones who brought it up and led it, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion.Again, conservatives have been losing their shit about this every since, and it’s become something of a hidden litmus test for Supreme Court nominees for conservatives ever since, even though the case was decided with a conservative-dominated Court.Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), held that closely held corporations (such as a family-owned business,) have religious free exercise rights.This has been a political hot button lately with the ACA.ArbitrationYou have no idea how much these cases affect everything you do, including your politics.Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984). The Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts damned near everything. State laws trying to get around it are null and void.Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1987), even if you have a statutory claim that would let you bring a case in open court, if you signed an arbitration agreement, say, in the process of buying car, you get stuck in arbitration.Buckeye Check Cashing (2006). Even if the entire contract is illegal, the arbitrator gets to decide whether or not it’s valid.Hall Street v. Mattel (2008). The only grounds to get an arbitration award vacated is in the FAA, and it more or less requires “manifest disregard” of the law. The arbitrator can make “silly, even improvident” findings of fact or conclusions of law, but as long as the arbitrator doesn’t say, “Well, I know that law says that, but I’m ignoring it!” you are stuck with whatever the arbitrator decides.AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2014); even if a company is cheating millions of people out of small amounts of money such that they make billions of dollars and nobody would bother going to arbitration individually over $30 when if they lose, they could be forced to pay for the entire arbitration, class action waivers in “adhesion contracts,” (think, clicking “I agree” on your phone to literally anything,) class action waivers are enforceable.Administrative LawChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if it’s at all ambiguous and so long as it’s not arbitrary and capricious.The conservative-dominated Supreme Court developed this deference during the Reagan Administration. During the Obama Administration, when the President starting using agency action because Congress preferred to sit on its hands and do jack shit nothing just to spite him, suddenly the still-conservative-dominated Supreme Court had a change of heart, as will be discussed momentarily.Ironically, folks irritated with the sudden lack of deference to the executive should be hoping for the Court to continue that lack of deference right now.Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971). Agencies can change course or undertake rulemaking actions, so long as they aren’t arbitrary and capricious.The Trump administration can’t seem to either hire a lawyer that understands this or just plain won’t listen to them, which is why a metric shit ton of their attempts to create or undo various administrative agency rules keep getting rejected by the courts.Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co. (1945). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if there’s a dispute over it.Auer v. Robbins (1987). Courts should really, really defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules if there’s a dispute over it.Kisor v. Wilkie (2019). Not yet decided, but conservatives who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Obama and liberals who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Trump are suddenly really hoping that the Supreme Court will ditch Seminole Rock and Auer and stop letting agencies have their way.Criminal Law and ProcedureMapp v. Ohio (1961) established the exclusionary rule; if police violate your constitutional rights, the evidence they gain from that can be excluded.This impacts our politics still today, because in the push to be “tough on crime” and for “law and order,” especially in a post-9/11 world, police are more and more frequently using tools that massively invade on personal privacy. Add to it that we now basically carry much of our essential information, our “papers” if you will, on a little slab in our pockets.Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This was an enormous shift in how police had to treat suspects, and it still affects our politics today.TortsYou think civil suits can’t affect public policy? Think again! Products liability has had a huge impact on our politics over the years.MacPherson v. Buick (1916). A wheel fell off a guy’s car, and for the first time, the court allowed the victim to sue the manufacturer and not just the retailer, for a manufacturing defect rather than just faulty installation.Leichtamer v. AMC (Ohio 1982). While the manufacturers aren’t on the hook to design totally crash-proof cars, unreasonably dangerous product designs or defective designs can still make them liable even where the victims were idiots.Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (Ohio 1982). Safety features shouldn’t be optional add-ons. *Ahem, cough, Boeing, cough, cough.*New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). This case raises the bar for recovery for public figures; they have to show that a false statement was published with “actual malice.” This is the reason that Trump doesn’t actually sue anyone for defamation.Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994). This is the infamous “hot coffee” case. Stella Liebeck was a) not driving, b) in a car that had pulled into a parking stall, c) did not suffer little tiny burns from some spilled coffee, but third degree burns over pretty much her entire downstairs region, d) after McDonald’s had been repeatedly cited for storing their coffee as much as 30 degrees above the maximum safe limit and settled literally hundreds of cases where people had suffered serious burns from this practice, and e) Liebeck was only trying to get McDonald’s to cover her medical bills after they offered her $800 to just go away.It was the jury that imposed a 2.5 million fine on the company as punitive damages for actions that “shocked the conscience.” That number is equivalent to two days’ worth of coffee sales to the corporation.Business lobbies have been trying to make this into a frivolous case ever since by reducing it to “woman burned with hot coffee, duh.” This case has been the front case for 25 years by these pro-business lobbies to enact tort reform to try to block suits like this, even though it was completely legitimate.It is still repeatedly brought up by politicians trying to make cases sound frivolous by comparing a case to Liebeck’s.I could go on like this forever. We haven’t even touched on contract law, civil procedure, or secured transactions. These are just highlights. There are literally thousands of cases, big and small, that continue to have large impacts on our national and local level politics.You read all the way this far, and deserve a reward. Here’s a kitten.Thanks for the A2A.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.