LexInfidelis
CGN Regular
I think you bring up some good points here about reference numbers. By all indications your assertions are correct. However, the way the law is written essentially states that a reference number is required as proof of PAL verification. Again, I could be wrong in the way I’m interpreting this.As I understand it the verification number does not pertain to a specific firearm. It just means you sold (or bought) a firearm and verified the purchaser's (or seller's PAL). Plus, apparently only one verification is required per transaction so if you bought from (or sold) Joe Blow 10 guns in one transaction there is only one reference number required. The government doesn't know how many guns changed hands or which guns they were. They may be able to determine that you bought a specific gun from a specific dealer at a specific time but as long as you conducted other transactions subsequently (especially private rather than dealer sales), as far as they know that gun may be long gone to another person (or multiple persons).
Also, (and I stipulate that this is only my interpretation), if you get a reference number and then cancel the transaction (let's say the gun was in poor condition or not as advertised) you are under no obligation to notify the CFC that the transaction was not completed. So while their records indicate that you obtained a reference number that is not a guarantee that an actual transfer took place.
If a person only ever conducted one transfer (thus one reference number) and got a gun from a dealer then when the gestapo comes looking for that one gun the individual may have a problem if they can't produce it. However, if a person conducts numerous transactions (and thus obtains several reference numbers) it quickly becomes an undecipherable quagmire (giggity) for any authority trying to track ownership of a specific gun or guns.
Lastly (and I reiterate it's only my interpretation), there is no requirement to keep a a specific record of who you sold to or what you sold.
Thus, IF the above is correct it seems the best protection when the jackboots come calling is to have initiated numerous transactions (even if they weren't completed) thereby accumulating numerous reference numbers and making it virtually impossible to determine how many guns you have
or are supposed to have.
I stress again that I am not a lawyer and will happily stand to be corrected if any of the above is inaccurate.
When it comes to getting multiple reference numbers I agree that does obscure things quite a bit. However, how many people are actually doing that? I have seen a few people say they’re using the “Mike from Canmore” line if ever questioned.
My concern is what happens if an individual is unaware that a retailer gives up information about sales to the Feds. In that situation the individual will have to prove where said firearm is and if they claim they sold it, if no reference number for that sale exists that could mean trouble.