If someone knowingly sells an object without doing due diligence as to it's value, and the object later sells for $1.2, that's not theft.

This is a recent incident:

https://www.boston25news.com/n...by-mistake/932527925

Which is why I suggested it is theft by some state statutes.

Contract-wise: Did the seller have the chance to inspect the purse before putting it on the market?

If so, this is a bilateral mistake of fact (both parties did not know that there was an additional item in the purse), but the seller assumed the risk because the seller had the chance to fully inspect the purse before putting it on the market.

The buyer can rescind because the buyer did make the same mistake, but the buyer did not assume the risk. The seller cannot demand rescission because the seller assumed the risk by not fully inspecting his wares before putting them on the market.

In other words, the OP is not under any obligation to return or offer a return of the pistol so long as no other laws are broken (as it appears that NM allows private party transfers).

Relevant Statute:

quote:

30-16-1. Larceny.

lA. Larceny consists of the stealing of anything of value that belongs to another.

H. Whoever commits larceny when the property of value stolen is a firearm is guilty of a fourth degree felony when its value is less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500).

I'm trying to find whether there's an intent element to "stealing" as per NM law, but I haven't found a definition for "stealing" yet.

The OP did not even know the gun was in the purse, so I doubt 30-16-1 would apply.

^^^Thank you

Keep it.
Fix it.
Shoot it.
Consider it a .25 caliber victory!

So, where's the picture of the purse?

quote:

I think there was a legitimate ethical question here.

not a chance.

quote:

This is a recent incident:

that example has nothing to do with this case. nothing. In every state absent some contributing factor (sale of stolen goods comes to mind) there is nothing possibly negative to see here. Good luck to the buyer. hope they restore a neat find.

Cool information on the Franzites. I bought a used pair years back for my Woodsman Match Target which did not fit it well. They were white poly of some type with a target thumb rest.

I think I have a new in wraps barrel for one of those guys someplace. Should You need one. Cool old pocket pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
Strictly speaking, under PA law...

I reread the original post. Could’ve sworn he was from New Mexico.

quote:

Originally posted by GaryBF:

quote:

No such commie laws in NM that I'm aware of...for NOW.

Are there no ethics in NM?

And there it is. \/ \/ \/

quote:

Originally posted by flesheatingvirus:
That took longer than I expected. Here we go...

Back to the actual thread: Greymann, I'm just curious what your SIL decided to do with it; it seems like she may have given it to you, though that isn't 100% clear (unless I missed it). No judgement either way. It looks like a neat little pistol.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
Wow, the stories that little gun could tell...

I still kick myself for one of those that I passed on in 1976. I was living here in Michigan and was visiting my parents in the west side of New Mexico. While there I met their neighbor who had been in the area since the middle 1910's, a pretty interesting history of his own. From what he said at one time in the town he was a deputy marshal and investigated a duel in 1928 that involved one of the participants getting shot and wounded. Well he confiscated the gun, a Colt revolver in 32-20, not even sure of the model but with Ivory grips and nickel plated, that I remember. As he had no children except for a step daughter who he did not want to have it, he offered me the gun for a hundred dollars. Well, with Michigan and Federal laws and me at the time not knowing anyone with an FFL or how to go about getting it legally back with me I passed on it.

I should have bought it and left it with my mother and step-dad. Three years later I moved and lived out there for nine years. By that time he had passed. I always wondered where it ended up.

Just before digital cameras became economical with decent resolution, (late 90’s)- I went to a yard sale in a very upscale neighborhood.

At a doc’s house, the wife was evidently doing a house cleanup. Sitting on one of the tables was a tattered vintage Polaroid land camera box with $40.00 on it. People were milling around but ignored the box. I picked it up and opened it- it had a gleaming clean Nikon FA camera frame with OEM two lenses, a 55mm and a variable zoom lens.

I figured there was a mistake and opened the box and asked the wife “are you sure you want to sell this?” and held it out to the wife. She looked in the box and said “YES”. I asked if it worked and she said she thought so. I asked again if she was sure she wanted to sell the camera.
She gave me an annoyed look and told me it was a yard sale. So I shrugged, paid the $40.00 and left. The camera worked beautifully.

About a week later I heard through the grapevine that the husband was not pleased his backup camera was sold to some guy for $40 bucks.

quote:

Originally posted by PD:

quote:

Originally posted by hjs157:
Strictly speaking, under PA law...

I reread the original post. Could’ve sworn he was from New Mexico.

The OP is from New Mexico. Since some members were approaching this from a legal possession standpoint, I was illustrating the variation in firearms laws from state to state.

One of the officers at work has one of these in nice condition.
I’ve been trying to get him to sell it for years.

I forgot the boy scouts who turn themselves in for jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, and tearing the tags off mattresses never sleep.

My Grandfather bought a couch at an estate sale when he was in college when he got home and was cleaning it up found a beautiful Parker Brothers shotgun.
Still has it to this day though the couch is long gone.

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:
I think there was a legitimate ethical question here. At least ask the seller if they want it back might be appropriate. Chances are they wouldn't because the weapon was all but forgotten but it may have value to the rightful owner. In some states it may be considered theft.

What if it had there been a diamond wedding ring, or a large amount of cash?

Well, what happens is the seller is a fucking moron.

Nothing ethical about it. Seller did what they perceived as reasonable inspection and sale of the item. Buyer did the same. Both were happy with the sale.

End of story - just because a seller is negligent in their end of the deal isn't a buyers problem.

If there is anything with pockets I sell, I search EVERY pocket before selling it. Therefor if I sell something with an item in it, then I screwed up and would expect to be at a loss. It would be on me that I did not inspect the item before selling it.

The only way I see an issue here is if there was a state law not allowing the private sale of a firearm without going through an FFL.

Neat gun. Nice score.
Maybe the seller intentionally put it in the purse to "get rid of the evidence".