1639 and warranty work, question

[American123]

Hopefully it gets struck down for the unconstitutional BS that it is, but a question I had is:

If you own firearms, bought them before 1639 went into effect, if they need to be sent back for warranty work, when they return them, have to be transferred through an FFL. Would that mean that to receive your firearm back you would need to present proof of completing their "safety course" within the past 5 years?

I already had an argument with an FFL recently who wanted to charge me another transfer fee for a firearm I had already paid a transfer fee on but had returned for warranty work, so I was curious how this would play out with 1639 and that safety class.

I read the entirety of 1639 before it passed, but didn't recall seeing anything about this.

Read More

 

[slimmer13]

I dont think they need to be transferred through an FFL upon return from a smith.

RCW 9.41.113 under exemptions

(f) A federally licensed gunsmith who receives a firearm solely for the purposes of service or repair, or the return of the firearm to its owner by the federally licensed gunsmith;

RCW 9.41.113: Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions. (<i>Effective until July 1, 2019.</i>)

 

[User 1234]

slimmer13 nailed it. And federal law also allows an FFL to return the repaired gun back to the owner who sent it to the licensed gunsmith.

 

[PNWPrepper]

It also depends on who is doing the warranty work. I am currently waiting on my PSAK gen 2 from palmetto state and they refuse to send it to me directly and will only ship to an FFL. My feed ramp broke and it's taken over 2 months for them to fix it.

 

[American123]

It also depends on who is doing the warranty work. I am currently waiting on my PSAK gen 2 from palmetto state and they refuse to send it to me directly and will only ship to an FFL. My feed ramp broke and it's taken over 2 months for them to fix it.

That's exactly what I am talking about. If you have to ship it out of state for warranty work. I'm not aware of federal law allowing them to just mail it back to your home address. That's the hiccup. You could have not bought anything in years, but return something on warranty for repair and get hung out to dry trying to get it back.

 

[slimmer13]

That's exactly what I am talking about. If you have to ship it out of state for warranty work. I'm not aware of federal law allowing them to just mail it back to your home address. That's the hiccup. You could have not bought anything in years, but return something on warranty for repair and get hung out to dry trying to get it back.

That may be the gunsmiths policy, but it is not law, federal or Wa St.

Must a licensed gunsmith conduct a NICS background check on the return of repaired or customized firearms? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[ActionHero1980]

I have in recent history sent two pistols back to the manufacturer for repair. The where both shipped back to my home.

 

[American123]

I have in recent history sent two pistols back to the manufacturer for repair. The where both shipped back to my home.

Ok, that is great info

 

[American123]

That may be the gunsmiths policy, but it is not law, federal or Wa St.

Must a licensed gunsmith conduct a NICS background check on the return of repaired or customized firearms? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Thanks for the share! Great info to be aware of.

 

[slimmer13]

Thanks for the share! Great info to be aware of.

But in your original scenario, assuming the gunsmith did require the gun to be shipped to an FFL for a BGC, I would think yes, you would need to fully comply with all new restrictions imposed by 1639.

 

[American123]

But in your original scenario, assuming the gunsmith did require the gun to be shipped to an FFL for a BGC, I would think yes, you would need to fully comply with all new restrictions imposed by 1639.

Yes, I suppose that would be a point to bring up with he management and point to the federal law aspect of it, because otherwise, you could be prevented from getting your property back that you already owned.

I hope that initiative gets shredded in court.

 

[User 1234]

After 1639 becomes effective it would be important to ask the gunsmith or manufacturer whether they plan to replace the receiver (or serialized part, eg Sig 320 trigger module) because if they send you a replacement gun that has to go through an FFL in your state. Returning the same gun doesn't presently require an FFL.

 

[Alexx1401]

After 1639 becomes effective it would be important to ask the gunsmith or manufacturer whether they plan to replace the receiver (or serialized part, eg Sig 320 trigger module) because if they send you a replacement gun that has to go through an FFL in your state. Returning the same gun doesn't presently require an FFL.

I have in the past seen a manufacturer replace a receiver by just putting the old # on the new and then sending it back to the owner directly. So unless the Feds have changed this? I have not heard they have.

 

[Mr Smith]

you don't need a BGC on a gun you already own and sent in for repair.

I just got my over/under shotgun back from CZ a couple weeks ago and it came straight to the house since I already owned the gun. They just require adult (21+) signature to release the item to you. They won't just leave it at the door for a porch pirate to take.