Confused about online vendors

[Alexx1401]

California has a gun roster. If the gun you want isn't on the roster then you're SOL. For example you could buy Gen 3 Glocks but not Gen 4 unless you had LE creds. I went through this when I was stationed down in cali. I bought a Gen 4 Glock with Creds but they wouldn't release the 17 round mags to me personally. They had to be shipped to the agency at which point I could take possession. This is of course just one example.

So Gen 3 Glocks will not take a G-18 mag? Now that is news to me. I had no Idea Glock was doing that.

 

[Member 53328]

So Gen 3 Glocks will not take a G-18 mag? Now that is news to me. I had no Idea Glock was doing that.

No it will take any of the mags from any Gen…. But as a civilian you couldn't buy a Gen 4. And the Gen 3s came with 10 round mags. It makes no sense but it's California…. Luckily I had creds and could carry concealed and "high cap" mags.

 

[Koda]

Well that tells me a LOT about you there.

I have a lot of respect for the WA gun law guy, but Ive had my own questions after watching his vids. That doesnt mean I disagree with his bias or position or expertise. He is pro gun biased, but keep in mind that for every pro gun lawyer there is an antigun lawyer, a pro gun bias doesnt mean hes correct. Both have verifiable legal expertise so then the question remains is what the actual law means and that usually requires an actual case ruling to determine at the least a precidence on interpreting said law.

 

[Member 53328]

I have a lot of respect for the WA gun law guy, but Ive had my own questions after watching his vids. That doesnt mean I disagree with his bias or position or expertise. He is pro gun biased, but keep in mind that for every pro gun lawyer there is an antigun lawyer, a pro gun bias doesnt mean hes correct. Both have verifiable legal expertise so then the question remains is what the actual law means and that usually requires an actual case ruling to determine at the least a precidence on interpreting said law.

That's the joy of objective vs subjective views….

And the guy with the gavel gets to decide which he prefers.

 

[Alexx1401]

No it will take any of the mags from any Gen…. But as a civilian you couldn't buy a Gen 4. And the Gen 3s came with 10 round mags. It makes no sense but it's California…. Luckily I had creds and could carry concealed and "high cap" mags.

OK, so as I said, how is it WA FFL's are going to magically be charged for selling these guns here? Some seem to have it in their head that when joe blow goes in and buys a gun that will work with a 30 round mag, and the gun comes with no mag or a 10 round mag the FFL is going to be one one in trouble when joe puts a 30 round mag in it? If this is how it works why have there not been FFL's in CA charged for selling these guns? How long has CA, HI, IL, and other states had this mag restriction? How many FFLs are in trouble in these states so far? Why is it some think WA is somehow different?

 

[Member 53328]

OK, so as I said, how is it WA FFL's are going to magically be charged for selling these guns here? Some seem to have it in their head that when joe blow goes in and buys a gun that will work with a 30 round mag, and the gun comes with no mag or a 10 round mag the FFL is going to be one one in trouble when joe puts a 30 round mag in it? If this is how it works why have there not been FFL's in CA charged for selling these guns? How long has CA, HI, IL, and other states had this mag restriction? How many FFLs are in trouble in these states so far? Why is it some think WA is somehow different?

Because the guns aren't sold separate from the mags. They come with 10 rounders. Not 30 round mags that the vendor then keeps. When it's sold as a "legal" package it is different then being brought in and separated to be made "legal."

Again I am no lawyer this is just my experience when I lived in cali. Same goes for bullet buttons (which can be easily removed), 10 round mags, accessories, etc. there is no rhyme or reason. But in a day and age when gun manufacturers/vendors can be sued due to the actions of a single individual (aka waste of O2) can you really blame them for being hesitant to sell in certain states?

The same thing is going to happen in Oregon if IP 17/18 passes. I can promise you certain companies will just pull their products from the state as it less of a hassle/liability and they can just sell elsewhere.

 

[Alexx1401]

I have a lot of respect for the WA gun law guy, but Ive had my own questions after watching his vids. That doesnt mean I disagree with his bias or position or expertise. He is pro gun biased, but keep in mind that for every pro gun lawyer there is an antigun lawyer, a pro gun bias doesnt mean hes correct. Both have verifiable legal expertise so then the question remains is what the actual law means and that usually requires an actual case ruling to determine at the least a precidence on interpreting said law.

Believe me I am NOT recommending anyone take anything he says as gospel. I just have to laugh out loud at someone who no one knows, claiming he is a legal expert and the known lawyer is an idiot. That told me I was wasting my time on a troll. I really like the video's WA guy is putting out and that he seems to be pro gun and wants people to see what the damn law makers are doing to them. We could use a few more lawyers like that around

 

[Alexx1401]

Because the guns aren't sold separate from the mags. They come with 10 rounders. Not 30 round mags that the vendor then keeps. When it's sold as a "legal" package it is different then being brought in and separated to be made "legal."

Again I am no lawyer this is just my experience when I lived in cali. Same goes for bullet buttons (which can be easily removed), 10 round mags, accessories, etc. there is no rhyme or reason. But in a day and age when gun manufacturers/vendors can be sued due to the actions of a single individual (aka waste of O2) can you really blame them for being hesitant to sell in certain states?

The same thing is going to happen in Oregon if IP 17/18 passes. I can promise you certain companies will just pull their products from the state as it less of a hassle/liability and they can just sell elsewhere.

Well we shall see soon enough I guess. Are any WA FFL's no longer selling guns that will take a mag over 10? I have not yet heard that any of them stopped selling things like Glock or AR's? If they all do? Well maybe more gun owners will pay attention every couple years at who they are putting into office here.

 

[RX-79G]

Well we shall see soon enough I guess. Are any WA FFL's no longer selling guns that will take a mag over 10? I have not yet heard that any of them stopped selling things like Glock or AR's? If they all do? Well maybe more gun owners will pay attention every couple years at who they are putting into office here.

Where do you get this stuff from? Of course they are still selling guns that accept mags larger than 10.

Calling me a troll is pretty standard blather, but you keep asking the same questions over and over and not accepting the answers, and you seem to not have much of an idea about a lot of stuff that you have opinions about.

Why ask questions of people here if you have already made up your mind about everything?

 

[Member 53328]

Well we shall see soon enough I guess. Are any WA FFL's no longer selling guns that will take a mag over 10? I have not yet heard that any of them stopped selling things like Glock or AR's? If they all do? Well maybe more gun owners will pay attention every couple years at who they are putting into office here.

Agreed. And I have no idea….. I'm an oregon resident so I don't purchase firearms in Washington. But I will do what I have to do if Oregon follows in Ca/Wa footsteps.

 

[Alexx1401]

Agreed. And I have no idea….. I'm an oregon resident so I don't purchase firearms in Washington. But I will do what I have to do if Oregon follows in Ca/Wa footsteps.

Sadly you guys seem to be in a constant race with us for who can get to the sewer faster.
Again sadly any and all pain felt by gun owners and people who just plain want to be free is all on them. WAY too many either vote for what is being done, or just will not bother. So they get just what they deserve. Sadly those of us who fight also have to live with the results.

 

[Member 53328]

Sadly you guys seem to be in a constant race with us for who can get to the sewer faster.
Again sadly any and all pain felt by gun owners and people who just plain want to be free is all on them. WAY too many either vote for what is being done, or just will not bother. So they get just what they deserve. Sadly those of us who fight also have to live with the results.

Yea. But we don't have to fold. It's a personal choice what we do after unconstitutional laws get passed. I have secondary and tertiary plans in place if things get passed in my home state.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The WA gun law guy appears to be something of an idiot.

Not sure I would go that far, but watching his videos on the Form 1 / Diversified Machine issues definitely gave me a poor impression of him

 

[Alexx1401]

Yea. But we don't have to fold. It's a personal choice what we do after unconstitutional laws get passed. I have secondary and tertiary plans in place if things get passed in my home state.

I will of course go down swingeing BUT, I do not even try to pretend I am going to fight the Gov. Most who say they will do so because it sounds really good. The great two week lock down showed us just how this will go. If in my lifetime they make something I own illegal I will get rid of it. I will not like it but I am not going to keep a gun after they make it against the law. What the hell would I do with it if I did keep it? Could not take it to the range, could not carry it, sure as hell could not use it to defend myself, so it would be pointless to me. Being a machinist I could easily make something that would rock and roll. Would love to again have one but, since I can't do it legally I am not going to do it.

 

[shockd]

Importing 10+ round mags is illegal. It doesn't matter if it is going to an FFL who can divert it or modify it.

The point is no importing of the mag. The mag stays in say Ohio. Just the firearm.

 

[RX-79G]

The point is no importing of the mag. The mag stays in say Ohio. Just the firearm.

You didn't read the post above mine about having the receiving FFL collect the mag.

 

[oremike]

I'm not saying the gun sellers are the same as me. I sell ammo, not guns. I don't sell any place that makes it hard to do. It's just not worth my time to mess with it. One other thing is the gun seller may not have the firearm in his possession and just drop ships so then he has to rely on someone else to switch out the magazines.

 

[washagonian]

My opinion - take what you like and leave the rest:

It all boils down to risk and $$.

You can bet most firearms retailers that have an online presence of any type have access to - or have on retainer - an attorney. You can bet that they have had those attorney's review and analyze the laws of those states that have mag and firearms restrictions. I would imagine that the WA mag restriction law has different components to it (e.g., the importing component) as compared to MA, CO, CA, etc. Those laws are similar, but they are not created from the same boilerplate.

I bet those attorney's have provided those retailers with recommendations about how to conduct business with purchasers from each state based on that state's anti-2A laws. I imagine that those recommendations are slightly (or significantly) different for each state based on the state's laws.

Here's where the $$ comes in. Retailer's have to assess risk versus reward (profit) in terms of dollars. I.E., how much money will I lose if I don't sell firearms to WA purchasers, versus how much will I have to spend to defend my business from a FRIVILOUS law suit or criminal charge.

And legal fees like that are HUGE.

And the RISK of being sued / charged in this environment are HIGH.

Especially now in WA, OR, CA, etc., - where the departments of justice / county district attorneys are anti-2A and LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES to use their new laws to sue/charge people and retailers.

And these departments/attorneys, ATFE, etc., do not have any downside to filing frivolous suits / charges (see "Rittenhouse", Polymer80, etc., among many other examples). They're not risking their own money to prosecute - they get paid no matter what (by my tax dollars, none the less).

In fact, there is every incentive to file charges/suit for anything that looks like that can get any media attention or political traction from it. (Like spaghetti, they just throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.)

In this environment, they can't loose. Even a loss (dropped charges, dismissed case, or finding at trial of not guilty) is a WIN for these folks. Because they get media attention and use the case to tout their Herculean efforts to stop gun violence. And for those in elected office, they are spending my tax money to prosecute these ridiculous cases and using that as a backdoor way to fund their media campaign for election / reelection.

No matter how stupid, at face value, the charges are - I, we, retailers - STILL have to hire an attorney and spend TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to defend ourselves against those charges - even if a ten year old can see that they make no sense.

So, back to the Risk/Reward analysis. Given the very high probability in this environment of having legal action taken against a retailer where the dept of justice / attorney's offices think they can get any media attention, a retailer has to determine the risk/reward ratio for doing business in that particular state or municipality.

In this current environment, I would imagine that many of the smaller companies (I'm not talking about Midway or Palmetto or Cabela's, etc.) are being provided with a risk / reward ratio that they are uncomfortable with, so they make the choice to forego doing business with a particular market sector to minimize their risk.

Another $$ consideration is liability insurance. I imagine that if a firearms company decides to continue to sell to WA residents they received notice from their liability insurance company that their premiums are going to increase - perhaps, significantly. If they don't conduct business in WA, then maybe their rates won't go up.

Just my opinion. Like I said, take what you like and leave the rest.

Cheers.