Washington FFL required to trade guns? WA State.

[Taco143]

Please help me find the answer here. If I were to trade gun for gun with another person would we be required to do the FFL process?

Read More

 

[spookshack]

Yes.

 

[spookshack]

Not a lawyer, but try here:

Transferring or Selling Firearms | Washington Gun Law

www.washingtongunlaw.com

 

[American123]

Please help me find the answer here. If I were to trade gun for gun with another person would we be required to do the FFL process?

I594 ruined this years ago.

I1639 ruined it further.

Thank all the people who vote democrat for it being more complicated and longer to do now than it was for decades past.

As the law currently is, you can gift and receive gifts of firearms from family members without an FFL, but otherwise everything goes through an FFL now to stay legal.

 

[Ops]

if it doesnt fit the definition of a firearm under washington law than yes you can

 

[Alexx1401]

Please help me find the answer here. If I were to trade gun for gun with another person would we be required to do the FFL process?

Some still do BUT, if you do you are violating the law. Chances are you could do it and nothing would happen. Again though the answer is quite clear, no its not ok any more. So sadly if you want to do it best to do it legally. Use an FFL or don't do it at all. Getting in a jam by trying to get around the law will not be worth it.

 

[Taco143]

Thanks for the help everyone!

 

[titsonritz]

Yes, you are not in a free state where handshake deals still exist.

 

[Uberhoo]

I594 ruined this years ago.

I1639 ruined it further.

Antigun types get all squeamish whenever I point out that firearm crimes increased in WA once I594 and again after I1639 went into effect.

 

[mobil890]

As the law currently is, you can gift and receive gifts of firearms from family members without an FFL, but otherwise everything goes through an FFL now to stay legal.

We are all brothers in the eyes of God. Good day brothers

 

[mobil890]

Immediate family is defined in WAC 192-150-055 and means your spouse, domestic partner, and [the] children (including your unborn children), siblings, stepchildren, foster children, or parents of either spouse or domestic partner, whether living with you or not, and other relatives who temporarily or permanently. Looks like a loop hole to me partner.

 

[crstrode]

Immediate family is defined in WAC 192-150-055 and means your spouse, domestic partner, and [the] children (including your unborn children), siblings, stepchildren, foster children, or parents of either spouse or domestic partner, whether living with you or not, and other relatives who temporarily or permanently. Looks like a loop hole to me partner.

Actually, the correct reference is

RCW 9.41.010, and RCW 26.50.010

However, your sentiment is very good and should be taken to heart - especially with the emphasis nowadays being placed on self-identification with a particular personal characteristic.

We are all brothers in arms battling a common enemy.

 

[American123]

Antigun types get all squeamish whenever I point out that firearm crimes increased in WA once I594 and again after I1639 went into effect.

That's because liberal policies and lenient sentencing/no charges at all many times inevitably promote criminal behavior. The only people who care about I594 and I1639 were the people who were already following the law before.

 

[scrid2000]

Family for transfers is not family as defined in the definitions section, or the Domestic Violence Protection Order statutes (26.50).

For transfers,

(4) This section does not apply to:
(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, parents-in-law, children, siblings, siblings-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift or loan;

 

[Uberhoo]

That's because liberal policies and lenient sentencing/no charges at all many times inevitably promote criminal behavior. The only people who care about I594 and I1639 were the people who were already following the law before.

Passed in November 2014, Initiative 594 has had only one prosecution that I've seen published in the local news (Seattle Times), and that was a politically motivated prosecution, as best as I can recall it was over a Republican legislator whose bodyguard passed their firearm to them, when the bodyguard was called away on a family emergency - a Democrat legislative aid got wind of it and got the state patrol involved.

The initiative sponsor, billionaire Nick Hanauer's Alliance For Gun Safety lied to get public support, falsely claiming that 40% of gun transfers were private, avoiding background checks - and that a big percent were involved in gun crime - which was never proven.

Post I594, state collected data on transfers shows fewer than 10% (NOT 40%) are private person-to-person and few are traced to criminal misuse. It's had no discernable impact on crime reduction at all.

 

[Mikej]

Antigun types get all squeamish whenever I point out that firearm crimes increased in WA once I594 and again after I1639 went into effect.

Well WTH is the point of more gun laws if the law and courts WON'T ENFORCE the already existing laws?

Rhetorical question.

 

[Ducati_Meister]

That's how it is here in WA, run by few anti gun billionaires, who have the courts bought and use slime ball tactics to cram this stuff down our throats. Of course those rich anti gun bozos are isolated from such crimes, they say those idiotic laws are supposed to curb.
They just want political barriers to our 2A rights here. As long as the common citizens have guns, they have to reason with us, they don't like that obviously.

 

[American123]

Passed in November 2014, Initiative 594 has had only one prosecution that I've seen published in the local news (Seattle Times), and that was a politically motivated prosecution, as best as I can recall it was over a Republican legislator whose bodyguard passed their firearm to them, when the bodyguard was called away on a family emergency - a Democrat legislative aid got wind of it and got the state patrol involved.

The initiative sponsor, billionaire Nick Hanauer's Alliance For Gun Safety lied to get public support, falsely claiming that 40% of gun transfers were private, avoiding background checks - and that a big percent were involved in gun crime - which was never proven.

Post I594, state collected data on transfers shows fewer than 10% (NOT 40%) are private person-to-person and few are traced to criminal misuse. It's had no discernable impact on crime reduction at all.

Those facts have nothing to do with the increase in criminal activity, or why leftists wanted to pass those initiatives.

1) the increased criminal activity is primarily a result of leftist policies run amok that allow the dregs of society off easy after they commit crime, or that they have stopped prosecuting altogether certain crimes which results in more crime and more significant crime.

2) All gun laws are about control, not actually reducing criminal behavior, the top players know this, their lemmings don't want to believe it.

 

[Uberhoo]

Those facts have nothing to do with the increase in criminal activity, or why leftists wanted to pass those initiatives.

Preaching to the choir, my friend.

 

[hongkong2]

The government wants your guns because if you knew what they are going to do to you, you'd shoot them, plain and simple.