Washington FFL's can't do NICS checks on handguns?

[SUPER X]

I heard the BGC's were going to the WSP and they needed the legislature to provide funding is the last I heard.

The funding will be be deverted to house illegal immigrants

 

[HighlandLofts]

A local FFL told me that currently non CPL pistols are run thru the state system, and that process is very slow taking sometimes 10+ days. JUST for a small % of guns sold in WA. The feds run the rest and it's usually instant.

After 1 July, the feds stop and the state does all guns. He predicted a wait of over 20 days for a result.

So whether it's 1639 and/or the feds declaring they are stopping, it's not entirely clear to me. But what is clear is that after 1 July buying a gun in WA will require a trip the FFL to buy it. Then go home empty handed. Then follow up with the FFL at least once. Then return to the FFL to get the gun after the BGC comes thru 1-4 weeks later. For every gun purchase. And if that FFL is 1-2 hours away, oh well. Factor 3+ hours to simply buy a gun.

The FFLs will have the nightmare of added storage (and associated liability, complaints, responsibility), follow up, and dealing with the same customer now at least 2-3 times for what was previously a 1-time 15 minute transaction. Prediction is that FFLs will either stop doing private transfers or charge a lot more.

All of this is part of the evil leftist plan to deter gun ownership, harass gun owners, frustrate us, and drive FFLs (now required for transfers) out of business.

These new policies knocked our local FFL guy out of business come the end of June.

 

[SUPER X]

I stopped by my local gunstore yesterday and was advised that on July 1 the ATF says FFL's in Wa state must foward 4473 forms to local LEO's for backround checks on handguns and "other" firearms. I checked with another friend who owns a store and he confirmed it. It appears there has been no funding nor training offered to local LEO's to help accomplish this task, so, What Now?

Then when they get rid of the constitution respecting sheriff's and chief of police they can vote in or hire a left wing nut job and everyone is denied.So if you need or want something to defend your family don't delay it .

 

[Talos32]

There may actually be an upside to this. A right delayed is a right denied, and an extended background check over 10 days might be enough to get standing for a lawsuit.

 

[WALawyer]

There may actually be an upside to this. A right delayed is a right denied, and an extended background check over 10 days might be enough to get standing for a lawsuit.

Not really, because the law allows the transfer after the ten day waiting period if there is no result. It's then up to the FFL to decide whether to transfer or not. Since a private entity is making this determination, and not a public entity or the law itself, it becomes much more difficult because the law currently only allows lawsuits over denied transactions.

I suppose if we reached a point where every FFL in the state instituted an internal policy not to transfer after the waiting period expires, that could conceivably constitute a constructive denial, but I don't think we're there yet.

 

[EPS]

Was this part of that 1639 crap?

I assume "rubber stamp" the forms or carte-blanche approve them (if the Sherriff really supports the 2A).

I think it is part of it but not sure.
I get delay every time for ten days .
I think it has to do with the release of the FIREARM after ten days

 

[Talos32]

Not really, because the law allows the transfer after the ten day waiting period if there is no result. It's then up to the FFL to decide whether to transfer or not. Since a private entity is making this determination, and not a public entity or the law itself, it becomes much more difficult because the law currently only allows lawsuits over denied transactions.

I suppose if we reached a point where every FFL in the state instituted an internal policy not to transfer after the waiting period expires, that could conceivably constitute a constructive denial, but I don't think we're there yet.

If the law allows the transfer and the dealer refuses to release the firearm, wouldn't that be theft by the dealer? At that point couldn't you just call the police?

If he tells you up front, that's different, but I would imagine there are plenty of other FFLs willing to take his business.

 

[ARFrog]

Pardon my ignorance but how will this effect C&R purchases in WA with a FFL03 after 7/1/2019? - private party transfers? LGS purchases?

 

[Member 52301]

These new policies knocked our local FFL guy out of business come the end of June.

I am sorry to hear this but I am not shocked.

Cate

 

[Alexx1401]

All I can say is "maybe" this will wake up a few more gun owners. You know a LOT of gun owners still have no idea this is coming. Many of them sat on their hands and allowed all this to happen or even voted for the people who are doing it. So maybe now when some of them head out to buy a gun, and run into this wall, they will wonder why they did nothing. Many will of course just scream it's all the NRA's fault <shrug> Maybe some will start to wake up and see how bad this has gotten and VOTE. At least I can hope.

 

[Talos32]

All I can say is "maybe" this will wake up a few more gun owners. You know a LOT of gun owners still have no idea this is coming. Many of them sat on their hands and allowed all this to happen or even voted for the people who are doing it. So maybe now when some of them head out to buy a gun, and run into this wall, they will wonder why they did nothing. Many will of course just scream it's all the NRA's fault <shrug> Maybe some will start to wake up and see how bad this has gotten and VOTE. At least I can hope.

The state hasn't exactly been advertising all the changes coming this summer. Between this and the whole "assault weapons" BS, the only gun you can buy and walk out of the store with anymore will be non semi-automatic long arms. Maybe when someone finds out they have to take a training class to buy a 10/22, or wait half a month to pick up a pistol even with a CPL, it will start a grassroots movement to roll all this back.

 

[Alexx1401]

The state hasn't exactly been advertising all the changes coming this summer. Between this and the whole "assault weapons" BS, the only gun you can buy and walk out of the store with anymore will be non semi-automatic long arms. Maybe when someone finds out they have to take a training class to buy a 10/22, or wait half a month to pick up a pistol even with a CPL, it will start a grassroots movement to roll all this back.

I keep hoping. Problem is way too many gun owners just keep voting these same people into office. I keep hoping something will wake them up.

 

[WALawyer]

If the law allows the transfer and the dealer refuses to release the firearm, wouldn't that be theft by the dealer? At that point couldn't you just call the police?

If he tells you up front, that's different, but I would imagine there are plenty of other FFLs willing to take his business.

Well the dealer would have to either transfer the firearm or provide a refund. Obviously if the dealer does neither, that would subject the dealer to civil liability (but it wouldn't be considered criminal theft).

 

[Alexx1401]

Well the dealer would have to either transfer the firearm or provide a refund. Obviously if the dealer does neither, that would subject the dealer to civil liability (but it wouldn't be considered criminal theft).

Since this is going to be a huge hassle for dealers I am sure what most will do is have re stocking fees. They will make customers sign that if somewhere along the way the customer gets sick of it, wants money back, they will have to pay a set fee.

 

[Talos32]

Well the dealer would have to either transfer the firearm or provide a refund. Obviously if the dealer does neither, that would subject the dealer to civil liability (but it wouldn't be considered criminal theft).

Your username implies that you're a lawyer, so maybe you can answer this for me: I don't doubt that you are right regarding whether or not this example would be considered criminal, but I'm looking for the "why."

Take the example recently in the news of the person who got an extra TV delivered and refused to return it. Upon complaint to the police from the shipping company, he was arrested. But it seems from various news stories I remember over the years that only works for businesses accusing people. Whenever it's two individuals in dispute with each other or an individual in dispute with a business, I always hear "that's a civil matter."

It seems like businesses are allowed to use the police to resolve disputes in manners that private individuals are not and that this is common practice all across the country. Isn't this an equal protections violation? Why aren't there lawsuits against the government for this?

 

[Talos32]

Since this is going to be a huge hassle for dealers I am sure what most will do is have re stocking fees. They will make customers sign that if somewhere along the way the customer gets sick of it, wants money back, they will have to pay a set fee.

If the law says they are cleared to release the firearm after 10 days, then it is the dealer choosing to not give you the gun after that point. I'm pretty sure the same party that refuses to give you your property can't charge you a fee to refund your money-unless you somehow I agreed to it up front, but why would anyone do that when there are plenty of other FFL is around?

I'd be curious if the ATF would initiate any sort of enforcement action if you complained about a dealer refusing to turn over firearms after the required background checks have been completed.

If a dealer refused to give me a gun I had paid for without a legal requirement to do so, I would certainly be complaining to every agency that has any form of regulatory authority over them and would be trying to have their business license and FFL stripped away.

 

[Ops]

if no response within 10 business days its up to the dealer. but you have no right to demand your firearm. 31 days from the time you signed the 4473 would they have to return your money since the nics check would be invalid at that time.

reading half these comments. you wonder why there are so many anti gun people out there. I guess the internet makes you talk like a tough guy

 

[Talos32]

if no response within 10 business days its up to the dealer. but you have no right to demand your firearm. 31 days from the time you signed the 4473 would they have to return your money since the nics check would be invalid at that time.

reading half these comments. you wonder why there are so many anti gun people out there. I guess the internet makes you talk like a tough guy

Serious question: Does the law specifically say that a dealer may choose to not release a firearm after the background check is completed?

If it does not, after the check is completed or the timeline for the check is run out, the firearm is treated as any other property. Absent any legal authority to do so, you may not simply impound other people's property because you feel like it.

Regarding the internet tough guy comment: I don't allow people to take my money or property from me, nor should you. That has nothing to do with guns at all. Complaining to regulatory agencies is absolutely legitimate and fair.

As much as I like to hate on the State of Washington, I have complained to the Attorney General's office no less than three times in the last few years regarding monetary disputes with businesses, and all three times the business made it right after the Attorney General's office contacted them on my behalf. This was after giving each business the chance to make it right on their own.

 

[Ops]

after the background check is done you should get off your bubblegum and pick it up.

after 30 days and you don't pick it up , don't blame the dealer if you were to lazy. you wasted their time.

under law they aren't required to release the firearm until they get a response.

 

[Talos32]

after the background check is done you should get off your bubblegum and pick it up.

after 30 days and you don't pick it up , don't blame the dealer if you were to lazy. you wasted their time.

under law they aren't required to release the firearm until they get a response.

People not picking up their purchase was never the topic, the issue at hand is dealers refusing to release the gun after the 10-day waiting period has expired.a poster way back at the beginning of the thread said that a dealer would not release a gun without an okay from the state patrol even though the law says they may release it after 10 days.

Unless specifically authorized by statute, their authority to hold your firearm ends at the completion of the background check. The check ends either when they get a response or when the required waiting period times out.

Can you post language from the statute that allows an FFL discretion to choose to not release a firearm after the background check is completed?