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

[Alexx1401]

FYI - We release firearms after 10 days and no reply from the agency, based on the history with the customer and their demeanor in store. So, be nice to your LGS salespeople, if they're nice to you. In 4 years we've had (2) firearms delivered that later received a DENIAL AFTER approval, we recovered the firearms in those cases and ate the expense, otherwise ATF goes and gets them.

Too bad you are a good drive away from me. Would love to see your place. Sound like great people to do business with.

 

[justcuz]

Sorry if this was clarified, but I-594 pushed bkgnd checks to Local LE to accomplish.

FBI agreed, as a courtesy continued, to accomplish NICS checks until WA got their system established...three years later ['18] WA still hadn't set up anything.

FBI the said as of July 19 they would cease WA bkgnd ck.

As for ten day timeframe it is bogus as VA SP accomplishes them at point of sale. WA has not but in the infrastructure to facilitate point of sale capability due to nothing but gross incompetence across the board.

Ye reap what is sown and will continue to until citizens stand up and demand WA [and OR] legislators to either eliminate it completely or modify the initiative process and take self promoting billionaires out of the process.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Sorry if this was clarified, but I-594 pushed bkgnd checks to Local LE to accomplish.

FBI agreed, as a courtesy continued, to accomplish NICS checks until WA got their system established...three years later ['18] WA still hadn't set up anything.

FBI the said as of July 19 they would cease WA bkgnd ck.

As for ten day timeframe it is bogus as VA SP accomplishes them at point of sale. WA has not but in the infrastructure to facilitate point of sale capability due to nothing but gross incompetence across the board.

Ye reap what is sown and will continue to until citizens stand up and demand WA [and OR] legislators to either eliminate it completely or modify the initiative process and take self promoting billionaires out of the process.

I don't believe its incompetence but quite the opposite, a willful choice because it delays the firearm delivery, adds inconvenience. Essentially destroys guns shows. This was part of the plan.

 

[Ops]

dshs is the hold up. only takes them 10 min to run a background. but your mandatory mental check takes days

cant wait to see the new form. and the joy of identity theft

 

[baker3gun]

FYI - We release firearms after 10 days and no reply from the agency, based on the history with the customer and their demeanor in store. So, be nice to your LGS salespeople, if they're nice to you. In 4 years we've had (2) firearms delivered that later received a DENIAL AFTER approval, we recovered the firearms in those cases and ate the expense, otherwise ATF goes and gets them.

IMO, the posts by Sporting Systems (SS) portray a business that seeks the intelligent balance of compliance with law vs. furtherance of commerce in firearms.

But I ask SS why it would incur costs to recover the two firearms that received a denial after tacit approval? (I am assuming that the approvals were of the nature of expiration of the 10 day period.)

What harm would have occurred to your enterprise if you had responded to the denying agency that the firearm had already been transferred due to expiration of the required 10 day wait for completion of the BGC?

Why not just let ATF to take it from there?

These are questions. I am not trying to make any implication.

Thanks.

 

[Sporting Systems]

IMO, the posts by Sporting Systems (SS) portray a business that seeks the intelligent balance of compliance with law vs. furtherance of commerce in firearms.

But I ask SS why it would incur costs to recover the two firearms that received a denial after tacit approval? (I am assuming that the approvals were of the nature of expiration of the 10 day period.)

What harm would have occurred to your enterprise if you had responded to the denying agency that the firearm had already been transferred due to expiration of the required 10 day wait for completion of the BGC?

Why not just let ATF to take it from there?

These are questions. I am not trying to make any implication.

Thanks.

Both were actually approvals, "proceed" from NICS on one and the sheriffs department on the other that we're later changed to denials.

In one case, I personally knew the customer for years. It was easy for me to recover the pistols, as he was a friend. It was harder for him, and quite embarrassing. He had a concealed weapon permit issued by the county only 6 months prior to the purchase.

Second case, she lived 2 blocks from our shop and we saw her all the time. It was relatively easy to call her and ask her to come to the store.

Why did we do it?

Why did we incur the costs of accepting used guns back, learning curve. We hadn't had a clear policy on the issue so we ate it.

Secondly, we know the ATF criminal investigator in our region really well. We know what steps he goes through to recover firearms after they have been delivered and then the difficulty getting them back from ATF in a timely fashion. We send the info direct to ATF as required, copy him, and tell him the time and date that we recovered the items. Saves him time and energy to pursue real crime, gets the firearms back faster, avoids additional govt involvement, clients get refunded faster. Literally, we cut the time for recovery from weeks to hours. AtF is happy, we're almost whole, and the client doesn't have a federal agent knocking on his door.

We have a more clear cut policy now, where we don't take all the the hit on loss of value on the firearm for a post de facto denial but share that burden with the denied.

If the client refused to voluntarily return the firearm at our request, then it would become an all ATF and local LE issue and our discretion would fall to the more punitive side of the equation.

Bottom line, feels like the right way to do it so that's what we do.

Never had a discretionary release come back as a denial. Have plenty of long delays/non reply from the LE Agency, go completely unexplained by the agencies and down right refused to communicate with us. A couple we forced department changes (city of Vancouver and Yakima sheriffs department).

I don't believe a person should be denied possession of a firearm if the state cannot price they are a non qualified purchaser. They must have definitive proof of disqualification and DENY the transfer, but not put a client on an indefinite "delay" because they can't get the records they seek in a timely fashion and choose "delay" with no further action by the agency. That's a presumption of guilt, rather than a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is not to show they are qualified, it's to show they are not. This is the constitution we're talking about, not some arbitrary administrative rule by an agency.

 

[baker3gun]

Thanks for the detailed reply!

I guess I never assumed that a dealer would attempt to retrieve a gun or provide a refund for a transfer that:
1 - occurred after a 'proceed' or after the BGC time limit expired, and
2 - then was later denied.

I understand that your instances involved customers you knew or regularly encountered, plus an agent that you know and regularly work with.

It's the refund part that I didn't know dealers were doing.
If an ineligible person takes possession of a gun from a dealer because the BGC system failed to deny the transfer, and then a deny is issued after the transfer, I always thought of that as a forfeit scenario: ATF or partnered local law enforcement confiscates the guns and the buyer incurs the loss.

If your instances were total strangers who lived in other cities of the state, would you have attempted a retrieval or refund?

Thanks.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Thanks for the detailed reply!
loss.

If your instances were total strangers who lived in other cities of the state, would you have attempted a retrieval or refund?

Thanks.

Yes, we'd ask them to come in with the firearm and handle in house. Most people are pretty understanding when you say, its me or the person with the badge. Having a great relationship with ATF is important to avoiding ANY issues and showing your intent to comply with law, even when the law is ambiguous. How we deal with future denials, is an active discussion internally, as we see where new laws impact the business.

The next 6 months are going to be very challenging for dealers, LE agencies, and gun buyers while this all gets worked out.

 

[baker3gun]

Thanks. This was informative.

 

[baker3gun]

So was this:

and I would never release a firearm unless I got a proceed. my lively hood is not going to be affected or jeopardized by your inability to get a proceed.

If your status goes open you can pretty much guarantee a large shop wont give you your firearm. and they'd wait 31 days to start a refund. which is the required wait time for a nics check to expire.

Its like listening to a bunch of babies if you don't get your way.

all these backyard quarterbacks with their undies in a bunch who feel entitled. you should understand how a ffl works, not how you think it should.

its not the dealers fault you couldn't pass a background check.

and ask the dealer if they will transfer the firearm after 10 business days with no response. but again most wont jeopardize their lively hood because your impatient. and the atf doesn't care. a court wont force them to give you a firearm they legally cant.

after reading what that person said id refuse him a firearm anyways. story is fishier than the pike place market

I wouldn't want to be a transaction with you, where by no fault of my own, some agency lost documents or delayed approval beyond a time limit, leaving you able but unwilling to legally transfer the gun.

What is the name of your business Ops?

In recent decades, I have encountered a few FFL's who were constitutionalists, and a few who were servants of government and no friend to the People.

I won't ever be an expert on Washington's new laws.
If I move to a W state, it will be Wyoming.
I'm sure the new WA laws add new variables to the equation, but I think it's obvious that vendors like SS serve the furtherance of legal commerce in firearms to a greater degree than other licensees.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Ops]

that's good for you dave. I guess you've never shopped at a major retailer. you never want to be the dealer that makes the news. you should look at getting your own ffl if you don't want to wait.

 

[Alexx1401]

that's good for you dave. I guess you've never shopped at a major retailer. you never want to be the dealer that makes the news. you should look at getting your own ffl if you don't want to wait.

Of all this "legal mess", this is what bothers me more than anything else, those who want to make a villain out of the FFL's. Gun owners sat on their hands or supported the people who did this too them. People tried to warn gun owners for years what was going to happen. Many gun owners refused to bother to do anything. Now that this is turning into a sh$t show here come a lot of gun owners to blame business owners who are not willing to risk everything. By all means get your own FFL and do it "right". Stuff like this is why we have this mess. A LOT of gun owners either sit on the side or support the bad lawmakers. Then when something effects them, here they come to scream it's all someone else's fault.

 

[baker3gun]

Do both if you have time.

1 - Set up a dealership to sell cars, and stand your ground when an occasional customer gets drunk and kills a family by drunk-driving the car he bought from you. Be willing to sell cars to people within the bounds of the law knowing that when a rare customer intentionally drives one of your cars into a crowd of political opponents, America is not a society that holds you accountable for selling the car, unless perhaps your dealership sold every car used in terrorist attacks that year, then maybe we take a closer look at the statistical anomaly. Take a stand on the fact that legitimate dealers of commodities are not held responsible for abuses of product in any industry, not even the car industry, and when the press sensationalizes a legitimate car dealer sale so as to portray the car dealer in a bad light, it is the press that is in the wrong, not the dealer. It is the press that is engaging in unethical behavior, not the dealer. Be willing to stand against that.

And in so doing, be willing to stand for law and order without adding your own personal law to the equation. When societal law has been satisfied, when the car can be legally transferred to the buyer because the government background check could not be completed within the specified time period, then stand for the order of law and transfer the car.

Obviously car purchases are not subject to laws requiring background checks, but if you can't look past that point to see the corollary, then these words are a waste of time.

According to ATF statistics, the huge majority of Traces originate on guns sold by a tiny minority of licensed dealers. In the real world, most dealers never have a Trace. Few have frequent Denials.

My query: if Traces and Denials are the exception rather than the norm, why are all transactions treated as though we must satisfy our governmental masters, instead of being treated as though each has a 98% probability of zero problems?
Until informed otherwise, my answer to my own query is that some licensees know they are citizens of a constitutional democratic republic in which the government fears the People, and some think it is the other way around.

Our founders used their own weapons to fight a revolution against their own government. They protected a right to arms to preserve an armed citizenry that serves as a deterrent to tyranny. No tyrant can hope to suppress an armed populace.
It is ironic when purveyors of arms fear government.

2 - The longterm solution is to organize political support and change the momentum of regulation, with the ultimate goal of arriving back at a point of Law that is consistent with the Constitution. Since we are a democracy, the alternate option must be acknowledged: organize enough political support (2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states) to amend the Constitution by removing 2A.
Either way, problem solved.
Of course, the latter solution is the end of liberty, but that is another topic.

In our current situation, 2A stands, and Congress and state legislatures regularly commit two crimes: they pass laws that violate 2A, and they fail to impeach judges who themselves permit the passage of said laws instead of abiding by their oath of office to strike them down.

The new WA law is a violation of Constitutional law. The 14th Amendment applies the protections of the U.S. Constitution to the residents of the state of Washington.
A referendum law that is unconstitutional is not special. It is simply unconstitutional.

Passing it is a means for the people of a state to learn that that they must amend the constitution if they wish to change it. They are not permitted to vote together to violate it.
When it comes to enumerated rights, the citizens of one state cannot do to all of us what they want done for their state.

The battle often evaporates when the other citizens of that state can manage to stand in number sufficient to repeal the referendum, or to force the state supreme court to abide by its oath to the Constitution of the United States, which all state judges take when they enter office.

The sooner a proper litigator advances the WA law to evaluation by the Supreme Court, the sooner the licensees of WA will be able to stop worrying about how to comply with it.

Have a good night all!

Dave

 

[baker3gun]

Oh, and perhaps licensees could prepare statements in advance.

On the day that the press shows up at your door because your customer shot someone, be dressed nicely and issue a short statement: "We are a legitimate business with thousands of law-abiding customers. We follow all laws to the letter. We are no more accountable for an abuse of our product than a car dealer who sold a car to a drunk driver that killed a family. This is still America. Thank you for stopping by."

That's a possible way to handle the press. If they showed up.

As for the risk of your government showing up to arrest you for selling the gun, or take your license, or shoot your dog, that's a different situation which would require a different type of preparation.

Like watching a Seinfeld rerun. Or mowing your lawn.

Because it doesn't happen.

It's not a risk.

It's fictional.

The government does not prosecute law-abiding dealers of commodities for buyer abuse of commodity.

 

[Dreadi]

I moved here six year ago, partially because of the gun laws were mostly open and mostly allowed people to be free. Then I opened an FFL business a few year later thinking things would at least not get any worse. Now, I've spent time face to face yelling at legislatures and now have to watch my rights erode away some more. It's really killing my PNW vibe.

 

[Sandaholic]

Of all this "legal mess", this is what bothers me more than anything else, those who want to make a villain out of the FFL's. Gun owners sat on their hands or supported the people who did this too them. People tried to warn gun owners for years what was going to happen. Many gun owners refused to bother to do anything. Now that this is turning into a sh$t show here come a lot of gun owners to blame business owners who are not willing to risk everything. By all means get your own FFL and do it "right". Stuff like this is why we have this mess. A LOT of gun owners either sit on the side or support the bad lawmakers. Then when something effects them, here they come to scream it's all someone else's fault.

We got lucky that enough men chose Liberty over safety. I understand no one wants to be left out there alone. No one wants to make a move by themselves. I get that. I repeat though, we got lucky.

I'm no hero. I can't say that I would be risking my livelihood to flout law. But I'm not convinced that's what we're talking about here? Sounds like after the 10 days is up an FFL can transfer a firearm legally. An FFL boasting (and I'll paraphrase) too bad so sad you couldn't pass a background check, is basically A-OKAY with a right delayed being a right denied. Probably thinks the NFA wait is a non-issue as well.

We all look at this stuff differently. Me I'd prefer there was no wait no background check none of this crap. I'd like to see strong and strict borders. We should know exactly who is in our nation. And I'd like to do away with Felon restrictions. Either hang 'em because the offense was just too heinous, or let them serve their time and upon release they are free men with all rights restored. This quasi free nonsense is just that. Fix the education system so that we don't have too many knuckleheads to deal with in the first place and get back to an armed society is a polite society.

Or we can just keep infringing until this powder keg explodes

 

[Alexx1401]

We got lucky that enough men chose Liberty over safety. I understand no one wants to be left out there alone. No one wants to make a move by themselves. I get that. I repeat though, we got lucky.

I'm no hero. I can't say that I would be risking my livelihood to flout law. But I'm not convinced that's what we're talking about here? Sounds like after the 10 days is up an FFL can transfer a firearm legally. An FFL boasting (and I'll paraphrase) too bad so sad you couldn't pass a background check, is basically A-OKAY with a right delayed being a right denied. Probably thinks the NFA wait is a non-issue as well.

We all look at this stuff differently. Me I'd prefer there was no wait no background check none of this crap. I'd like to see strong and strict borders. We should know exactly who is in our nation. And I'd like to do away with Felon restrictions. Either hang 'em because the offense was just too heinous, or let them serve their time and upon release they are free men with all rights restored. This quasi free nonsense is just that. Fix the education system so that we don't have too many knuckleheads to deal with in the first place and get back to an armed society is a polite society.

Or we can just keep infringing until this powder keg explodes

I of course would be all in on most gun laws just wiped off the books. Not to beat a dead horse more but all this is squarely in the lap of gun owners. I have all my life watched as too many gun owners either paid zero attention to what was going on, or worse supported it. Every "compromise" that comes down the line many jump on board. None seem to notice the compromise always only goes one way, we lose they win. Then when some gun law finally hits them? They start screaming it was someone else's fault. Very frustrating to keep watching it happen.

 

[GWS]

Then I opened an FFL business a few year later thinking things would at least not get any worse.

Brother, it can always get worse.
I moved up from California. I am in paradise compared to that libtard cesspool.