Washington Handgun wait times

[User 1234]

But a lot of the Californians moving out are pro-2A voters like GWS and myself. Hopefully we leave the antis behind in their cesspool and extract the pro 2A voters to move here and help us at the ballot box.

 

[ZRXrider]

I'm sure this is common knowledge now, but I went to sportco to pick up a tac14 and was told they are classified as a pistol now so subjects to the 10 days wait period.

 

[GWS]

Well, this nonsense will slow down, but not stop my acquisition of guns. Heck I just won a Glock from the GSSF match at SafeFire. Lol the form said allow up to 24 weeks for delivery. Then I can wait 3or 4 ( or 5 or more) weeks for the background check.
But that won't stop me! After that I have my GSSF Blue Label card to use. I can wait for the go. I don't like it one bit, but I refuse to let these idiots stop my gun buying.

 

[ZRXrider]

Yes, I've changed my mind on this thing. I am going to keep buying as long as I can because i remember when I couldn't. Sportco said the new classification came a day after the $299 tac14 deal flyer came out, in the flyer they made a point of saying " no wait times for this firearm" oh well

 

[Alexx1401]

I'm sure this is common knowledge now, but I went to sportco to pick up a tac14 and was told they are classified as a pistol now so subjects to the 10 days wait period.

Actually that would be great if the State of WA is saying that. If someone could find it in writing by someone who makes the rules for the State that would be fantastic. It would make them legal to carry loaded in your car. I have long been kind of tempted to buy one of these but had no real idea what the hell to do with it. If WA does decide to call these a handgun I will want one for just that reason, that it would be covered under my CPL

 

[Talos32]

So RCW 9.41.090 contains this:

The dealer shall deliver the pistol to the purchaser following the period of time specified in this chapter unless the dealer is notified of an investigative hold under subsection (4) of this section in writing by the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county, whichever is applicable, denying the purchaser's application to purchase and the grounds thereof.

Emphasis mine. "Shall" is directive/non-discretionary in standard legal use and is used 31 times in the same RCW regarding other items that are non-discretionary. WA law therefore requires the pistol be delivered upon the expiration of the waiting period unless the LEO puts a hold on it.

Now, federal law give the FFL the choice, and I've heard people argue that this supercedes state law. If so, that would run counter to the standard way federal and state law interact where the federal government says "you may do A" and the state says "You may not do A." There's generally no conflict when a state further restricts a federal law. There are some things states just can't regulate (although gun laws are rarely in that category). If it doesn't directly contradict federal law, this also creates a federal requirement to comply, as USC directs that FFLs also follow all applicable state laws. It seems to me, only litigation would answer this question definitively.

WA requires FFLs to also get a state dealer license, and the DoL has the authority to enforce RCW Chapter 9.41 with regards to licensing requirements. They take complaints of violations of RCW 9.41. In the extreme, it's possible that failure to comply with RCW 9.41.090 would trigger a revocation of an FFL's state license; WA then notifies the ATF that state law was violated, which triggers a revocation of the FFL. Whether or not DoL even enforces this provision or if sees it as serious enough to yank a license is anyone's guess. (Probably not for the first complaint in any case)

If you don't mind burning bridges, my suggestion is to inform an FFL that chooses to hold a firearm past the 10 days that they are in violation of RCW 9.41.090 and that you will report them to the DoL. The DoL may do nothing, or they may make an enforcement action. I'd like to know what they do though.

 

[trevi]

@trevi
Been here over a year from the PRK.
Best life decision dear wife and I ever made. Everything is better in the PNW. At least better than California

LOL! I am laughing because I do not know what/ where PRK is but I learned what PNW means. Welcome, .....even though I am newer than you.

 

[Alexx1401]

LOL! I am laughing because I do not know what/ where PRK is but I learned what PNW means. Welcome, .....even though I am newer than you.

Old joke, Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, spelled with a K instead of a C as a poking fun at the Socialist agenda there

 

[trevi]

Old joke, Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, spelled with a K instead of a C as a poking fun at the Socialist agenda there

He made a wise choice!

 

[308]

1639 only talks about wait times for Semi-Automatic assault rifles. I'm asking about hand guns. I didn't see anything in there about handguns.

What is a semi-automatic assault rifle?

 

[Alexx1401]

What is a semi-automatic assault rifle?

Now days the Ruger 10/22's I have are assault rifles
I keep hoping crap like this will finally wake up a lot of sleeping gun owners and get them to vote. I am sure that many of them still have no idea this law went in and they will not until they go to buy another .22. When they are told they have to pass a class, and wait 10 days for that new .22 many of them will have no clue this happened. Maybe a few will wake up this time around.

 

[308]

Now days the Ruger 10/22's I have are assault rifles
I keep hoping crap like this will finally wake up a lot of sleeping gun owners and get them to vote. I am sure that many of them still have no idea this law went in and they will not until they go to buy another .22. When they are told they have to pass a class, and wait 10 days for that new .22 many of them will have no clue this happened. Maybe a few will wake up this time around.

I have met quite a few firearms enthusiasts who know nothing about any of these new laws. Closing up Oregon's private party sale 'loophole' has meant nothing to them and I can only assume many others as well. Those of us who frequent sites like NWFA and pay attention to the latest infringements appear to be in a small minority.

Edited to add: When a former LAPD Police Sergeant like the following retard are given a platform to spew their ignorance while at the same time claiming 'police have to get training so why not gun owners', it makes sense that people will eventually just start ignoring anything they say and any law they pass.

 

[Alexx1401]

I have met quite a few firearms enthusiasts who know nothing about any of these new laws. Closing up Oregon's private party sale 'loophole' has meant nothing to them and I can only assume many others as well. Those of us who frequent sites like NWFA and pay attention to the latest infringements appear to be in a small minority.

Sadly yes, we are. Many do not like to believe this and often get angry when I say it but it does not change reality. Way, WAY, too many gun owners pay zero attention to what the hell is going on until it finally effects them. Then they get mad and blame someone else. When the Universal BGC went in for all gun tons of gun owners had no idea until that Christmas buying season. They would walk into a store to buy the kid a new .22 and suddenly found out they could not just fill out the form and leave. The store had to get an OK from the Feds and if the system happened to be not working that day? Too bad for you. Every new gun law that comes many have no idea until it finally effects them. This latest of I-1639 and the Feds telling the state no more running BGC for you are the next. A lot of gun owners still have no clue and will not until they go to buy and are told sorry. Then they will of course blame everyone else except themselves. While they either do not bother to vote, or vote for the same people who did this to them

 

[Alexx1401]

Edited to add: When a former LAPD Police Sergeant like the following retard are given a platform to spew their ignorance while at the same time claiming 'police have to get training so why not gun owners', it makes sense that people will eventually just start ignoring anything they say and any law they pass.

Yes years ago I saw a clip of some top Cop in CA, of course, holding up a Kel-Tec Sub2000. Saying how terrible it was that we were able to buy folding assault weapons now

 

[TCOV]

So RCW 9.41.090 contains this:


Emphasis mine. "Shall" is directive/non-discretionary in standard legal use and is used 31 times in the same RCW regarding other items that are non-discretionary. WA law therefore requires the pistol be delivered upon the expiration of the waiting period unless the LEO puts a hold on it.

Now, federal law give the FFL the choice, and I've heard people argue that this supercedes state law. If so, that would run counter to the standard way federal and state law interact where the federal government says "you may do A" and the state says "You may not do A." There's generally no conflict when a state further restricts a federal law. There are some things states just can't regulate (although gun laws are rarely in that category). If it doesn't directly contradict federal law, this also creates a federal requirement to comply, as USC directs that FFLs also follow all applicable state laws. It seems to me, only litigation would answer this question definitively.

WA requires FFLs to also get a state dealer license, and the DoL has the authority to enforce RCW Chapter 9.41 with regards to licensing requirements. They take complaints of violations of RCW 9.41. In the extreme, it's possible that failure to comply with RCW 9.41.090 would trigger a revocation of an FFL's state license; WA then notifies the ATF that state law was violated, which triggers a revocation of the FFL. Whether or not DoL even enforces this provision or if sees it as serious enough to yank a license is anyone's guess. (Probably not for the first complaint in any case)

If you don't mind burning bridges, my suggestion is to inform an FFL that chooses to hold a firearm past the 10 days that they are in violation of RCW 9.41.090 and that you will report them to the DoL. The DoL may do nothing, or they may make an enforcement action. I'd like to know what they do though.

RCW 9.41.090 was updated on July 1 to conform with Int 1639 and no longer contains the "shall" statement. RCWs change sometimes and the the effective dates are shown in the header. What's confusing is the old version still shows even though it is no longer in effect. Always look for dates in the header and scroll past the RCW if there is a change listed for the new version which will still have the same number.

 

[Talos32]

RCW 9.41.090 was updated on July 1 to conform with Int 1639 and no longer contains the "shall" statement. RCWs change sometimes and the the effective dates are shown in the header. What's confusing is the old version still shows even though it is no longer in effect. Always look for dates in the header and scroll past the RCW if there is a change listed for the new version which will still have the same number.

Whoops, I did grab the wrong quote (doing this with a phone is hard) but the wording is still there. If you look at the verbiage for the RCW effective Jul 1 2019, it's in section 6C and says the same thing, but adds the semiauto rifle as well:

The dealer shall deliver the pistol or semiautomatic assault rifle to the purchaser following the period of time specified in this chapter unless the dealer is notified of an investigative hold under subsection (5) of this section in writing by the chief of police of the municipality, the sheriff of the county, or the state, whichever is applicable, or of the denial of the purchaser's application to purchase and the grounds thereof.

The question is, does DoL enforce it?

 

[TCOV]

Whoops, I did grab the wrong quote (doing this with a phone is hard) but the wording is still there. If you look at the verbiage for the RCW effective Jul 1 2019, it's in section 6C and says the same thing, but adds the semiauto rifle as well:



The question is, does DoL enforce it?

I see what you are referring to. I know in the past ffl dealers could not be forced to transfer a firearm if they weren't comfortable or had a policy about a certain situation. There is also language that seems to conflict with registration in wa but that's been going on for years. This whole situation is a mess and I think nowadays ffl's are actually going to have to earn their money .

 

[TCOV]

I see what you are referring to. I know in the past ffl dealers could not be forced to transfer a firearm if they weren't comfortable or had a policy about a certain situation. There is also language that seems to conflict with registration in wa but that's been going on for years. This whole situation is a mess and I think nowadays ffl's are actually going to have to earn their money .

The thing to do nowadays is to ask the dealer ahead of time what their policy is on transfers after the wait period has passed. One local dealer has a notice posted stating he will transfer if the waiting period passes with no response when legal.

 

[Talos32]

I see what you are referring to. I know in the past ffl dealers could not be forced to transfer a firearm if they weren't comfortable or had a policy about a certain situation. There is also language that seems to conflict with registration in wa but that's been going on for years. This whole situation is a mess and I think nowadays ffl's are actually going to have to earn their money .

The ATF certainly says that they can't be compelled to complete the transfer as a matter of federal law. I don't think I've ever seen this RCW specifically discussed here before. The wording is pretty clear that they do not have discretion. At this point in time I would say it's unknown whether some aspect of federal law renders the state law void. Generally unless they directly conflict, or it's an area removed from the state's authority, things like this are legal.

There's also the question of whether or not the DoL would even try and enforce it. However, if the waiting period has expired, and you feel like playing hardball with the dealer, I think you should tell him about the law and if he doesn't complete the transfer file a complaint with the DoL.

My personal opinion is that they shouldn't have discretion. I feel that it just opens FFLs up to more potential litigation. If you have discretion, someone who gets shot or their family can always argue that you somehow should have known not to transfer the gun to the shooter, and there was no law forcing you to do it. When discretion is removed, it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the government for approving the background check.

On the buyer's side, it can create a weird legal situation where the FFL can't be forced to transfer the person his property, but it still remains his property. I researched this a while ago looking for any court cases, and all I could find was a situation in California regarding a more valuable than usual gun where the dealer had a policy not to release until the background check came back. The buyer ended up getting a lawyer, who told him that if the dealer refuse to release the gun, the court would probably order him to reimburse the buyer for every penny he had spent. They got as far as sending the dealer a copy of the complaint that they were about to file before the dealer decided he didn't want to end up buying the gun for himself and completed the transfer. That whole situation ends when you remove discretion as well.

 

[TCOV]

The ATF certainly says that they can't be compelled to complete the transfer as a matter of federal law. I don't think I've ever seen this RCW specifically discussed here before. The wording is pretty clear that they do not have discretion. At this point in time I would say it's unknown whether some aspect of federal law renders the state law void. Generally unless they directly conflict, or it's an area removed from the state's authority, things like this are legal.

There's also the question of whether or not the DoL would even try and enforce it. However, if the waiting period has expired, and you feel like playing hardball with the dealer, I think you should tell him about the law and if he doesn't complete the transfer file a complaint with the DoL.

My personal opinion is that they shouldn't have discretion. I feel that it just opens FFLs up to more potential litigation. If you have discretion, someone who gets shot or their family can always argue that you somehow should have known not to transfer the gun to the shooter, and there was no law forcing you to do it. When discretion is removed, it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the government for approving the background check.

On the buyer's side, it can create a weird legal situation where the FFL can't be forced to transfer the person his property, but it still remains his property. I researched this a while ago looking for any court cases, and all I could find was a situation in California regarding a more valuable than usual gun where the dealer had a policy not to release until the background check came back. The buyer ended up getting a lawyer, who told him that if the dealer refuse to release the gun, the court would probably order him to reimburse the buyer for every penny he had spent. They got as far as sending the dealer a copy of the complaint that they were about to file before the dealer decided he didn't want to end up buying the gun for himself and completed the transfer. That whole situation ends when you remove discretion as well.

My opinion is similar to yours but as I get older I realize my opinion doesn't matter to anyone else except maybe a family member who wants something. I could never understand why someone who has dozens of firearms even has a waiting period. Does each one make you a little more dangerous?