How I-594 could affect non-residents

[mclumber1]

Hi all,

I posted this same question on Reddit, but I didn't get much of a response there. I was wondering if you could help me out...

If I-594 were to be interpreted the way it is actually written, letting someone else hold your gun is considered a transfer, and in order to be legal, you would need to undergo a background check in order to hold the weapon.

Aside from the problems this law creates, it might make it legally impossible for anyone from out of state to comply with the law. The way I understand federal background checks is that the only time a transfer can take place between two people from two different states is to have a FFL dealer run the background check in the state of the person taking possession.

My friend lives in Washington. I live in Oregon. In order for me to hold/use/borrow his pistol I would need to undergo background checks in Washington. But I'm not sure I can because under federal law, the background check would need to take place in Oregon.

What do you think?

Read More

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

You may be able to "temporarily transfer" without a background check at a facility that is approved by local law enforcement such as an established rental range.

Just to be safe the in-laws will have to come down here to Oregon to shoot my guns or me theirs.

 

[Redcap]

...or just ignore the stupid crap if it isn't destroyed in court.

 

[8ball]

Hi all,

I posted this same question on Reddit, but I didn't get much of a response there. I was wondering if you could help me out...

If I-594 were to be interpreted the way it is actually written, letting someone else hold your gun is considered a transfer, and in order to be legal, you would need to undergo a background check in order to hold the weapon.

Aside from the problems this law creates, it might make it legally impossible for anyone from out of state to comply with the law. The way I understand federal background checks is that the only time a transfer can take place between two people from two different states is to have a FFL dealer run the background check in the state of the person taking possession.

My friend lives in Washington. I live in Oregon. In order for me to hold/use/borrow his pistol I would need to undergo background checks in Washington. But I'm not sure I can because under federal law, the background check would need to take place in Oregon.

What do you think?

You can do a 4473 and NICS check in any state. If a WA resident buys a long gun in OR, the FFL does a 4473 and NICS check. I don't see the problem (that is, apart from it being a massive violation of Federal and State constitutions and a pain in the ####).

 

[mclumber1]

You can do a 4473 and NICS check in any state. If a WA resident buys a long gun in OR, the FFL does a 4473 and NICS check. I don't see the problem (that is, apart from it being a massive violation of Federal and State constitutions and a pain in the ####).

I thought the federal rule was that rifles and shotguns can be purchased in any state, but pistols must be purchased (or shipped to an FFL) in the buyer's state of residency.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

I am an Oregon resident who just purchased a rifle from a Washington FFL and brought it back the same day. They remarked that I didn't have to pay sales tax or the $10 OSP fee.

 

[8ball]

I thought the federal rule was that rifles and shotguns can be purchased in any state, but pistols must be purchased (or shipped to an FFL) in the buyer's state of residency.

Correct. But there is no law against a dealer doing the checks AFAIK, so the original post about this being an issue due to 594 is probably wrong.