i-1639 training

[Dwesson]

Based on section 25 above that would not include smooth bore shotguns because they are not rifles. Look at 9.41.010:

(22) "Rifle" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

I don't think any of the semiauto shotguns even the AK style ones like the Saigas would count either since they don't use a metallic cartridge which is in the definition of a rifle.

 

[surevaliance]

We run women-only training. We've wrestled with the 1639 training issue. The #1 biggest problem right now is there is no mechanism for us to certify completion, and therefore no way for dealers to verify completion before the sale. The 2nd biggest problem is there are no specific guidelines for curricula. Any class delivered right now cannot be certified. And any class delivered right now might be invalidated the moment guidance is released.

And worse, if legislators never quite get around to producing guidance, all the gun owners here will, in essence, be prohibited from buying guns. And dealers are going to have huge holes in their cash flow.

Well, sounds like this is the time for FFLs to wake up and sue those traitors.

 

[EPS]

From what I see there requirements.
Are all covered in a Utah permit class.
So if you have a Utah permit.
Your good to go .
But I would buy a few lowers anyway.
Lol just to watch them Cry

 

[WowReactsOnly]

MMMM MMMMM

From what I see there requirements.
Are all covered in a Utah permit class.
So if you have a Utah permit.
Your good to go .
But I would buy a few lowers anyway.
Lol just to watch them Cry

 

[Dwesson]

From what I see there requirements.
Are all covered in a Utah permit class.
So if you have a Utah permit.
Your good to go .
But I would buy a few lowers anyway.
Lol just to watch them Cry

I am not familiar specifically with the Utah permit classes/requirements, I would be surprised if they cover all of the following though:

(a) The purchaser provides proof that he or she has completed a
recognized firearm safety training program within the last five
years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:
(i) Basic firearms safety rules;
(ii) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and
talking to children about gun safety;
(iii) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(iv) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(v) Safe handling of firearms; and
(vi) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited
firearms transfers.

Why would a Utah concealed permit class address how to talk to children about gun safety, the secure storage provisions which are specific this law (and state) and what constitutes a prohibited transfer (any private sale in WA, again state specific). My guess is it doesn't meet their requirements if audited.

I think the whole thing is bull anyway, but whatever.

 

[EPS]

Your not supposed to talk to kids about guns.
Lol go to a school and ask to talk to kids about guns .
And see how fast they call the police on you.
The Utah class covers most of it .
Any way

 

[Talos32]

So if an FFL places a copy of the buyer's training certificate in the file, and the training certificate lists the required topics, who is to say the training requirement was not complied with?

The law requires "recognized firearms safety training," meaning recognized by the state as meeting their requirement. If it's not on their "list" (whatever that ends up being) it doesn't count.

I recently had a dispute with an insurance company where they said they wouldn't cover something until I fill out a required form that didn't exist. Your choice ends up being accept it or sue them if they won't change their mind. They count on the hassle of the lawsuit being a deterrent. It's entirely possible that the state could do something similar.

That being said, Washington would be setting itself up to lose a lawsuit if it did that-with the good chance that the training requirement is invalidated in its entirety. This and the upcoming excessive delays in background checks are probably the best ways to challenge the law at this point. A right delayed is a right denied, and gives you standing. Unfortunately someone has to have the time and money to fight it.

 

[fredball]

So this is the only place that is doing the training .( In the state of Washington )
Boy I wish I were related to the effing jackazz that was receiving a paycheck from the gubberment so he can have his buddy arrange this what a scam

 

[Sporting Systems]

To help with the information here...

We are the only party suing the State over 1639, and it's in Federal court. We hope to have an injunction in place mid June. You're welcome.

You will NOT be able to purchase out of state. For example, Oregon state Police will deny the transfer of any semi auto rifle to a Washington resident. Out of state dealers will transfer it to a dealer in your home state who will collect sales tax, certify the training, submit the application purchase to local LEO and store the items for the mandatory 10 day waiting period.

Lowers are not part of 1639, neither are lever, bolt, smoothbore shotguns. Lowers will be sent to Local LE for approvals just like pistols after July 1.

Training is a joke. Anyone charging for it should be tarred and feathered. Its a massive intrusion on your civil rights. We are putting together a class that will be offered for free.

Utah carry permit will not cover the requirements. You'll need a separate certification and it must be updated every 5 years or you become a prohibited person and the po-po can come a calling.

We will be providing more direction on this in coming months.

We put this little parody together to help explain it.

 

[Dwesson]

To help with the information here...

We are the only party suing the State over 1639, and it's in Federal court. We hope to have an injunction in place mid June. You're welcome.

You will NOT be able to purchase out of state. For example, Oregon state Police will deny the transfer of any semi auto rifle to a Washington resident. Out of state dealers will transfer it to a dealer in your home state who will collect sales tax, certify the training, submit the application purchase to local LEO and store the items for the mandatory 10 day waiting period.

Lowers are not part of 1639, neither are lever, bolt, smoothbore shotguns. Lowers will be sent to Local LE for approvals just like pistols after July 1.

Training is a joke. Anyone charging for it should be tarred and feathered. Its a massive intrusion on your civil rights. We are putting together a class that will be offered for free.

Utah carry permit will not cover the requirements. You'll need a separate certification and it must be updated every 5 years or you become a prohibited person and the po-po can come a calling.

We will be providing more direction on this in coming months.

We put this little parody together to help explain it.

OSP might deny the transfer, but last time I checked Idaho and MT still use the FBI NICS check. I think you WILL be able to purchase out of state until someone gets sued by the state and they stop doing transfers to WA residents altogether.

 

[Sporting Systems]

Idaho dealers are reporting similar positions by dealers. We talked to 6 different shops in Oregon and they all said...like a pistol or not at all. There is federal law which requires dealers to comply with the laws of the state the resident resides in, so a dealer risks his FFL and his freedom, for violation of that.

 

[Dwesson]

Idaho dealers are reporting similar positions by dealers. We talked to 6 different shops in Oregon and they all said...like a pistol or not at all. There is federal law which requires dealers to comply with the laws of the state the resident resides in, so a dealer risks his FFL and his freedom, for violation of that.

As you mentioned OSP is part of processing a transfer request. I don't believe the state patrol is involved in Idaho or MT.

What you are suggesting is that an FFL have complete knowledge of what constitutes an otherwise legal transfer of a firearm in their state to a resident out of state.

A) If an FBI gives a NICS proceed and they otherwise follow all Federal laws regarding legal transfers I doubt they would revoke his FFL.
B) They certainly wouldn't send him to jail, lets not be hyperbolic.

If an FFL sells a Californian a 30rd PMAG he's breaking a state law but abiding by all federal laws, are you saying the feds are going to put him in jail?

What if I have a second home in MT and the rifle never leaves the state? Are the feds going to send the FFL holder to jail?

All I know is if I say I work for the Mexican drug cartel the ATF will straight up sell me guns regardless of my state of residence

 

[Sporting Systems]

As you mentioned OSP is part of processing a transfer request. I don't believe the state patrol is involved in Idaho or MT.

What you are suggesting is that an FFL have complete knowledge of what constitutes an otherwise legal transfer of a firearm in their state to a resident out of state.

A) If an FBI gives a NICS proceed and they otherwise follow all Federal laws regarding legal transfers I doubt they would revoke his FFL.
B) They certainly wouldn't send him to jail, lets not be hyperbolic.

If an FFL sells a Californian a 30rd PMAG he's breaking a state law but abiding by all federal laws, are you saying the feds are going to put him in jail?

What if I have a second home in MT and the rifle never leaves the state? Are the feds going to send the FFL holder to jail?

All I know is if I say I work for the Mexican drug cartel the ATF will straight up sell me guns regardless of my state of residence

Compliance with federal law comes first, states just add more on top and YES we are required to know the state laws for buyers. Magazines are not a controlled item, so that's not a relevant comparison, they can buy those anywhere without ID. Importing it back into CA is a crime...that's on the buyer. Remember, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense to breaking it.

The 4473 that we sign says we are complying with all federal laws. Federal laws require we comply with state laws of the buyers residence. That's 10 years and $250,000 for a willful violation, you could be charged..."could be" is enough for most to back off, its not worth the risk to sell one gun.

2nd home/dual residency is a tough one.

This is an active discussion with the Secondment Foundation legal team and numerous dealers in the border regions. What will Bob Ferguson do to proactively intimidate out of state FFL's.

 

[Dwesson]

Compliance with federal law comes first, states just add more on top and YES we are required to know the state laws for buyers. Magazines are not a controlled item, so that's not a relevant comparison, they can buy those anywhere without ID. Importing it back into CA is a crime...that's on the buyer. Remember, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense to breaking it.

The 4473 that we sign says we are complying with all federal laws. Federal laws require we comply with state laws of the buyers residence. That's 10 years and $250,000 for a willful violation, you could be charged..."could be" is enough for most to back off, its not worth the risk to sell one gun.

2nd home/dual residency is a tough one.

This is an active discussion with the Secondment Foundation legal team and numerous dealers in the border regions. What will Bob Ferguson do to proactively intimidate out of state FFL's.

I think that's the distinction, if willful is in the statute (forgive me I'm not an FFL holder or have read this statute) that's a large burden of proof for the Feds (and I am suggesting a case of ignorance).

I think an FFL that knows "WA state has a morass of requirements now who knows what they are??" are more likely to take the tact of "we're just not going to sell a rifle bolt, lever or semi-auto period" knowing it's a mess. How is an out of state FFL going to stay up on what constitutes accepted training?

Bob Ferguson can go sit on a cactus.

 

[Sporting Systems]

YES, A CACTUS!

 

[User 1234]

As Dan pointed out, yes, the out of state FFL can be penalized for violating the federal law which requires the FFL to sell rifles and shotguns to purchasers only if allowed by the purchaser's resident state laws. It is irrelevant whether it makes sense or is wise. For example, California residents cannot purchase any guns at an FFL in any state other than California. If a Nevada or Maine FFL sells one to them (delivery not merely payment) that FFL could be punished.

 

[Dwesson]

As Dan pointed out, yes, the out of state FFL can be penalized for violating the federal law which requires the FFL to sell rifles and shotguns to purchasers only if allowed by the purchaser's resident state laws. It is irrelevant whether it makes sense or is wise. For example, California residents cannot purchase any guns at an FFL in any state other than California. If a Nevada or Maine FFL sells one to them (delivery not merely payment) that FFL could be punished.

This isn't a binary situation though as the firearm IS legal in the resident's state. The issue is there are now additional requirements that constitute a legal transfer as well as additional burden on the FFL.

How would the FFL know that the training certification meets the criteria unless there's some centralized database? Sure the buyer has to swear under penalty of perjury that it does, but does that absolve the FFL? Additionally, what FFL is going to do this?

(9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol
or semiautomatic assault rifle sold, in a book kept for the purpose,
the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and
shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person
effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall
contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and
manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation,
and place of birth of the purchaser, and a statement signed by the
purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under ((RCW 9.41.040))
state or federal law to possess a firearm.

(b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to
the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county
of which the purchaser is a resident, or the state pursuant to RCW
9.41.090; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to
the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain
for six years.

I think the end result is while the firearm may be defacto legal to be sold to a WA resident, no FFL is going to trouble themselves with the overhead of selling a rifle, any rifle, to a WA resident anymore. Which is ridiculous, not sure how we got this situation when only a few years ago I could be visiting out of state relatives and pick up a rifle at the local sporting goods store with no more issue than buying locally.

 

[rdb241]

@#ck I-1639 training. I took my hunter safety course at 12 and never looked back. I have competition shooting training military firearms training in the reserves and have been hunting all my life. The state will not tell me that I have to take "There" safety course, period. If this BS law goes through in July. I am done buying any guns in this state. I am stocking up now. The state is even going to take away your ability to build your own from scratch. I am buying kits like mad also while I still can.

 

[ActionHero1980]

I dont plan on taking any classes and i certainly dont plan on permanently waiving my right to medical privacy.

 

[WowReactsOnly]

Alexa play I Will Not Comply Bass Boosted Remix