Washington Nics and insta check with CPL

[justcuz]

WTF!!!!!
How and when did this happen!

WA citizens voted on and approved, I594 in 2015...gotta love the monies spent by special interest groups to make the mandate on the State's populace w/o 'contributing' a single $ to the coffers of any individual State Legislators.

Democracy at its finest wouldn't ya say. [NOT!]

 

[Old Dog]

So, back to the topic of the OP ... stopped at two retail gun shops in the last couple of days, and not one employee working (including owners) of the stores had received a similar e-mail or any other information as put forth in the original posts.

WHY is this news so buried?

 

[Old Dog]

Crikets. Still waiting to hear from any other FFLs that can confirm the OP.

Now up to five local FFLs who know absolutely zero about what the OP posted ...

 

[justcuz]

Crikets. Still waiting to hear from any other FFLs that can confirm the OP.

Actually there is no confusion...due WA voters passing I594 in 2015, WA statutes regarding a great deal of FFL guidance, unlicensed transferred, and oh ya the State's firearm background criteria specifically were changed with two effective dates, the first is due to expire 1 jan 2019, quote:
RCW 9.41.092
Licensed dealer deliveries—Background checks. (Effective until January 1, 2019.)

[ RCW 9.41.092: Licensed dealer deliveries—Background checks. (<i>Effective until January 1, 2019.</i>) ]

RCW 9.41.092
Licensed dealer deliveries—Background checks. (Effective January 1, 2019.) Unquote

As for those employees not knowing the specifics of the law...thats why they're called employees by federal law, they are not allowed to deviate from established organizational policies and procedures.

However, there is absolutely no excuse when the responsible person doesn't the State's statutory as well as the Federal regulations to function as the organization's FFL and responible to assure policies/procedures meet mandated guidance.

 

[Old Dog]

Again, apples to oranges.

And your credibility comes into question since you don't even know when I-594 was voted in or went into effect. Hint: 2014.

I can read the RCWs there, ace. I enforce 'em.

 

[justcuz]

Again, apples to oranges.
And your credibility comes into question since you don't even know when I-594 was voted in or went into effect. Hint: 2014.
I can read the RCWs there, ace. I enforce 'em.

I shan't trouble you further, such learned individual...especially regarding your perception of such minor nuances.

However, others might be curious, so RCW 9.41.092, like the majority of statutory postings have an timeline when certain provisions were enacted, let's see here...oh yes checking my cite,

2015 c 1 § 4 (Initiative Measure No. 594, approved November 4, 2014).]

I suppose the Washington Legislative branch didn't feel passage of I594 was important enough to call legislators into an extraordinary session during 2014 Thanksgiving/Religious/New years holidays, so they wrangled over and changed the applicable statutory mandates during their regular 105 day session in 2015!

Therefore, while voted on in November 2014 by the good citizens of Washington State, the LAW from that initiative did not go into effect until 2015!

 

[Old Dog]

Ah, dude, sorry, but I-594 went into effect 12/4/14.

And again, nothing you've stated in your posts clarifies anything the OP put forth in his posts.

Finally, none of the FFLs I've spoken with over the past few days have any knowledge of the information the OP put out.

So what's really going on?

 

[11Charlie]

@Sporting Systems
@NWCustomFirearms

Maybe one of the two can shed some lite on the subject.

 

[Sporting Systems]

We did an interview with Lars about this Wednesday. Its 100% legit. Tuesday I spent 3 hours with the Washington Association of Sheriffs and police chiefs, the group tasked with enforcing a number of firearm related laws. They are preparing their agencies to deal with this change, in a bit of panic themselves. I further confirmed this by speaking with State Senator Lynda Wilson, who is a very pro 2A state senator who sits on the Senate Law and Justice committee. She affirmed what has transpired and what has been planned to address the change.

The basics. The FBI has a standard for concealed carry permits, if an individual has one issued by a state whose standard meets the FBI standard, the individual purchaser does not require a NICS background check under FEDERAL law. Washington law does not align with Federal law, requiring a background check for each transaction. The FBI has allowed FFL dealers to do a courtesy check, so a background check was completed to meet WA law. The FFL then sends each competed pistol transfer application to the local law enforcement, where they run a similar but not exact NICS check, as well as search of DSHS billing codes (looking for mental adjudications), local court records and pending charges or retraining orders. This has resulted in NICs being accessed twice for each transfer, a burden on the FBI NICS system. So, the FBI said no more courtesy checks for handguns.

This was programmed for October 2018, but the state asked and received an extension to July 1, 2019.

The change, will require every handgun purchase be sent to local law enforcement for approval. So, no cash and carry if you have a CPL.

The Law and Justice committee has a work group programmed for this later this month, to work on a resolution. Now, here's the kicker...with 1639 about to be voted on which will have an ENORMOUS negative impact on background checks, the committee is waiting to see what happens with that vote before proceeding.

Washington residents have huge changes coming at them, one way or the other. The committee is run by a crew of anti gun democrats who introduced and passed 7 major gun control measures last session. Ultimately those failed, by 2 votes in the State House. This election will have more impact on gun control than Washington has ever seen. Vote down 1639 and any gun control supporting candidate.

We must vote No on 1639 and send it into the dark ages. Then, we'll have to direct our energy at some pro-gun work in the legislature, so that at the very least, we restore the ability of FFLS to transfer handguns on the same day.

1639 is going to costs tens of millions of dollars at the state, many many more millions across LE agencies (un funded to boot). 1639 MUST BE CRUSHED.

I'll be posting a bigger piece on this later today, on our blog and facebook page.

 

[Ops]

Access - Home read 10/23 and 10/26

starting July 1, 2019 the State POC will now be ALL handguns. having a cpl will not speed up the BG check

 

[Ops]

Access - Home

 

[FuzzyWombatSoup]

http://www.wsp.wa.gov/_secured/acce...-2018_change_in_processing_handgun_checks.pdf is the direct link. Unless I'm missing something, this in itself does not 100% mean there is a 10 day wait for CPL holders based on how the BG checks is done?

 

[Ura-Ki]

Question, If all this goes through, Why not set it up like Oregon with the OSP handling all BGC requests, while not 100% perfect, it's actually honest and it does have mechanisms to question a delay or denial, and thanks to the full electronic inquires, it's normally a matter of seconds for an answer ( when the system is up and running smoothly) and even before when there were only 10 OSP officers to handle the entire state during the Obumber years, it was still usually only minutes for an answer!

Not to make you guys feel any better, an infringement by any color is still an infringement, but at least in Or, the system mostly works fluidly and isn't really that big a bother! If you are forced into this, Oregon's system would be the best example to follow!

 

[Belial]

Question, If all this goes through, Why not set it up like Oregon with the OSP handling all BGC requests, while not 100% perfect, it's actually honest and it does have mechanisms to question a delay or denial, and thanks to the full electronic inquires, it's normally a matter of seconds for an answer ( when the system is up and running smoothly) and even before when there were only 10 OSP officers to handle the entire state during the Obumber years, it was still usually only minutes for an answer!

Not to make you guys feel any better, an infringement by any color is still an infringement, but at least in Or, the system mostly works fluidly and isn't really that big a bother! If you are forced into this, Oregon's system would be the best example to follow!

Because they keep firearms information (Basically Register) every gun on a BGC.
Because they charge you for the check above and beyond the wages we pay them to do their duties.
Because delays are open ended and are sometimes months and months beyond the federal guidelines.
Because the system is quick and easy as it sets.
Because their system isn't up and running smoothing compared to NICS imho.

Why you ask??

 

[bikemutt]

Question, If all this goes through, Why not set it up like Oregon with the OSP handling all BGC requests, while not 100% perfect, it's actually honest and it does have mechanisms to question a delay or denial, and thanks to the full electronic inquires, it's normally a matter of seconds for an answer ( when the system is up and running smoothly) and even before when there were only 10 OSP officers to handle the entire state during the Obumber years, it was still usually only minutes for an answer!

Not to make you guys feel any better, an infringement by any color is still an infringement, but at least in Or, the system mostly works fluidly and isn't really that big a bother! If you are forced into this, Oregon's system would be the best example to follow!

Agreed. As a WA resident I've bought my share of long guns in OR and never been delayed or denied, and I always walked out with the gun. I always figured that's why the $10 charge.

So, a CPL will soon be just that, a CPL.

 

[WALawyer]

There are pros and cons to each side. Running all checks through local police like in Oregon may result in a longer process, but at least if there is a delay or denial issue, all you have to do is pick up the phone and dial the local agency and speak with an actual human being. With NICS, the background check may be instant (or close), but if there is an issue, now you're stuck writing letters back and forth for months with no way to speak to a real person since no one answers the phone.

I've also found through experience that NICS does a more thorough job than local agencies in flagging potential prohibitors. Local agencies miss a lot of stuff.

 

[bikemutt]

I imagine local agencies use the NICS as one of several sources when they go looking for criminal history. I wonder if it make's any difference if NICS returns a deny to the local agency versus directly to an FFL? In other words, does the local agency get any more information from NICS than an FFL, which is pretty much none?

If there is a NICS-based deny does the person denied still have to deal with NICS or the local agency?

 

[HuckFin]

Maybe I have this wrong but reading through all these posts it appears if Washington State would just go by Federal law allowing CPL holders to skip the BGC every time they purchase a firearm this whole background check mess would go away, saving this State millions of dollars. Would also save a whole lot of time and grief to gun owners. (I through in that last sentence for laughs)

 

[WALawyer]

I imagine local agencies use the NICS as one of several sources when they go looking for criminal history. I wonder if it make's any difference if NICS returns a deny to the local agency versus directly to an FFL? In other words, does the local agency get any more information from NICS than an FFL, which is pretty much none?

If there is a NICS-based deny does the person denied still have to deal with NICS or the local agency?

NICS will give advice to the local agency on whether the check should be denied or not and on what basis, but the ultimate decision is up to the agency because if it chooses incorrectly, it can be sued under RCW 9.41.0975. If the local agency denies the transaction, then the appeal can either go to the local agency or to NICS, but dealing with the local agency is about a million times easier.

 

[ATCclears]

A bump to the top in case some have not seen this change looming for July 1, 2019...