Official statement from A Cut Above Pawn regarding transfers

[Vendor Hidden]

Alan from A Cut Above Pawn here. As of today, 11/12/2022, we have notified all online vendors that we will not be able to receive orders placed effective immediately. We are doing this because the large amount of firearms arriving are quickly taking up every inch of storage we have. This should not affect already placed orders, but if it does, please reach out to us to help resolve. We will continue facilitating FTF transfers, with a priority for CHL holders. We will continue our policy of not holding on to pending FTF transfers. Business will continue as normal until we know more about 114, as no one has any clear cut procedures in place. Just putting this out on NWF to alleviate any misinformation or questions. I'll do my best to keep an eye on this thread with any questions.

As of this post, current queue is 10,205 and ~1500 for CHL holders.

-Alan

Read More

 

[cosmos mariner]

Thanks for the update. Appreciate it.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I called today. Sadly I think this is the case almost everywhere and its understandable as FFLs are not massive warehouses.. and with the long waits.. I feel like this will be the trend until the law sorts out. True bummer as I was going to order one last AK before the permit stuff came down.

 

[PDXbiker]

I don't blame them. One news release from OSP or the state on exactly what the official timeline is would clear up all this second guessing.

 

[Bsteinhauer28]

I have two firearms expected to come in on Monday and Wednesday. Already told Primary Arms to cancel the receiver order I was going to send your way.

 

[Travyboy78]

Thank you Alan. And thank you for the help today on the USP.

 

[Yarome]

I don't blame them. One news release from OSP or the state on exactly what the official timeline is would clear up all this second guessing.

I believe the problem there is that NO ONE has any clue about what happens now, who is supposed to be doing what or where to even begin. They took a wild fart of an idea, let it rip, the woke all bought into it and now.... everyone is standing around looking at each other waiting for someone else to give some direction.

OSP doesn't seem to know anything more than we do right now.

@Jombie Thanks for taking the time to keep folks in the loop and your efforts to keep the train moving.

 

[Member 34319]

Thanks!

 

[Provincial]

One opinion from an OSP officer (a field officer, not a paper-pusher) as expressed to my friend:

It will take most of a year before Measure 114 becomes enforceable, since first, the Legislature must pass the laws that govern its requirements, and second, the Oregon Revised Statutes must be revised to match the legislation. These processes take time.

I take this comment to mean that the time frame is consistent with a normal change in a law, not one that is pushed through in an expedited manner. If the bureaucrats are already crafting the ORS changes now, it could be much faster.

However, the Republicans flipped a Senate seat, and now the Democrats have lost the chance to push any legislation on a straight party-line vote. If the Republicans stand strong, this could be stalled there. If they refuse to pass legislation based on it being Unconstitutional, they have good ground to stand on.

 

[jackrv]

However, the Republicans flipped a Senate seat, and now the Democrats have lost the chance to push any legislation on a straight party-line vote

Don't count on it. It WILL happen.

 

[Badb57]

ALAN..........TX DUDE, 10,000 AHAHAHAAHHHHHHHHHHHHAAH

 

[Ginocide]

Just putting this out on NWF to alleviate any misinformation or questions. I'll do my best to keep an eye on this thread with any questions.

That is a huge bummer. Is this something that the company plans to continue for the duration? Are there other FFLs you can recommend that are still doing orders?

I understand the business need but it's a tremendous blow to the community to lose Cut Above as a resource. I remember getting several of my first guns there. It almost feels as though 114 is enacted already with the way the noose is tightening around buyers in the form of FFLs ceasing transfers.

 

[BluesReds]

@Jombie Are you guys considering to implement the 3 day rule as well?

 

[Vendor Hidden]

@Jombie Are you guys considering to implement the 3 day rule as well?

After a good deal of internal discussion, we will not be implementing the 3 day rule. We do understand that a few companies are, but we're staying with our policy.

 

[DragoonCabbage]

Has anyone ever considered using an in-house gunsmithing "service" to hold firearms beyond the Dec. 8th deadline? That is, the FFL completes the (not-yet-approved) transfer but immediately receives the firearm for gunsmithing services with a (signed) policy that their service holds firearms until any pending background check completes?

I understand the hesitancy for anyone to employ a universal 3-day transfer policy but in times like these it's critical to be creative and work together.

 

[Jay Walk]

A good gunsmith that is also reputable is not going to play footsie with what they may or may not be able to do as some kind of a work around for a gun purchaser.

Their livelihood derives from gunsmithing services.

If they have an FFL as a gunsmith and don't gunsmith, that place I would not go.

 

[DragoonCabbage]

A good gunsmith that is also reputable is not going to play footsie with what they may or may not be able to do as some kind of a work around for a gun purchaser.

Their livelihood derives from gunsmithing services.

If they have an FFL as a gunsmith and don't gunsmith, that place I would not go.

Respectfully, it seems like you're considering my remarks without the context of measure 114. Absent the passage of 114, the proposal would indeed seem very strange.

With 114, pending transfers are at risk of being impossible to complete from Dec 8th onwards. After an appropriate waiting period, FFLs can complete transfers while the BGC is in progress. Gunsmithing services are exempted from the permit-to-purchase and transfer requirements. So it stands to reason that a gunsmith could act as an effective escrow for completed transfers with pending background checks if FFLs were hesitant to release the firearm without BGC approval. Of course this approach is only (potentially?) viable for the logjam of pending transfers and isn't useful for transfers started from roughly Dec 2nd onwards.

I consider it similar to the 80% lower/frame manufacturers operating under the current ATF rulings: they can sell the 80% lowers/frames but the jigs and tools needed to complete the parts must be sold separately. The behavior would be strange on its own but that is because it's the only maneuver they have to do business lawfully in an adversarial legal environment.

If you look at the J&B 3-day rule thread, you will see many "you will get all of my business moving forward" remarks. If a gunsmith is willing to participate in this kind of a work-around to help customers with squeamish FFLs, I'd expect applause rather than suspicion.

 

[washagonian]

Has anyone ever considered using an in-house gunsmithing "service" to hold firearms beyond the Dec. 8th deadline? That is, the FFL completes the (not-yet-approved) transfer but immediately receives the firearm for gunsmithing services with a (signed) policy that their service holds firearms until any pending background check completes?

I understand the hesitancy for anyone to employ a universal 3-day transfer policy but in times like these it's critical to be creative and work together.

Wouldn't work.
The buyer never owned / received transfer of the firearm, so it was not delivered into the care of the gunsmith by the buyer, but rather by the seller.
The only person / entity the gunsmith could release the firearm BACK to is the owner of the firearm, i.e., the seller.
Just sayin'.

 

[DragoonCabbage]

Wouldn't work.
The buyer never owned / received transfer of the firearm, so it was not delivered into the care of the gunsmith by the buyer, but rather by the seller.
The only person / entity the gunsmith could release the firearm BACK to is the owner of the firearm, i.e., the seller.
Just sayin'.

In my hypothetical, the buyer would sign to gunsmith terms and sign the 4473 under one roof without leaving with the firearm; potentially without even handling it. That transfers ownership to the buyer and forms a contractual agreement between the buyer and gunsmith until the terms have been fulfilled. It's not exactly a trustless model but I don't see a gap there.

 

[arakboss]

In my hypothetical, the buyer would sign to gunsmith terms and sign the 4473 under one roof without leaving with the firearm; potentially without even handling it. That transfers ownership to the buyer and forms a contractual agreement between the buyer and gunsmith until the terms have been fulfilled. It's not exactly a trustless model but I don't see a gap there.

I think you might be on to something.