Private Party Rifle Purchases in WA... what am I missing?

[etrain16]

Asking for one for a sale that does not require one is playing right into the hands of those that wish to limit our rights. It is not necessary for me to get one to exercise my right and I can still do so while staying within the limits of our current laws. (Here in WA anyway as we are still allowed to carry without having a CPL) It's a little inconvenient sometimes but as long as I can continue to do so I will not support anything where I must concede that it is okay to infringe my right. I don't find it prudent to ask for one, I find it downright offensive. As I said above though it is your choice who you sell to and what you require of them before doing business and I will support your right to do so. I do not have a CPL nor do I plan to get one anytime soon for the reasons stated so I just will not be doing any business with anyone that asks for one. If I-594 gets passed here in WA then I may revisit that.

I disagree. I think your logic is flawed. The person selling the gun has rights too, the right to remain free from prosecution. You're all about protecting your right to keep and bear arms, how about giving some consideration to a seller who's simply trying to protect themselves? I know what the law says, I'm not ignorant of that fact as a couple of folks here seem to be so quick to throw out. It's not ignorance, it's prudence.

Put it simply, if I'm meeting someone I don't already know, the state simply says "A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law". Okay, got it. Now let's play out a scenario:

Person A is selling a gun to person B. They meet up, person B seems like a decent guy, he's got in state plates, he's not acting like a tweaker on meth, he's polite, etc. So, person A sells him the gun. Well person B happens to be a stalker who then uses that gun to shoot someone. Now prosecutors are going to want to know everything they can about how and where he got that gun. They're going to dig deep, and there's a good chance they'll find a way to trace it back to you. Next, they're going to ask you that question: what made you believe this person was not prohibited? You'll say "I had no reason to believe he was". Then they're going to push harder - but how did you really know? If all you can say is he seemed okay to me, I can just about guarantee you the prosecutor isn't going to be satisfied. They're likely to make your life hell on earth just to make their point, if not taking if further and filing charges. There is a lot of room for interpretation of 'reasonable cause to believe', and if you think an attorney/prosecutor doesn't know how to turn that around on the seller, you're closing your eyes to the reality of our justice system.

So the only ignorance I'm seeing at this point is the belief that your right to keep and bear arms trumps the right that a seller has to ask for reasonable measures to make sure you're not prohibited. It may not be the way you want it, but it's just the way the world works right now. Until that changes, I (and others here that do the same) will continue to take very reasonable steps to protect myself.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I thought you could buy a rifle in Washington if you are from Oregon. Even private party. Am I wrong?

It needs to be transferred through an FFL. For rifles this can be done by an FFL in either state.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I disagree. I think your logic is flawed. The person selling the gun has rights too, the right to remain free from prosecution. You're all about protecting your right to keep and bear arms, how about giving some consideration to a seller who's simply trying to protect themselves? I know what the law says, I'm not ignorant of that fact as a couple of folks here seem to be so quick to throw out. It's not ignorance, it's prudence.

Put it simply, if I'm meeting someone I don't already know, the state simply says "A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law". Okay, got it. Now let's play out a scenario:

Person A is selling a gun to person B. They meet up, person B seems like a decent guy, he's got in state plates, he's not acting like a tweaker on meth, he's polite, etc. So, person A sells him the gun. Well person B happens to be a stalker who then uses that gun to shoot someone. Now prosecutors are going to want to know everything they can about how and where he got that gun. They're going to dig deep, and there's a good chance they'll find a way to trace it back to you. Next, they're going to ask you that question: what made you believe this person was not prohibited? You'll say "I had no reason to believe he was". Then they're going to push harder - but how did you really know? If all you can say is he seemed okay to me, I can just about guarantee you the prosecutor isn't going to be satisfied. They're likely to make your life hell on earth just to make their point, if not taking if further and filing charges. There is a lot of room for interpretation of 'reasonable cause to believe', and if you think an attorney/prosecutor doesn't know how to turn that around on the seller, you're closing your eyes to the reality of our justice system.

So the only ignorance I'm seeing at this point is the belief that your right to keep and bear arms trumps the right that a seller has to ask for reasonable measures to make sure you're not prohibited. It may not be the way you want it, but it's just the way the world works right now. Until that changes, I (and others here that do the same) will continue to take very reasonable steps to protect myself.

I already stated that I recognize your right to require whatever you choose and my rights do not trump that. You will note that I have stated so 3 different times now. Stores also have the right to refuse to allow me to open carry in them and I support that right as well. At the same time I have the right to refuse to do business with those that would require me to obtain a CPL first and also not to do business in a store that will not allow me to open carry. In both cases I can and do exercise that right. As to the example provided it should not be necessary to provide a hypothetical here if this is really an issue. I.E. There should be plenty of real world examples where prosecutors pursued private sellers for not making sure background checks were performed first. (Which is really all this amounts to) I don't have so much as a misdemeanor on my record so passing a background check and getting a CPL for me would be as easy as going to the Sheriff office and paying an illegal tax to do so. I do not do so for the reasons stated already. If you choose to narrow the pool of potential buyers by doing this then once again, that is your right.

 

[etrain16]

I already stated that I recognize your right to require whatever you choose and my rights do not trump that. You will note that I have stated so 3 different times now. Stores also have the right to refuse to allow me to open carry in them and I support that right as well. At the same time I have the right to refuse to do business with those that would require me to obtain a CPL first and also not to do business in a store that will not allow me to open carry. In both cases I can and do exercise that right. As to the example provided it should not be necessary to provide a hypothetical here if this is really an issue. I.E. There should be plenty of real world examples where prosecutors pursued private sellers for not making sure background checks were performed first. (Which is really all this amounts to) I don't have so much as a misdemeanor on my record so passing a background check and getting a CPL for me would be as easy as going to the Sheriff office and paying an illegal tax to do so. I do not do so for the reasons stated already. If you choose to narrow the pool of potential buyers by doing this then once again, that is your right.

Sounds like we both agree on at least that part. I'm good with that. I understand you're making a statement and you are trying to push for more freedom. I'm good with that too. I for one hope you can make some strides in loosening restrictions while many of us are simply trying to keep the rights we already have from eroding away even further.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Sounds like we both agree on at least that part. I'm good with that. I understand you're making a statement and you are trying to push for more freedom. I'm good with that too. I for one hope you can make some strides in loosening restrictions while many of us are simply trying to keep the rights we already have from eroding away even further.

We are sure trying. In reality we do seem to be keeping them at bay and have made strides in the right direction. I hope we can keep I-594 from passing as that is the most worrisome thing we are dealing with here. Other states are not so fortunate. Yesterday I listened to testimony in NJ on their magazine ban bill (from 15 down to 10) and the testimony was encouraging. About ten to one opposed the bill. Sadly they passed it anyway so it's up to Christie now. If Christie still has any aspirations for president it would be smart for him to veto it but we will see.

 

[etrain16]

We are sure trying. In reality we do seem to be keeping them at bay and have made strides in the right direction. I hope we can keep I-594 from passing as that is the most worrisome thing we are dealing with here. Other states are not so fortunate. Yesterday I listened to testimony in NJ on their magazine ban bill (from 15 down to 10) and the testimony was encouraging. About ten to one opposed the bill. Sadly they passed it anyway so it's up to Christie now. If Christie still has any aspirations for president it would be smart for him to veto it but we will see.

Good luck with that, and keep up the good work.

 

[johnsland8]

I thought you could buy a rifle in Washington if you are from Oregon. Even private party. Am I wrong?

It needs to be transferred through an FFL. For rifles this can be done by an FFL in either state.

Just to expand on this a little... it is my understanding that it is not legal to purchase any firearm privately from another state unless the gun is transferred through an FFL. You cannot simply go to another state, pay a private party cash, and leave the state with the gun, rifle or handgun. Not legally anyway.

Handguns have to be transferred through an FFL in the buyers state. He cannot take possession of the weapon in another state.

Rifles can be transferred through an FFL in either the buyer or sellers state. You can take possession of a rifle in another state. Of course, as long as that in in compliance with a particular states current laws.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this?

 

[etrain16]

According to current law, from the ATF website:

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person's own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

According to this, if it is a private party sale, rifle or not, it must be done between two people residing in the same state, unless an FFL is involved.

 

[Nwcid]

I thought you could buy a rifle in Washington if you are from Oregon. Even private party. Am I wrong?

From the first link I posted above, https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons

Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person's own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]


Sorry for repost, had not seen I was beaten to it.

 

[Nwcid]

Just to expand on this a little... it is my understanding that it is not legal to purchase any firearm privately from another state unless the gun is transferred through an FFL. You cannot simply go to another state, pay a private party cash, and leave the state with the gun, rifle or handgun. Not legally anyway.

Handguns have to be transferred through an FFL in the buyers state. He cannot take possession of the weapon in another state.

Rifles can be transferred through an FFL in either the buyer or sellers state. You can take possession of a rifle in another state. Of course, as long as that in in compliance with a particular states current laws.

Please correct me if I am wrong about this?

Read the first link I posted you and the exact laws and wording is spelled out for you.

 

[1990Turbo]

But im too dumb too understand all that legaleze.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

Licensee refers to an FFL dealer if that helps.

 

[Nwcid]

Ok, check DL's all you want, ILLEGAL immigrants have them now and they ARE prohibited persons...........

What about someone between 18 and 21 that can not get CPL?

How about an LEO, seems like a good guy but if I recall correctly (cant find a link right now) they can still work even with certain felonies that would make them prohibited......

 

[JackD]

I won't sell or trade a gun to a private party without, at least, a bill of sale and/or a CHL. This is to CMA in case the gun, at some future date, ends up at a crime scene. Then I can show where it was the last time I saw it.

Buying or receiving a gun, I will always check the stolen records list and gladly show my CHL if asked. A bill of sale is a must here, too.

If that's too much to ask, then forget the whole deal.

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I think asking for a bill of sale is a reasonable precaution and I see no reason that anyone that is honest should oppose it.

 

[JackD]

I think asking for a bill of sale is a reasonable precaution and I see no reason that anyone that is honest should oppose it.

If they did then it is a reasonable assumption that they are up to no good. And that is enough for me to back out of the deal.

 

[JedB]

I thought you could buy a rifle in Washington if you are from Oregon. Even private party. Am I wrong?

You can buy a rifle from someone in WA. You will need to go through an FFL to do so legally.

 

[PDXSparky]

I thought you could buy a rifle in Washington if you are from Oregon. Even private party. Am I wrong?

You are incorrect about the private party transaction across state lines. That must go thru a FFL. An OR resident can buy a rifle from a FFL in WA with a background check then take it back home to OR, but not from a private party.

 

[mjbskwim]

I won't sell or trade a gun to a private party without, at least, a bill of sale and/or a CHL. This is to CMA in case the gun, at some future date, ends up at a crime scene. Then I can show where it was the last time I saw it.

Buying or receiving a gun, I will always check the stolen records list and gladly show my CHL if asked. A bill of sale is a must here, too.

If that's too much to ask, then forget the whole deal.

Heck I sell stuff at gun shows all the time.
That gun may get traded 3-4 times before the end of the show.
How do I know that the guy I sold it to cares who he sells it to as much as I do?
Heck,maybe he bought it for a friend who can't legally own one,or just couldn't be there that day.
Maybe it gets stolen from the buyer's car,are you responsible for what happens with the gun?
Once the gun leaves your possession,and you have asked all the right questions,you are done with it.

 

[The Heretic]

I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has also been said, but beyond the issue of protecting oneself (and others) by trying to ascertain if the buyer is indeed qualified to purchase and own a firearm, doing so in this manner (and other precautions) would also address the possibility of entrapment by LEOs, news orgs and anti-gunners.

We all know the ATF and other LEOs are not above trying to entrap a firearms seller by sending a felon to buy a firearm - although they usually have to say something to the effect that they are not qualified - but felons lie. Having proof that the buyer asserted they are qualified would help in court.

Ditto with news and anti-gun orgs - they lie, and they entrap, and they take secret photos and vids.

So due to that, combined with the problem of criminals buying private firearms, I have no problem with someone asking for various kinds of ID. I personally will probably not ask for a CWP as I don't have one myself at the moment (I let it expire), but I may ask the buyer to fill out something that is the equivalent of a 4473 without the make/model/serial # - just to protect myself.

A lot of buyers will ask for a bill of sale too.

If you don't like that they ask for such proof, then don't buy from them. I am sure they understand the law well, they are just protecting themselves. The world is getting to be a dangerous place - I fear unjustly going to prison more than I do getting shot - I don't want to spend any time as Bubbas girlfriend.