Quick question...Wash to Oregon transfers.

[uberguy]

You cannot do it at one dealer.

Just like any other dealer purchased pistol. You are not buying from the person. You are "buying" from the dealer that handles the transaction. The other person just happens to be giving it to the dealer while you are there. Its really not that big of a deal. For cheap guns it doesnt make sense to ship because of the high cost of shipping but if its a border area thing like Vancouver /Portland or withing 50-100 miles of the border where both parties don't mind doing a little driving it works. No waiting period in WA for CPL holders. It takes a lot longer to transfer a gun in Oregon typically because the state police have to run the NICS check instead of the dealer. Woe be it unto you if you try to transfer a gun while a big gun show is going on. Costs on both sides. Best route is to find a non Richard head dealer who will ship a gun via USPS to the other dealer in the border state. My guy does it for $30. Then you never even have to go anywhere. Your dealer ships to WA , his dealer ships to your dealer. You go in sign the paperwork, pay your blood money and its a done deal. Problems arise on the Washington side when your dealer thinks he has to charge tax because its not a private party transfer even when it really is.

Hopefully the transferrer and the transferee can pass BGC's because if you cant the dealer's keeping it.

This is not so, apart from the later discussion, handgun (in buyers state) for rifle swap is permissible. An FFL license holder is not taking ownership in a transfer, they are merely conducting the required background check. If what you said were true, for example in WA. the FFL would be required to collect sales tax on a private party transfer. They are not required to do so, by law.

The new owner is 'expected' to submit the state 'Use-Tax' to the dept. of revenue, but the dealers are not required to collect sales tax for private party transfers, whereas they are required to collect sales tax on all guns they sell, new or used.

Went through all this extensively with WA-DOR/DOL and ATF and am 100% positive. However a lot of folks, including at the agencies are confused on it. Heretic explained it correctly above.
And FFLs don't get to keep it, under the circumstances of a prospective buyer failing a BG check but the seller is not a prohibited person. Any FFL attempting to keep a transfer firearm where the buyer fails the check is at minimum confused, or dishonest.

 

[DirectDrive]

Unless you're an FFL.

Stop it.
We're talkin civilian purchases here.
(Hopefully the FFLs don't need any gun forum help)

 

[jbett98]

The OP didn't specify civilian transfers only, he just asked what constitutes legal firearm transfers between states.

 

[wired]

This is not so, apart from the later discussion, handgun (in buyers state) for rifle swap is permissible. An FFL license holder is not taking ownership in a transfer, they are merely conducting the required background check. If what you said were true, for example in WA. the FFL would be required to collect sales tax on a private party transfer. They are not required to do so, by law.

The new owner is 'expected' to submit the state 'Use-Tax' to the dept. of revenue, but the dealers are not required to collect sales tax for private party transfers, whereas they are required to collect sales tax on all guns they sell, new or used.

Went through all this extensively with WA-DOR/DOL and ATF and am 100% positive. However a lot of folks, including at the agencies are confused on it. Heretic explained it correctly above.
And FFLs don't get to keep it, under the circumstances of a prospective buyer failing a BG check but the seller is not a prohibited person. Any FFL attempting to keep a transfer firearm where the buyer fails the check is at minimum confused, or dishonest.

The problem here is that if you are going from out of individual to a dealer in his state ( for shipping purposes ) who then sends it to a dealer in the receivers state it is no longer a private party transfer. It is a dealer to dealer transfer and the receiver ends up paying tax. The alternative is UPS overnight shipping OR a face to face transfer at the dealer in the transferee's dealer in his state.

If the person who is supposed to be getting the transfer fails the BGC and then the original owner fails the BGC ( dealer has to get it off his books ) then the dealer cannot legally transfer back to the original owner. Lots of folks out there with guns they arent legally allowed to have.

 

[uberguy]

Yes and that is why I continually like to point out that we have no actual registration of firearms in Oregon or Washington. Sure you need to fill out a form when you buy one but that's when the paper trail goes dead. If the state cops come banging at my door asking to see my "registered" guns sorry man, I sold them years ago when I lived in a different state or I sent them to a dealer to transfer to someone else in another state. I dont recall where nor am I required by law to do so. Now go prove otherwise.

Now if the ATF comes to my door asking to see my NFA stuff that is a different story. That IS gun registration.

Again, not quite true. WA DOL has a handgun registry and has for years. I can certainly claim whatever you wish, like maybe yours were stolen. If this pertains to a handgun sold before I594 (private party bk grn check law) you might get away with it. For any (WA) handgun purchased after I594 (Dec 14, 2014) it can be traced to the last legal owner. If it were used in a crime, especially a homicide, you can bank the traces will be performed.

 

[uberguy]

The problem here is that if you are going from out of individual to a dealer in his state ( for shipping purposes ) who then sends it to a dealer in the receivers state it is no longer a private party transfer. It is a dealer to dealer transfer and the receiver ends up paying tax. The alternative is UPS overnight shipping OR a face to face transfer at the dealer in the transferee's dealer in his state.

100% untrue. I've done exactly that, many times without paying sales tax to the dealer. It remains a private party transfer and the dealer is simply facilitating the transfer, they are not taking ownership. Naturally, if sending is involved, the original seller (owner) would have to pay return shipping. The dealer has no right to keep it, unless the seller elects to abandon it.

 

[wired]

Traces can be performed to be sure as you would always expect but there is no actual California/Connecticut style gun registration in Washington. I am under no legal mandate to have any gun I have ever purchased in Washington nor do I have to show what happened to them. That is not gun registration. I used the NFA as an example of actual gun registration because thats what gun registration actually looks like.

 

[wired]

100% untrue. I've done exactly that, many times without paying sales tax to the dealer. It remains a private party transfer and the dealer is simply facilitating the transfer, they are not taking ownership. Naturally, if sending is involved, the original seller (owner) would have to pay return shipping. The dealer has no right to keep it, unless the seller elects to abandon it.

And Ive gone to my dealer in Washington who had received a gun from a dealer in Oregon in the course of a trade and spent an hour there where the dealer hashed it out on the phone with the state tax guys and I walked out the door with the gun after I paid state sales tax to get it because ti was not a direct trade.

 

[uberguy]

RCW 9.41.113: Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.
"(d) If the results of the background check indicate that the purchaser or transferee is ineligible to possess a firearm, then the licensed dealer shall return the firearm to the seller or transferor."
From the RCW (law), clearly the dealer cannot keep the firearm and has not become the legal owner in a private party transfer.

 

[wired]

The dealer cannot transfer it off his books without doing a BGC. That is federal law nothing to do with state. The original owner still has to fill out a 4473 to get his own gun back if the buyer/trader fails the BGC. Nothing to do with Washington state. You can point out Washington state laws all you want but this is beyond that . The original owner does not need to fill out the state form but the federal rules still apply.

 

[uberguy]

And Ive gone to my dealer in Washington who had received a gun from a dealer in Oregon in the course of a trade and spent an hour there where the dealer hashed it out on the phone with the state tax guys and I walked out the door with the gun after I paid state sales tax to get it because ti was not a direct trade.

What can I say, beside your dealer got it wrong. And some of the agency people are derps. I've done many in/out of state transfers and what I said is true. One FFL was honestly confused on this subject, having been told the wrong information from someone at state.

 

[uberguy]

DECEMBER 4, 2014, WA Dept. of Revenue:
Tax Implications of Firearms Transfers - Washington State
"Must a licensed dealer facilitating the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed persons collect sales tax or use tax from the transferee?
No. An in-state firearms dealer is not required to collect sales tax or use tax when a firearm is transferred between unlicensed parties."
As I wrote earlier, the buyer is personally responsible for paying the 'Use-Tax' to the state. The dealer is not responsible for collecting the Use-Tax and the sales tax does not apply because the FFL ARE NOT SELLING THE GUN. WA-DOL loves it if an FFL does mistakenly collect it, but there is no law saying they must.

 

[wired]

If I am in Oregon, say Medford, and I want to trade a gun with a person in Omak Washington am I going to drive that far? No. I'm going to go to UPS to shp it to his dealer directly? Not when I find out how much it costs ($75 ) to ship overnight as required by UPS regs. So what I do is take it to my dealer in Medford who charges me $30 to ship it under his FFL. To do that it need to get entered into his bound books and shipped with his FFL copy ( I was an 02/07 and yep, thats true) and sent to a dealer in Washington. It is at that point a dealer to dealer transfer. Now you MIGHT be able to convince the dealer or the state that it is a person to person trade. That has not been my luck

 

[DirectDrive]

If I'm a n00b reading this thread, I wouldn't know whether to ***k, fight or hold the light concerning cross-state handgun transfers.

So in another effort to KISS, I just called my FFL on the WA sales tax issue for private handgun transfers from out of state to a WA buyer.
The answer...
If the out of state private seller includes a copy of valid ID like a DL, then the WA FFL does not collect sales tax.

Conspiracy theorists, your turn....

 

[uberguy]

Sorry, you're just wrong about private party transfers, facilitated by FFL's. These remain private party, the dealer is simply performing a fee based service performing the required BGC. It does not become a dealer-to-dealer transfer, in so far as legal ownership is concerned and as that related to tax collections.
Separately, you claimed earlier a dealer may keep a firearm if the buyer fails the check, and that's also untrue. I said nothing about whether another transfer back is necessary. The seller retains ownership. Regaining possession is a different topic.

 

[uberguy]

If I'm a n00b reading this thread, I wouldn't know whether to ***k, fight or hold the light concerning cross-state handgun transfers.

So in another effort to KISS, I just called my FFL on the WA sales tax issue for private handgun transfers from out of state to a WA buyer.
The answer...
If the out of state private seller includes a copy of valid ID like a DL, then the WA FFL does not collect sales tax.

Conspiracy theorists, your turn....

BTW, may also require an invoice, with S/N from the private party.

From the bigger picture situation, the anti-gun crowd want UNIVERSAL BGC laws mostly because of the frustration and confusion the mish-mash of laws create, discouraging buyers, new and old alike, not so much because of the crime prevention effectiveness of these laws ... in my opinion.

 

[wired]

Sorry, you're just wrong about private party transfers, facilitated by FFL's. These remain private party, the dealer is simply performing a fee based service performing the required BGC. It does not become a dealer-to-dealer transfer, in so far as legal ownership is concerned and as that related to tax collections.
Separately, you claimed earlier a dealer may keep a firearm if the buyer fails the check, and that's also untrue. I said nothing about whether another transfer back is necessary. The seller retains ownership. Regaining possession is a different topic.

The dealer cannot return the gun to anyone if they do not have a 4473 on file matching that transaction. Speaking as a former dealer. It cannot happen no matter what the state says is OK. Interstate dealer to dealer is fedearl domain not state.

 

[uberguy]

As I said, "The seller retains ownership.
Regaining possession is a different topic."

A cross-state firearms transfer between private parties, is between private parties; Clearly the receiving FFL in-state to the buyer takes possession. They do not take ownership, as you claimed earlier. I'm quite aware of Federal vs. State law.

There is legal difference between ownership and possession.

You were completely wrong when you said an FFL keeps the gun if the background check is failed. I said nothing about the paperwork to transfer it back to the original seller. You keep dodging your original claim. It's pretty clear WE won't be doing any transfers. I'm done helping clarify where you got it wrong about both PP transfer taxes and ownership/retention.

 

[wired]

Im not dodging anything. You are just ignoring federal dealer requirements. State law is only a small part of what a dealer has to contend with. If a dealer takes in a gun for transfer he has to enter it in to his bound books. If the purchaser/transferee/tradee cannot pass the BGC/4473 requirements the dealer has to run a 4473 to return it to the original owner. The state doesnt say that. If the original owner fails the BGC the dealer cannot return it to him. A person who is not legally entitled to own a gun does not retain ownership per se and does certainly not get possession back from the dealer lest the dealer lose his federal license. I see what you're saying but a prohibited person cannot own a firearm so "ownership" isnt quite correct for terminology. Perhaps the original owner can find another transferee to complete the transaction but it will not get returned to the original owner legally.

 

[The Heretic]

If I am in Oregon, say Medford, and I want to trade a gun with a person in Omak Washington am I going to drive that far? No. I'm going to go to UPS to shp it to his dealer directly? Not when I find out how much it costs ($75 ) to ship overnight as required by UPS regs. So what I do is take it to my dealer in Medford who charges me $30 to ship it under his FFL. To do that it need to get entered into his bound books and shipped with his FFL copy ( I was an 02/07 and yep, thats true) and sent to a dealer in Washington. It is at that point a dealer to dealer transfer. Now you MIGHT be able to convince the dealer or the state that it is a person to person trade. That has not been my luck

Ah, but the thing is you don't need a dealer in Medford to ship the gun to the dealer in Omak, you can ship it yourself to an FFL anywhere in the USA.


https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0813-firearms-top-12-qaspdf/download

May I lawfully ship a firearm directly to an out-of-State licensee, or must I have a licensee in my State ship it to him? May the licensee return the firearm to me, even if the shipment is across State lines?

Any person may ship firearms directly to a licensee in any State, with no requirement for another licensee to ship the firearm. However, handguns and other concealable firearms are not mailable through the United States Postal Service and must be shipped via private common or contract carrier (18 U.S.C. § 1715). The USPS and private common or contract carriers may also have additional restrictions on firearms shipments by unlicensed persons. Firearms shipped to FFLs for repair or any other lawful purpose may be returned to the person from whom received without transferring the firearm through an FFL in the recipient's State of residence. FFLs may also return a replacement firearm of the same kind and type to the person from whom received (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2)(A)). An ATF Form 4473 is required for the return of the firearm, except in instances when a firearm is delivered to a licensee for the sole purpose of repair or customizing, and the same firearm or a replacement firearm is returned to the person from whom received (27 CFR § 478.124(a)).

To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives