regulations "school me"

[deadeye]

So as I normally don't care....What are the transfer of ownership/purchase rules as far as an Oregonian wanting to purchase a firearm from a resident of Washington. I have been seeing alot of firearms in Wash. for sale I am interested in but see alot of talk of having to go through a Oregon FFL. Is this the rule of thumb in Wash. to sell a firearm person to person, just out of state, or ? I am well versed on Oregon law but somewhat uninformed on Wash. laws.Sound as though they are more of a pain than they are worth when it comes to buying in Wash.:huh:

Read More

 

[gunnails]

I believe it is a federal law, not state.

I think it says can't sell guns to crooks ,crayzies, or from out of state.

 

[coctailer]

It's pretty easy.
You can buy anything you like, but it needs to be transferred through an FFL when buying across state lines.

Pay for gun and have them ship it to an FFL near you, and you can pick it up there.

 

[CEF1959]

What coctailer said. This gets asked a lot, so I thought I'd post this excellent summary from the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website:

"An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser`s state. Firearms received by bequest or intestate succession are exempt from those sections of the law which forbid the transfer, sale, delivery or transportation of firearms into a state other than the transferor`s state of residence."

Here's the link itself. It contains a ton of extremely useful information on the subject of federal gun laws:

<broken link removed>

 

[NK777]

Yes it's a stupid federal law. It make purchasing firearms out of state not worth it because of the fee's incurred using FFL's + often times shipping.

 

[deadeye]

Thanks for the info everyone. Just as I thought the answer would be, just needed the clarification. Seems like it would only be worth it for a collectable.

 

[CEF1959]

Yes it's a stupid federal law. It make purchasing firearms out of state not worth it because of the fee's incurred using FFL's + often times shipping.

You left out the most important thing: It accomplishes NOTHING.

 

[A2theK]

You left out the most important thing: It accomplishes NOTHING.

I could see how they may want to regulate interstate commerce, but come on... I don't see how one or two firearms for the support of a personal collection should matter.

(But remember it could be part of the (untied we stand divided we fall) principle of locking down gun transfer to the city and state level which is easier to manage and track transfers if you ever need to disarm a population. )

 

[ob1]

For the benefit of the youngins out there , this Federal prohibition is over forty years old. It dates back to the days of tie-dyed shirts, "free-love" and "groovy man".

The Federal Law we are speaking of here (USC Chapter 44, Title 18) is commonly referred to as the "Gun control act of 1968" or the Dodd Act and was signed by LBJ in Oct 1968.

This lovely act gave us such things as the ban on mail order gun purchase, serial number requirements, prohibition of sending firearms through the US mail, the identification of "sporting purpose" firearms and other gems in addition to the ban on transfer of firearms across state lines. A 1986 ammendment modified the interstate transfer restrictions to allow for the contiguous state transfer of long guns if sold through a licensed dealer in that state.

Another interesting facit of the 1968 Act was the prohibition on unlicensed individuals from purchasing and then selling firearms for profit or as a business. Private sales between individuals were allowed only if the firearm in question was from the personal collection of the seller. This provision would seem to prohibit an unlicensed individual from engaging repeatedly in the act of buying and then selling a firearm for a profit.
( things that make you go hmmm )