Successful SB 941 Transactions

[etrain16]

That transaction sounds screwed up from beginning to end.
Getting complicated upon a denial sounds like an understatement you were payed for it so you don't own it the shop has possession of it but did not pay for it.

I have a feeling all it meant was another BGC and transfer fee, which would suck eggs. But they do a lot of transfer work, so I doubt they want to screw over then gun community too badly - lots of other places to take your business.

 

[Norm0931]

Okay, I ended up doing my first SB941 FFL sale this week. I have talked to several FFL's about private sales - to say they are largely confused about the process is an understatement. Seems everyone does it a little differently and currently, my preferred local home-based FFL isn't ready to do any until he gets some better clarification.

My buyer wanted to meet over on the west side, so we ended up going to Tigard Pawn. I've done online transfers with them before, but this is my first sale post 941, so it's a learning experience. They had told me on the phone to bring a color copy of my DL, front and back, with me, as the seller. Transfer fee with BGC is $25, same as for an incoming transfer.

Now, they hadn't really clearly explained the process over the phone, but here's how it went down. He asked the buyer to look over the gun first and see if he wanted it, which he did. The next part was weird because I asked if they would do the BGC first before taking it on the books. He said no, they don't do it that way. So, what he did was ask 2 questions of my buyer - have you ever been convicted of a felony, or do you have any reason to believe you are prohibited from owning a firearm. He said no. So, he had the buyer pay me right there and said I could go, at which point, the FFL said they were taking possession of the gun and would deal directly with my buyer from this point on. I paid the $25 fee and confirmed with the buyer that he was okay with this process, which he was (can't say I would have been as a buyer) and left.

Now, why didn't they do the BGC up front while we're both there? The simple reason was this - he said that the BGC's that day had been taking in excess of 90 minutes and that he was going to send the buyer off to run errands while it processes - he said there was no reason to tie us both up for that time. When I asked what happens if he gets a delay, he said they'd hold the gun for the delay period. When I asked what happens if he ultimately gets a denial, he said "it gets complicated"

I thought the whole process was weird and I'm not sure I want to use them again. What if the guy hadn't passed? Would I have been responsible to pay a reverse transfer fee and BGC on myself (he didn't answer that question for me)?

I don't know, this SB941 stuff is a big steaming pile of crap. The politicians don't know what's going on. The OSP can't function reliably and efficiently. The FFL's can't agree on what to do.

Honestly it was hardly worth the pain in the butt to even do this sale for a cheap old shotgun.

And I still can't believe the buyer was willing to pay me and let me go out the door before anything was finalized with the FFL. Maybe he was just as confused as I was and didn't want to pass on the deal. I don't know. But damn...

We had a similar situation last night at my shop. Two guys came in 10 minutes before close and backgrounds were running 60 to 90 minutes. I told them we'd run the background on the buyer now, but they would have to bring the gun back tomorrow (Sat) to actually make the transfer. They were cool with that. Seller asked me if I could hold on to the gun and I told him no, because if I did and for whatever reason the buyer failed I'd have to do a background on him to get it back. He agreed that was stupid and kept the firearm in his custody.

 

[Koda]

Okay, I ended up doing my first SB941 FFL sale this week. I have talked to several FFL's about private sales - to say they are largely confused about the process is an understatement. Seems everyone does it a little differently and currently, my preferred local home-based FFL isn't ready to do any until he gets some better clarification.

My buyer wanted to meet over on the west side, so we ended up going to Tigard Pawn. I've done online transfers with them before, but this is my first sale post 941, so it's a learning experience. They had told me on the phone to bring a color copy of my DL, front and back, with me, as the seller. Transfer fee with BGC is $25, same as for an incoming transfer.

Now, they hadn't really clearly explained the process over the phone, but here's how it went down. He asked the buyer to look over the gun first and see if he wanted it, which he did. The next part was weird because I asked if they would do the BGC first before taking it on the books. He said no, they don't do it that way. So, what he did was ask 2 questions of my buyer - have you ever been convicted of a felony, or do you have any reason to believe you are prohibited from owning a firearm. He said no. So, he had the buyer pay me right there and said I could go, at which point, the FFL said they were taking possession of the gun and would deal directly with my buyer from this point on. I paid the $25 fee and confirmed with the buyer that he was okay with this process, which he was (can't say I would have been as a buyer) and left.

Now, why didn't they do the BGC up front while we're both there? The simple reason was this - he said that the BGC's that day had been taking in excess of 90 minutes and that he was going to send the buyer off to run errands while it processes - he said there was no reason to tie us both up for that time. When I asked what happens if he gets a delay, he said they'd hold the gun for the delay period. When I asked what happens if he ultimately gets a denial, he said "it gets complicated"

I thought the whole process was weird and I'm not sure I want to use them again. What if the guy hadn't passed? Would I have been responsible to pay a reverse transfer fee and BGC on myself (he didn't answer that question for me)?

I don't know, this SB941 stuff is a big steaming pile of crap. The politicians don't know what's going on. The OSP can't function reliably and efficiently. The FFL's can't agree on what to do.

Honestly it was hardly worth the pain in the butt to even do this sale for a cheap old shotgun.

And I still can't believe the buyer was willing to pay me and let me go out the door before anything was finalized with the FFL. Maybe he was just as confused as I was and didn't want to pass on the deal. I don't know. But damn...

thanks for sharing this, obviously the pawn shop is setting themselves up for a free gun if the BGC gets denied.... like if they "accidentally screw up" the BGC process.

 

[31Kwiredog]

I had two firearms sold last week but had both sales fall thru due to not be able to find a FFL dealer willing to due the transfers. My normal FFL isn't comfortable doing them. Then local Pawn shop seem to want to charge an arm and leg to do the deal.

 

[Caveman Jim]

It's all BS, just another way for the British type politicians to screw their lowely subjects!!!!

 

[etrain16]

I had two firearms sold last week but had both sales fall thru due to not be able to find a FFL dealer willing to due the transfers. My normal FFL isn't comfortable doing them. Then local Pawn shop seem to want to charge an arm and leg to do the deal.

We should probably start a list of every FFL that is refusing to do these transfers. As that list gets populated, it needs to be put in front of all the state legislators, especially the ones on our side, so they can hopefully demonstrate the massive inconvenience the SB941 proponents have created - and to show how their list of so many FFL's for transfers, was actually a farse. Probably good to document the actual BGC wait times - regardless of what the lairs at OSP have to say about those 'average' wait times.

I wonder, if most or all of the FFL's in the state refused to do private sales/transfers, would that then negate SB941 since there is no vehicle to do the transfers? And since the state has no say over what FFL's do, maybe it could be a chance to help shut it down?

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Law abiding people are just going to hang on to their old beater guns they no longer want instead of selling them FTF as before. Of course this won't prevent them from buying new firearms. So a guy that might normally have at any one time maybe 5 or 6 ends up having 10 or 12.

Many of these older guns might not get a coveted spot in the safe and will more easily be stolen!

Not a very thought out Law. Gets more guns on the streets like they don't want.

Anybody know how dealers do consignments? You can't actually pawn a gun anymore right?
SB941 prevents that, correct?

 

[NWGlockgal]

We should probably start a list of every FFL that is refusing to do these transfers. As that list gets populated, it needs to be put in front of all the state legislators, especially the ones on our side, so they can hopefully demonstrate the massive inconvenience the SB941 proponents have created

The only problem with this scenario is that you are assuming that the lib legislators actually care.

 

[etrain16]

The only problem with this scenario is that you are assuming that the lib legislators actually care.

I'm thinking more importantly of the pro-gun legislators. It can become a tool they can use when it's time to get back into session - something they can throw in the face of the anti-gunners, publicly, to show the huge error of their ways.

 

[fredball]

How about one of these in washington too

 

[Just Jim]

Don't vote in liberals and you won't have to deal with this crap...

 

[etrain16]

Don't vote in liberals and you won't have to deal with this crap...

Since they seem, at least for the moment, to outnumber us, then we'll have to continue to do what we can to either stop them, redirect them, or, if necessary, and possible, discredit them so as to shut down their policies. I'd rather your solution happen, but as that's a bit unlikely at the moment, I'm looking for anything that could work.

 

[Just Jim]

About the only solution to selling a gun is to sell on gun brokers. State gets no fee and buyer pays shipping. Boycott the state coffers that way. It's all legal if you ship to ffl.

 

[RVTECH]

Don't vote in liberals and you won't have to deal with this crap...

Dare to dream.....

 

[etrain16]

About the only solution to selling a gun is to sell on gun brokers. State gets no fee and buyer pays shipping. Boycott the state coffers that way. It's all legal if you ship to ffl.

I also like the idea of selling long guns/shotguns to WA residents. Also legal, and Oregon gets nothing.

 

[DuneHopper]

If only SB941 was not Constitutionally illegal I would try and SB941 transfer.
So cant try it out since SB941 doesn't apply to me.

 

[etrain16]

If only SB941 was not Constitutionally illegal I would try and SB941 transfer.
So cant try it out since SB941 doesn't apply to me.

As much as I agree with the sentiment, the SCOTUS has already sided with the states, stating that it is not a violation of the 2nd to require BGC's. I suspect the first person caught/charged under SB941 for doing a transfer without a BGC will claim the very thing you did here. And then they'll get prosecuted anyway. The SCOTUS is against us in this matter, they will not protect us from BGC's.

The simple fact is that the state has more resources than any one of us, and can enforce BS laws like this, whether we like it or not.

All said, until someone gets caught and prosecuted under SB941, we really don't know what will happen. So far no one has been caught/prosecuted under I-594 in Washington, which has been around longer, and I do suspect many folks up north have not complied. As I'm sure some here have done as well.

 

[DuneHopper]

I get why people will use SB941 rules, there is "fear: of the law.
I get that 100% I truly do, but in my own head and only speaking for myself
I could not follow the illegal SB941 even if I wanted to. My brain is wired such that my own moral compass said I have a right to not do it that way. I look at it this way, what firearm I am buying thru SB941 is worth me complying to the tyrannical law? Answer for me, is none. To me it seems the more that we comply to SB941 the more it will become common place. This thread why interesting to me, also tells many awww SB941 aint so bad it worked for me, and my brain goes Ugggg.

I appreciate allot of your posts Etrain, and I almost always agree with your take.
In this instance for me public displays of SB941 compliance sends a message
" we will comply " . Thats really what I am getting at. I do understand the mass gobberment ability to enforce whatever they want. I am sure George and the boys back in the late 1700's looked over at England and said dang they want to do what ? And there was either compliance or non-compliance.

I should say I am not saying anyone should not follow the laws or not use a FFL in a private transfer. I am saying for reasons I reiterated SB941 does not apply to me. Just like the Taxes imposed by England did not apply to our forefathers.

I should also say the lack of SB941 application did not slow this members hobby or acquisitions. Even did one on the Court House steps this year day after it was effective. Symbolic as it was, it meant something to me.

 

[etrain16]

I've got no complaint with your point of view DuneHopper, I get where you're coming from and understand why you feel the way you do. I feel the same way. Of course different people will choose to follow or not follow laws they feel are unjust, unfair or unconstitutional, even if it means there will be some big repercussions.

This thread interests me for one big reason - I really want to know what kind of unreasonable restrictions they've placed on us. Back in 1868, just after the Civil War ended, the 14th amendment to the Constitution was presented. The senator that presented it on the floor stated: Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan served on the committee that drafted the 14th Amendment, and he introduced it on the floor of the Senate. In this speech, he stated that that the "great object" of the first section of the amendment is "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect" the "personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution" including "the right to keep and to bear arms...." Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Non-compliance with 941 doesn't do anything, really, to change it. Compliance, however foolish it is, can be used to show that these people have, in fact, created a hardship and placed barriers to our free exercise of our constitutional rights. They claimed in passing 941 that it would be a simple and easy process. It is not. It is filled with misinformation, FFL's that have no idea how to do it, charge too much or refuse to participate. The OSP background check system has been shown in a short time to be ill equipped to handle the process.

All in all, I'm looking for any way possible to turn this around. I'm hoping, as we document the process, for those that have chosen to do so, we can help equip those legislators that will fight on our behalf to turn this around, with some good arguments. Maybe that will help, maybe it won't. I shared my one example, and I'll tell you, it's not worth it. What a complete pain in the backside. I've got no love for giving any more money to these backstabbing politicians and the OSP that kisses their backsides for their new revenue source.

I support anyone's right to choose how they want to handle 941. I also suspect some may say they will comply here, on a public forum, but may choose to do otherwise outside of the forum.

 

[Caveman Jim]

All said, until someone gets caught and prosecuted under SB941, we really don't know what will happen. So far no one has been caught/prosecuted under I-594 in Washington, which has been around longer, and I do suspect many folks up north have not complied. As I'm sure some here have done as well.[/QUOTE]

You are correct Sir....