Messages
377
Reactions
584
Based on the Supreme Court Bruen decision, you can just hand it to him. It’s what I’m doing nowadays.
I'd be interested to read why you think that.

Bruen did not invalidate 18 USC 922; interstate transfer - based on the states of residence of the parties - requires using an FFL. That has been the law since 1968. Violation could get both parties a 5-year stretch in prison and/or a $10K fine.
 
Messages
2,881
Reactions
8,498
I'd be interested to read why you think that.
Because it's an emotional response, not a practical one.

For the legal transfer, the buyers state laws apply. Sine it's a long gun and in a neighboring state of they buyer, he's legally able to purchase it, but has to obey the laws of the state he resides in.
 
Messages
377
Reactions
584
Because it's an emotional response, not a practical one.

For the legal transfer, the buyers state laws apply. Sine it's a long gun and in a neighboring state of they buyer, he's legally able to purchase it, but has to obey the laws of the state he resides in.
The 'adjoining state' thing went away in 1986, with the Firearms Owners Protective Act. Current law for long guns is any state, provided the transaction satisfies the laws of the states of residence of the buyer and seller, and the state where the FFL is. That is, a UT seller might sell to a WY buyer at an FFL in ID - have to make all 3 states happy.

With the upcoming PTP, looks like cannot satisfy OR law at an FFL outside OR; similarly, CA buyers cannot complete such transactions out of CA because cannot satisfy CA law.

Of course, what the law requires and what people may actually do has been known to diverge a little. Know your risks, do what you think is best for you.
 
Messages
663
Reactions
540
Bruen did not invalidate 18 USC 922; interstate transfer - based on the states of residence of the parties - requires using an FFL. That has been the law since 1968. Violation could get both parties a 5-year stretch in prison and/or a $10K fine.
I’d like to see the history & precedent of banning interstate personal transfer. That’s the judicial standard now. 18 USC 922 cannot stand with that. While congress can regulate interstate commerce, they can’t ban civil rights based on their interstate exercise. It’s a new world.
 
Messages
2,881
Reactions
8,498
The 'adjoining state' thing went away in 1986, with the Firearms Owners Protective Act. Current law for long guns is any state, provided the transaction satisfies the laws of the states of residence of the buyer and seller, and the state where the FFL is. That is, a UT seller might sell to a WY buyer at an FFL in ID - have to make all 3 states happy.
Just looked it up, you're right! Thanks for the education.
 
Messages
377
Reactions
584
I’d like to see the history & precedent of banning interstate personal transfer. That’s the judicial standard now. 18 USC 922 cannot stand with that. While congress can regulate interstate commerce, they can’t ban civil rights based on their interstate exercise. It’s a new world.
Well, it has never made any sense to me, but for it to go away will take a Federal lawsuit challenging the law.

I've noted before, good civil rights attorneys are uncommon and expensive; when setting priorities, should they be working on things like M114, or 18 USC 922? There's not enough resources to do both at the same time.
 
Messages
363
Reactions
190
Thanks
The 'adjoining state' thing went away in 1986, with the Firearms Owners Protective Act. Current law for long guns is any state, provided the transaction satisfies the laws of the states of residence of the buyer and seller, and the state where the FFL is. That is, a UT seller might sell to a WY buyer at an FFL in ID - have to make all 3 states happy.

With the upcoming PTP, looks like cannot satisfy OR law at an FFL outside OR; similarly, CA buyers cannot complete such transactions out of CA because cannot satisfy CA law.

Of course, what the law requires and what people may actually do has been known to diverge a little. Know your risks, do what you think is best for you.
So for now for an OR resident to buy that shotgun would be problematic as in they would not know when they’d be able to take possession of it? Is that fairly accurate?
 
Messages
377
Reactions
584
Thanks

So for now for an OR resident to buy that shotgun would be problematic as in they would not know when they’d be able to take possession of it? Is that fairly accurate?
That, but more urgently, a non-OR FFL will be wondering what pile of poo he might step in while the 114 dreck is litigated.
 
Messages
20
Reactions
18
From what i can gather before PTP is the law in oregon. A transaction could be completed in Washington for a oregon buyer given its not a pistol (pistol’s all most always require home state transfer unless military with orders), and not semiautomatic long gun or shot gun.
 
Messages
4,838
Reactions
12,249
From what i can gather before PTP is the law in oregon. A transaction could be completed in Washington for a oregon buyer given its not a pistol (pistol’s all most always require home state transfer unless military with orders), and not semiautomatic long gun or shot gun.
Even semiautomatic shotguns are not subject to WA’s I-1639 process.
 
Messages
428
Reactions
213
From what i can gather before PTP is the law in oregon. A transaction could be completed in Washington for a oregon buyer given its not a pistol (pistol’s all most always require home state transfer unless military with orders), and not semiautomatic long gun or shot gun.
This, as of right now, while M114 is in limbo.
WA FFL can perform a BG check/Transfer for a Oregon Resident for a shotgun. Some may just not want to deal with it.
With that being said, it is up to the FFL to be willing to conduct the check/transfer. Call the around and see which ones will. Although, it is legal, private business ultimately decide who they serve or what services they will provide. (unless you're a baker)

Much like how some LGS were releasing firearms prior to BG clearing in OR FICS post passing of M114. Or some OR FFLs refusing new transfers post M114.

OP- If you'd like to know the FFL in WA that is willing to do so, as of right now (Any new decisions on M114 may change this), please give me a DM. They're not far from you. If they refuse, have the employee or the owner call me, I'll give you my name.
 
Last Edited:

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top