Washington Washington purchases after July 1.

[bikemutt]

What's keeping 2 Washington residents from going to Oregon to do a private long gun transfer?

I suppose if it's not a semi-automatic assault rifle that might work, but it would work in WA as well, not sure why there would be any reason to try the transfer in OR.

 

[GWS]

I suppose if it's not a semi-automatic assault rifle that might work, but it would work in WA as well, not sure why there would be any reason to try the transfer in OR.

I think he meant semi-auto rifle with the hope that HIPPA waiver and other 1639 idiocies could be avoided in Oregon

 

[bikemutt]

I think he meant semi-auto rifle with the hope that HIPPA waiver and other 1639 idiocies could be avoided in Oregon

Got it. I don't think it will work then, a long gun FFL transfer needs to comply with the FFL's state laws and the transferee's state laws.

 

[TCOV]

Friend of mine just bought a handgun from a local dealer. Five days to complete transfer.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I was just talking to a guy that just put $50 down/layaway on an AR in Portland and he is a WA resident my neighbor so I do believe him , he asked the FFL about this new law and was told the he can not ship a handgun to a WA FFL any more for purchase as of this new law But he can still sale rifles all the same to WA residents same form as any other rife sold and same background check as any other rifle just as it was before or after
WA 1639, so I really don't understand the deal with buying a long gun in Oregon while this FFL is a small private FFL in Oregon he either does not understand 1639 or the bigger company's in Oregon just do not want or will not deal with 1639 and Washington residents , seems to be much confusion on 1639

This is dealer is incorrect and in violation of federal law. He can ship a handgun or a semi auto rifle to an FFL in WA for delivery. Handguns were not affected on interstate transfers under 1639, rifles were. Dealers should know these things...or else they don't last long as dealers and put clients in legal jeopardy.

This is being challenged in federal court, that's the root of our claim.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I'm wondering now... How much have sales tax revenues decreased since 7/1.
I wonder if it is s significant amount lost from the (I assume) greatly decreased gun sales.

Huge loss in sales since July 1. Like 90%...

 

[JO JO]

This is dealer is incorrect and in violation of federal law. He can ship a handgun or a semi auto rifle to an FFL in WA for delivery. Handguns were not affected on interstate transfers under 1639, rifles were. Dealers should know these things...or else they don't last long as dealers and put clients in legal jeopardy.

I think his point was he can still sale/transfer any long gun to a Washington resident as long as the buyer passes the Oregon background check just like before July 1st ,
I have heard from several FFL's that Oregon FFL's can still sale any long gun to a Washington resident under Federal law and Washington Constitution, it is just many Oregon FFL's do not want any backlash like many of these big company's that are not
standing up for us, just like many Washington Sheriffs said they will not enforce this BS law but the big FFL"s / Company's
seem to bend and say OK , unfortunately Clark County Sheriff said he will enforce it and we need to remember this come
next election.
I was at Sportsman's yesterday talking about this and the salesmen at the counter was telling me the same thing the there is no law that prevents the Oregon Sportsman's to sale any long gun to a Washington resident but to avoid backlash they have chosen
not to

this is what I am confused on I hear 2 different stories on Oregon to Washington sales ?
either way thank you for being one of the very few business to stand up and fight back !!!

 

[TCOV]

I think his point was he can still sale/transfer any long gun to a Washington resident as long as the buyer passes the Oregon background check just like before July 1st ,
I have heard from several FFL's that Oregon FFL's can still sale any long gun to a Washington resident under Federal law and Washington Constitution, it is just many Oregon FFL's do not want any backlash like many of these big company's that are not
standing up for us, just like many Washington Sheriffs said they will not enforce this BS law but the big FFL"s / Company's
seem to bend and say OK , unfortunately Clark County Sheriff said he will enforce it and we need to remember this come
next election.
I was at Sportsman's yesterday talking about this and the salesmen at the counter was telling me the same thing the there is no law that prevents the Oregon Sportsman's to sale any long gun to a Washington resident but to avoid backlash they have chosen
not to

this is what I am confused on I hear 2 different stories on Oregon to Washington sales ?
either way thank you for being one of the very few business to stand up and fight back !!!

RCW 9.141.122 is still Washington law and clearly allows a WA resident who is not a prohibited person to purchase a rifle or shotgun in another state from a FFL as long as no part of the transaction takes place in WA and possession is legal in both states. I1639 did not change this law and a FFL in OR would not be violating WA law that pertains to this transaction on rifles which is RCW 9.141.122. Some dealers choose not to read the laws and refuse service to WA citizens, their choice. Also note that a buyer under 21 would be prohibited from buying a semiauto rifle in WA so would also be prohibited from buying in another state per federal law.

 

[JO JO]

RCW 9.141.122 is still Washington law and clearly allows a WA resident who is not a prohibited person to purchase a rifle or shotgun in another state from a FFL as long as no part of the transaction takes place in WA and possession is legal in both states. I1639 did not change this law and a FFL in OR would not be violating WA law that pertains to this transaction on rifles which is RCW 9.141.122. Some dealers choose not to read the laws and refuse service to WA citizens, their choice.

Thank You ,
it is to bad that so many dealers seem to back down and go along to get along with out fighting or standing up for us but
as you said their choice

 

[Sporting Systems]

RCW 9.141.122 is still Washington law and clearly allows a WA resident who is not a prohibited person to purchase a rifle or shotgun in another state from a FFL as long as no part of the transaction takes place in WA and possession is legal in both states. I1639 did not change this law and a FFL in OR would not be violating WA law that pertains to this transaction on rifles which is RCW 9.141.122. Some dealers choose not to read the laws and refuse service to WA citizens, their choice.

Ask Oregon why they wont approve a rifle sale to a CA resident. Because its in violation of federal law and CA called Oregon up and said...stop, youre breaking Federal law. You need to forget about Washington RCWs, its 18 USC that applies here, Federal Law. OSP will be sued by Washington for approving rifle sales once the AG gets off of suing Trump and the US Navy.

Sheriff Atkins, whom we're suing in Federal Court, is retiring...so election won't matter much to him.

FYI - Sportsmans refused to honor our 1639 training certificate too. Until we talked to them and showed them the law, explained it for them. Most of the folks on the counters know very little about 1639, especially those in Oregon.

 

[User 1234]

The entire reason that Congress wrote in the requirement to honor the purchaser's state's laws is to prevent people from going out of state to avoid their own state's laws. This scenario was not hard to foresee, even for Congress.

 

[TCOV]

Ask Oregon why they wont approve a rifle sale to a CA resident. Because its in violation of federal law and CA called Oregon up and said...stop, youre breaking Federal law. You need to forget about Washington RCWs, its 18 USC that applies here, Federal Law. OSP will be sued by Washington for approving rifle sales once the AG gets off of suing Trump and the US Navy.

Sheriff Atkins, whom we're suing in Federal Court, is retiring...so election won't matter much to him.

FYI - Sportsmans refused to honor our 1639 training certificate too. Until we talked to them and showed them the law, explained it for them. Most of the folks on the counters know very little about 1639, especially those in Oregon.

RCWs are law and I don't mean disrespect but believe your opinion is incorrect and unless you have more information than I have that's all it is. an opinion. What happens between OR and CA is not related here. If RCW 9.141.122 did not exist then you would be correct but it does exist and is current law and clearly allows a WA resident to purchase a semiauto rifle in another state without violating WA law. You can't say forget about the RCW because all WA laws are coded in RCWs. I1639 is now written in RCWs and lists exceptions to parts.

 

[User 1234]

 

[User 1234]

If absolutely no part of the transfer took place in Washington, such as no communications, then the last sentence of 9.41.122 could be read to give permission to an out of state FFL to sell a long gun to a Washington resident without 1639 procedures. This would have to be tested in court and only after the Washington Supreme Court ruled would we have a solid answer. Personally I don't want to be a test case, and I bet no Oregon FFL does either.


You can also be certain that the Washington AG would argue that the language after the first "AND PROVIDED FURTHER" clause incorporates 1639's requirements. 1639 created a mess, plain and simple.

 

[Sporting Systems]

I don't mean to present an opinion, rather a statement of fact. As the lead plaintiff suing the state over 1639, specifically addressing the commerce clause restrictions, I have a weekly meeting with the attorneys involved in the lawsuit. I'm also privilege to all of the discovery requests and interrogatories within the lawsuit. The Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, the Washington Attorney General's office all agree on this issue, as do all the legal teams representing the plaintiffs AND defendants. If your opinion was accurate, than the federal judge would have already thrown it out at the request of the attorney general (they tried everything else to get it thrown out), but it's moving forward

RCWs don't apply in Oregon, RCWs stop at the river. Do Washington speed limits apply when driving in Oregon? Nope, not even for Washington residents. The RCW that you reference protects your ability to purchase out of state, specifically not to ban the importation of firearms legally acquired out of state. However, we're not concerned with RCW while in Oregon or Idaho, we're concerned with 18 USC. 18 USC requires an FFL to conform with the laws of the buyers state of residence.

 

[User 1234]

We are interested in the RCW because that is what federal law incorporates into the federal restrictions on the selling FFL.

 

[Sporting Systems]

We are interested in the RCW because that is what federal law incorporates into the federal restrictions on the selling FFL.

What does the RCW say about taking a Washington resident possession of a semi automatic rifle? That too, applies. And remember, Washington law has now codifed that a semi automatic rifle is NOT a long gun, rather its an assault weapon with its own definition.

Please don't mistake me as presenting the legal argument of any part of the this hot mess of horse crap as support of it. Its total BS and that's why we are so heavily invested in fighting it. I'm just correcting bad information that's being passed around, I'd love to be wrong, but so far all of the attorneys are in agreement.

If there are any lawyers here whom find that I am incorrect, please feel free to file a lawsuit against the state. I'll be happy to be your harmed party plaintiff. Anyone? Buelller? Bueller? These crickets are awfully loud. Since January 1, we are the only suit filed and active fighting this.

 

[User 1234]

I don't pretend to be as fluent on this as people who are reading these statutes every day, but I don't see anything in the new definition of "semiautomatic assault rifle" which states that an SAR is not a rifle or is not a long gun.

 

[User 1234]

What I may now be understanding from the definitions above is that the AG is taking the position that "rifle" does not include "semi automatic assault rifle" and therefore the out of state purchasing statute does not authorize the purchase of a SAR out of state. Given that the definition of "rifle" is broader than "semi automatic assault rifle" I would hope a judge would not interpret it that way, but until there is a judicial ruling we won't know.

 

[Talos32]

I don't mean to present an opinion, rather a statement of fact. As the lead plaintiff suing the state over 1639, specifically addressing the commerce clause restrictions, I have a weekly meeting with the attorneys involved in the lawsuit. I'm also privilege to all of the discovery requests and interrogatories within the lawsuit. The Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, the Washington Attorney General's office all agree on this issue, as do all the legal teams representing the plaintiffs AND defendants. If your opinion was accurate, than the federal judge would have already thrown it out at the request of the attorney general (they tried everything else to get it thrown out), but it's moving forward

RCWs don't apply in Oregon, RCWs stop at the river. Do Washington speed limits apply when driving in Oregon? Nope, not even for Washington residents. The RCW that you reference protects your ability to purchase out of state, specifically not to ban the importation of firearms legally acquired out of state. However, we're not concerned with RCW while in Oregon or Idaho, we're concerned with 18 USC. 18 USC requires an FFL to conform with the laws of the buyers state of residence.

I appreciate all that you're doing, so please don't take offense, but you are stating an opinion. The fact that your attorney, or even opposing counsel, agrees doesn't change that until there is a ruling.

You essentially have three laws at play: 18 USC, which requires that a cross state purchase comply with the laws of both states, and the laws of both those states. Since your suit is with WA concerning their laws, we can ignore the "other state" for now. RCW now has the i-1639 provisions governing the purchase of "semiautomatic assault weapons," but it also has RCW 9.141.122 addressing out of state purchases.

The specific outweighs the general, and wins in a conflict, so the key question is if or where the specific provisions of RCW 9.141.122 conflict with, and therefore outweigh, i-1639. In this case the last section identifies the specific circumstances where a WA background check is required: only when a part of the transaction takes place in WA.

It also says that you must be able to "purchase or possess" a firearm. Possess is a specific term and RCW 9.41.40 lists what bars you from possession- they are almost all convictions or restraining orders, a successful background check is not required for possession of a firearm.it is required for a transfer of a firearm, which is where it matters to you as a dealer. If you read the law, the background check is actually the government certifying that the purchaser is able to possess a firearm under RCW 9. 41. 40.

So, as RCW 9.141.122 specifically does not require a background check unless the purchase was made in whole or part in Washington, and it requires that you be able to possess a firearm as a matter of fact, not that your ability to possess a firearm be certified by a background check, my reading is that it's supercedes the provisions of i-1639 incorporated into other RCWs on the grounds that the specific outweighs the general when they conflict.

In the case of 18-21 year olds purchasing a "semi-automatic assault rifle," the laws do not conflict, because the conditions for possession for that specific firearm have been altered, and RCW 9.141.122 specifically requires that a purchaser meet the standard for possession.

I would caution you, because as we seen in New York, if the Attorney General thought they were going to lose all they would have to do is adopt my interpretation and move for a dismissal.