Washington Washington purchases after July 1.

[Talos32]

The legislature can not exempt anyone from a Constitutional violation. If the delay violates the constitution then the agency is still liable at least for prospective relief.

I think that's why Sporting Systems said that anti-gun counties are being watched. If they start playing games with delaying approvals, they open themselves up to litigation.

 

[bikemutt]

What WA should have done when FBI said no more double dipping is to have local LE quit doing the second NICS check since it was already done at the point of sale. But no, that would have benefited law-abiding CPL holders, certainly can't allow that to happen. The message that sends to me is I don't count and I can't be trusted, thanks WA.

 

[DizzyJ]

Ok, I'm asking this because I'm not a Washington resident, but I've scanned several pages of these threads on the new law.

If I'm not mistaken, this doesn't apply to handguns, just semiauto rifles?

Wait period for handguns?

If I want to buy a handgun from a Washington owner, can he come down here and we do the transfer in Oregon without a wait period, or issues?

Thanks!

 

[Diamondback]

Ok, I'm asking this because I'm not a Washington resident, but I've scanned several pages of these threads on the new law.

If I'm not mistaken, this doesn't apply to handguns, just semiauto rifles?

Wait period for handguns?

If I want to buy a handgun from a Washington owner, can he come down here and we do the transfer in Oregon without a wait period, or issues?

Thanks!

Treats handguns and semiauto rifles the same, HIPPA buttrape and waiting period for both. IF a transfer is possible he'd need to take it to an FFL.

 

[DizzyJ]

Treats handguns and semiauto rifles the same, HIPPA buttrape and waiting period for both. IF a transfer is possible he'd need to take it to an FFL.

"If" a transfer is possible?

Does this mean he could not take it to an Oregon FFL and do the transfer here?

Sorry, this seems somewhat confusing to me.

 

[Diamondback]

Bingo, I'm not sure he COULD bring it to your FFL, I know they won't let us do it with SAR's.

This is why I only buy receivers, which for the moment they've overlooked... if I had budget I'd be buying Aero AR lowers and Brownells 1911 frames by the job-lot.

 

[Alexx1401]

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

OUCH!

 

[Sporting Systems]

Ok, I'm asking this because I'm not a Washington resident, but I've scanned several pages of these threads on the new law.

If I'm not mistaken, this doesn't apply to handguns, just semiauto rifles?

Wait period for handguns?

If I want to buy a handgun from a Washington owner, can he come down here and we do the transfer in Oregon without a wait period, or issues?

Thanks!

Yes, you can received handgun from a WA resident in Oregon. Just not a semi auto rifle.

 

[DizzyJ]

Yes, you can received handgun from a WA resident in Oregon. Just not a semi auto rifle.

Thank you!

 

[Boss]

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

Probably far better than the libiots that pushed this train wreck thru ever hoped...

If folks want their LGS's to stay in business, especially the ones that strongly opposed 1639, they need to at least be swinging by and picking up ammo/accessories/etc...even you're well stocked...it won't completely replace firearms sales, but every little bit helps. If EVERY gun owner made it a priority, it could likely help keep some in business.

Or maybe buy an Remmy 870 or 700...just because...

Businesses without customers fold...its that simp!e. So, yeah maybe skip that online deal and spend a couple extra bucks for Pmags or something at your local brick & mortor store...

I suspect those shops that contributed little/nothing to opposing 1639 are seeing the error of their ways.

Boss

 

[GWS]

Amen, Boss.
Let's help our local shops stay afloat while we fight I-1639 in the courts. It will do us no good to beat this POS in the courts if our local gun shops go out of business in the interim.
Shop local!

 

[Diamondback]

I suspect those shops that contributed little/nothing to opposing 1639 are seeing the error of their ways.

The question is, how much do you really expect it to change their behavior? Part of me would be tempted to hang a sign:

If you DID NOT vote against 1639
YOUR BUSINESS IS NOT WELCOME HERE

 

[scarlo]

The NICS numbers show a decline in July for Washington -
April - 53,377
May - 53,125
June - 83,436
July - 37,439

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year by State | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of state-by-state firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to February 29, 2024.

www.fbi.gov

 

[bikemutt]

True there's a decline in July, that's foreshadowed by a correspondingly large increase in June.

(83,436+37,439/2=60,437, that's an uptrend.

I think we need the August numbers to dial in the real trend.

 

[arakboss]

I keep hearing that the Feds require Oregon FFLs to follow all the laws of the governments from where the firearm purchaser is living. This clearly has not been happening so why is it now a big issue?

Washington FFL's are required to collect taxes on firearm purchases. Have Oregon FFL's been collecting those taxes as WA law requires (nope)?

Washington FFL's are required to process the background checks in a specific fashion. Have Oregon FFL's been processing those background checks in the same fashion (nope)?

There are probably other examples of where Oregon law differs from Washington law and Oregon has gone their own way.

My point is, the Feds would not be consistent if they all of a sudden started yanking Oregon FFLs because they didn't follow all the laws that the WA purchaser would have been subject to in his/her City, County, State.

 

[arakboss]

The NICS numbers show a decline in July for Washington -
April - 53,377
May - 53,125
June - 83,436
July - 37,439

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year by State | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of state-by-state firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to February 29, 2024.

www.fbi.gov

Dang, WA residents have applied for almost twice as many firearms than Oregon, so far this year. That is crazy. We need to step up our game Oregonians.

 

[American123]

The NICS numbers show a decline in July for Washington -
April - 53,377
May - 53,125
June - 83,436
July - 37,439

NICS Firearm Checks: Month/Year by State | Federal Bureau of Investigation

Statistics represent the number of state-by-state firearms background checks initiated through the NICS from November 1998 to February 29, 2024.

www.fbi.gov

It is as it was intended to be, their end game is the reduction of firearm purchases, reduction of firearm owners and people getting into the enjoyment of, banning. Make enough bull crap legal hoops to jump through and people buy less, who'd a thunk.

 

[bikemutt]

I keep hearing that the Feds require Oregon FFLs to follow all the laws of the governments from where the firearm purchaser is living. This clearly has not been happening so why is it now a big issue?

Washington FFL's are required to collect taxes on firearm purchases. Have Oregon FFL's been collecting those taxes as WA law requires (nope)?

Washington FFL's are required to process the background checks in a specific fashion. Have Oregon FFL's been processing those background checks in the same fashion (nope)?

There are probably other examples of where Oregon law differs from Washington law and Oregon has gone their own way.

My point is, the Feds would not be consistent if they all of a sudden started yanking Oregon FFLs because they didn't follow all the laws that the WA purchaser would have been subject to in his/her City, County, State.

I'm not so sure you're correct about either of your positions.

Wal-marts in WA are required to collect sales tax from WA residents, those in OR are not required to collect WA sales tax from WA residents. The reality is in WA it's the responsibility of the WA resident to report use tax to the state, not the OR retailer's responsibility to collect and remit sales tax to WA. Why would it be any different for an OR FFL dealer? Please site any relevant RCW if I'm wrong about that.

Prior to I-1639, WA FFLs followed Federal law for long guns, they contact the NICS for the BG check. I know of no WA-specific law concerning how WA FFLs were required to handle long gun sales. Now of course we have 1639 which governs the transfer of a certain class of long guns in WA, accordingly OR FFLs wishing to transfer such a long gun to a WA resident must send it to a WA FFL for transfer. I don't see where OR FFLs are ignoring any WA laws in either case.

 

[arakboss]

I'm not so sure you're correct about either of your positions.

Wal-marts in WA are required to collect sales tax from WA residents, those in OR are not required to collect WA sales tax from WA residents. The reality is in WA it's the responsibility of the WA resident to report use tax to the state, not the OR retailer's responsibility to collect and remit sales tax to WA. Why would it be any different for an OR FFL dealer? Please site any relevant RCW if I'm wrong about that.

Prior to I-1639, WA FFLs followed Federal law for long guns, they contact the NICS for the BG check. I know of no WA-specific law concerning how WA FFLs were required to handle long gun sales. Now of course we have 1639 which governs the transfer of a certain class of long guns in WA, accordingly OR FFLs wishing to transfer such a long gun to a WA resident must send it to a WA FFL for transfer. I don't see where OR FFLs are ignoring any WA laws in either case.

My point was that Federal rules for FFL's supposedly require FFL's selling a firearm to an out of State resident to abide by all the laws of the place where the purchaser is from. Collecting sales tax at point of purchase is a law in Washington. So if an Oregon FFL was following all the laws of Washington State for a firearm sale to a WA resident then they would need to collect that tax. They don't do that, why?

Oregon law requires all background checks to be run through the OSP. I have purchased a long gun in WA and they did not run the background check through OSP (it went directly through NICS). So the WA FFL did not abide by OR law, why?

Do FFL's get to decide which laws from other States they are going to follow and which laws they are not going to follow? Why haven't the feds cracked down on this?

 

[arakboss]

I'm not so sure you're correct about either of your positions.

Wal-marts in WA are required to collect sales tax from WA residents, those in OR are not required to collect WA sales tax from WA residents. The reality is in WA it's the responsibility of the WA resident to report use tax to the state, not the OR retailer's responsibility to collect and remit sales tax to WA. Why would it be any different for an OR FFL dealer? Please site any relevant RCW if I'm wrong about that.

Prior to I-1639, WA FFLs followed Federal law for long guns, they contact the NICS for the BG check. I know of no WA-specific law concerning how WA FFLs were required to handle long gun sales. Now of course we have 1639 which governs the transfer of a certain class of long guns in WA, accordingly OR FFLs wishing to transfer such a long gun to a WA resident must send it to a WA FFL for transfer. I don't see where OR FFLs are ignoring any WA laws in either case.

I see what you are getting at with the suggestion that WA law doesn't require OR FFL's to collect the sales tax. On the same front, WA I-1639 doesn't require OR FFL's to follow I-1639 law. The issue being raised is whether the Feds are going to require Oregon FFL's to follow I-1639 law or not? If they do require that then why didn't they require Oregon FFL's to follow the previous laws I mentioned?