Would You Bother Renewing your 03 FFL?

[etrain16]

I just got the notice that my 03 C&R FFL renewal is due this year. To date, since I got it, I haven't ever used it for a purchase, or even a discount online (for those sites offering discounts). I know it's only $30 for 3 years, but in reality, with SB 941 in Oregon providing no allowance for actual FFL holders with an 03, is there any value left in having these any longer? Or am I just wasting $30.

Really sucks that a STATE law is allowed to supersede a Federal license such as this. And I know that Prozanski and others were told about this and made no allowance for us 03 FFL holders. Crock of crap because they could have made that deal, but didn't because SB 941 was always about control and restricting more of our rights. Bunch of lousy morons in Salem.

So, do any of you other 03 FFL holders bother any more?

Here is one question for you too - could I, legally, use my 03 FFL in WA since I live close to the border, to lawfully buy C&R long guns? (I know I can't do a pistol in WA) Or is that a problem now too? Did anyone ever figure out if I could buy a C&R out of state, say, online, and have it lawfully sent directly to me using my 03?

Read More

 

[GOG]

I have no idea what our 03's are good for anymore. The bastards in Salem won't stop until they run us over or get run over themselves. I'm too old to move and I already live at my retreat, so I'll just have to watch things unfold. However I'll save the renewal fee next time around since it's now superseded by the scum in charge.

 

[ma96782]

Here is one question for you too - could I, legally, use my 03 FFL in WA since I live close to the border, to lawfully buy C&R long guns? (I know I can't do a pistol in WA) Or is that a problem now too? Did anyone ever figure out if I could buy a C&R out of state, say, online, and have it lawfully sent directly to me using my 03?

Read: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/g...r-relics-list-1972-2007-atf-p-530011/download

In particular: 478.58

I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.

And, YES. We also have our share of bastards in Olympia.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Caveman Jim]

Nothing will happen until their base (Dems) tell them to KNOCK OFF THE ANTI-GUN CRAP OR WE WILL LIGHT OUR TORCHES AND GRAB OUR PITCHFORKS!!!!
Until then our rights will continue to be violated...

 

[ma96782]

The Dems are simply following the marching orders of their party. Note......

Guns

"To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets.

Read more about the Dems Utopia here: What the Democratic Platform Says About Guns, Abortion

IMHO..........it's on YOU...........if YOU want to/choose to vote for any Dem.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Caveman Jim]

True Dat & all I hear is crickets chirping around here....
WELL???

 

[66PonyCar]

I will need to make that decision next year whether to renew or not.

As I understand SB 941 it applies to a non-licensed individual transferring a firearm to another non-licensed individual. So I'm not willing to risk my firearm rights on this, but it does not seem to apply to FFL sellers. So if an FFL in another state is willing to send a C & R firearm to a C & R licensee in Oregon, I don't think SB 941 applies. I'm not a lawyer but that's what my reading of SB 941 leads me to conclude.

If I interpreted the law incorrectly, please educate me. Again I'm relying on a simple reading of the law. The other interesting thing is that many FFL's on GunBroker make a point of mentioning all the restrictive states they won't send a firearm to a C & R licensee, but I have yet to see Oregon listed.

 

[etrain16]

Read: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/g...r-relics-list-1972-2007-atf-p-530011/download

In particular: 478.58

I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.

And, YES. We also have our share of bastards in Olympia.

Aloha, Mark

Just coming back to this now. I am familiar with 478.58, which is why I asked the question to begin with. State law, under SB 941 in Oregon and under I-594 in Washington seem to be unclear on the question of the 03 FFL and what is allowed. Not only did they not bother to give an exemption (azzholes), but they failed to really clarify if an exception was even necessary. As far as I'm concerned, their failure to provide adequate clarification would seem to benefit the 03 FFL holders, just as ambiguity in a contract would benefit the party that didn't draft the contract. In other words, we didn't write the law and those that did write didn't adequately clarify what is and isn't allowed for 03 holders.

Honestly, I would think it would be a hard case for them to make. But let's say you're an 03 holder and buy a long gun, in person, in Washington - in that case, the question falls to Washington law, and I can't find there that they adequately clarify that restriction (if any), either. Leave it to the people that have no idea what they're talking about to place restrictions on those of us that do know what we're talking about.

And what if you buy a gun, online, from an FFL in another state where there is no SB941 or I-594 type laws. If you make the purchase there, and they send it directly to you under your 03 FFL in this state, technically, it's not an in-state transfer, which is what the state can regulate. Now it's an interstate transfer, which is allowed under federal law under the 03 FFL.

I think a good argument could be made that buying outside the state and having it sent to you not only doesn't violate state law, but is fully in compliance with federal law.

 

[66PonyCar]

And what if you buy a gun, online, from an FFL in another state where there is no SB941 or I-594 type laws. If you make the purchase there, and they send it directly to you under your 03 FFL in this state, technically, it's not an in-state transfer, which is what the state can regulate. Now it's an interstate transfer, which is allowed under federal law under the 03 FFL.

That was my point, I think the law is ambiguous and it is likely legal.

 

[etrain16]

That was my point, I think the law is ambiguous and it is likely legal.

Then we're in agreement. From what I can tell, the only real issue is between a seller and buyer in Oregon because SB941 can only regulate transfers inside Oregon, outside Oregon, they have no authority. So, no 03 transactions between a buyer and seller in Oregon, it would appear, otherwise, it's potentially not an issue.

 

[ma96782]

"Likely or Ambiguous" or whatever you plan on using as a defense. That's your call.

Or....

You could your pay the money and have your lawyer (the guy who's gonna be defending you) give you his/her take on your question.

Or....

You could write a letter to the AG. And, hope/pray that any new AG won't see it some other way.

Lawyers and Politicians.......are you really willing to have them even babysit your kids? LOL. IMHO.....TRUMP's win, was a push back from/on both professions.

As a famous President (politician and lawyer) once said, "It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

Aloha, Mark

 

[66PonyCar]

Like I said in my original post, I am not willing to forfeit my firearm right to test my theory. I doubt that the AG would reply to an inquiry from a mere citizen. Perhaps if one of the pro-gun legislators would request clarification from the AG they would render a ruling. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[ma96782]

Then we're in agreement. From what I can tell, the only real issue is between a seller and buyer in Oregon because SB941 can only regulate transfers inside Oregon, outside Oregon, they have no authority. So, no 03 transactions between a buyer and seller in Oregon, it would appear, otherwise, it's potentially not an issue.

Have you ever stopped to wonder WHY FFL dealers in other states, don't like to deal with CA buyers?

YUP, probably because....CA dictates (by LAW) that even an out of state FFL must register first w/ the CA DOJ, in order to sell or transfer a firearm to a California resident. IF you were an FFL, how does the threat of a possible indictment from the Great State of CA affect you? Would you be willing to send a firearm to a CA FFL without first registering?

Then......
How much does that CA DOJ approval (license) cost? Is that even legal......to tax (require a lic.) an out of state business in order to do commerce with a CA resident?

What would happen if the CA DOJ wanted to "protect CA businesses" and required that any out of state sellers of anything (say: a kitchen knife, via a mail order or internet sale) to a CA resident must register first, in order to make that sale? LOL.

But, with firearms.....it's different. Rrrrright?

Aloha, Mark

PS....before someone even attempts to "go there." NO...it's not like the CA requirement for CA cars and smog emissions. You (out of state seller) can sell your smoggy vehicle to a CA resident. However, CA can prohibit it's operation (via: license and registration) without first passing their smog testing. Out of state vehicles (aka: visitors) are not covered (given the exception) as their cars are already lic. in their home states. CA likes "visitors"....tourist dollars. Bottom line: In as much as smoggy cars......you can sell it....but, CA doesn't have to register it.

OK, OK, ok....maybe it is sort of is like the car example. You could sell a firearm. But, the CA FFL will probably not accept the firearm for later transfer to your intended CA buyer (without your out of state seller's FFL first being registered with CA DOJ). Tell you what? Just say NO to CA.

 

[ma96782]

Like I said in my original post, I am not willing to forfeit my firearm right to test my theory. I doubt that the AG would reply to an inquiry from a mere citizen. Perhaps if one of the pro-gun legislators would request clarification from the AG they would render a ruling. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Story time..........
Remember the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) that became the law in 2004?

Well, when I came to WA (in 2005). At the time....as an ex-LEO, there was no program in place in WA for me to do the live firing qualifications or to get WA law enforcement's approval. So, I wrote to the AG of WA and asked. It took a long time, but after the "rules" were in place....the AG's office responded.

So YES. The AG (if not one of their underlings) will probably/might just reply to your letter.

BTW.....in case you didn't know.....the LEOSA did not spell out the qualification course of fire (or some other details). IMHO the approval process for WA sucks. You know how things go? If you want to make things difficult for your citizens....just make it difficult to comply with or make it expensive.

Aloha, Mark

 

[etrain16]

Have you ever stopped to wonder WHY FFL dealers in other states, don't like to deal with CA buyers?

YUP, probably because....CA dictates (by LAW) that even an out of state FFL must register first w/ the CA DOJ, in order to sell or transfer a firearm to a California resident. IF you were an FFL, how does the threat of a possible indictment from the Great State of CA affect you? Would you be willing to send a firearm to a CA FFL without first registering?

Then......
How much does that CA DOJ approval (license) cost? Is that even legal......to tax (require a lic.) an out of state business in order to do commerce with a CA resident?

What would happen if the CA DOJ wanted to "protect CA businesses" and required that any out of state sellers of anything (say: a kitchen knife, via a mail order or internet sale) to a CA resident must register first, in order to make that sale? LOL.

But, with firearms.....it's different. Rrrrright?

Aloha, Mark

PS....before someone even attempts to "go there." NO...it's not like the CA requirement for CA cars and smog emissions. You (out of state seller) can sell your smoggy vehicle to a CA resident. However, CA can prohibit it's operation (via: license and registration) without first passing their smog testing. Out of state vehicles (aka: visitors) are not covered (given the exception) as their cars are already lic. in their home states. CA likes "visitors"....tourist dollars. Bottom line: In as much as smoggy cars......you can sell it....but, CA doesn't have to register it.

OK, OK, ok....maybe it is sort of is like the car example. You could sell a firearm. But, the CA FFL will probably not accept the firearm for later transfer to your intended CA buyer (without your out of state seller's FFL first being registered with CA DOJ). Tell you what? Just say NO to CA.

Actually, I haven't wondered that. I don't deal with anyone in CA and was not even aware, until you mentioned it, that FFL dealers have issues there. But then, I'm not in CA, so what they do doesn't really interest me as much as what OR and WA do. CA is super f'd over anyway, kind of a lost cause at this point. Their rules are so twisted and bizarre that it's a lawyer's paradise.

Back to the topic at hand though, I am simply trying to look at things from a simple and legal perspective. I can't find any evidence that in the 2 years since SB 941 passed a single person has been arrested or charged under this phone 'emergency' law. I can find no evidence either that SB 941 has actually stopped any crime from being committed. And, I strongly suspect more people violate SB941 on a regular basis than actually follow it, though that's only my feeling, I've got nothing to back that up. In the end, I'm tired of phony laws by politicians that really don't care about protecting people, only serving to harm those, like us, that enjoy rights they don't personally agree with.

When it comes to the 03 FFL, it seems they left nothing but a big puddle of very muddy water out there for us to wade through. At this point, I'm just trying to decide if renewing a $30 license is worth it. No idea yet, but something I'm going to continue to dig into.

 

[ma96782]

"General Process Changes under Oregon Firearms Safety Act:
1. Private-party firearm transfers must be conducted through a licensed firearm dealer while both parties (owner of the firearm and proposed recipient or purchaser) are present. a. If the transferor and the transferee reside over 40 miles from each other, the transferor may ship or deliver the firearm to a firearm dealer located near the transferee or a firearm dealer designated by the transferee, and the transferor need not appear before the firearm dealer in person."

As I said before: I'm not a lawyer. Nor do I play one on TV.

As a WA resident, I've been avoiding actually looking up the OR statute. I figure that some OR guy could look it up.

BUT, in my search I came across this at: https://www.oregon.gov/osp/docs/SB941_Information_Sheet.pdf

So....note that it says, "dealer." A C&R Lic is not a DEALER'S LIC. Does that answer your question? Course, if the actual statute says differently.....then, there could be a hole. And, trusting the internet for a LEGAL question......can lead to disaster. Plan accordingly.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Krinkov]

I just closed mine after 9 years. In that time I bought some Mosins, used discounts everywhere possible. In my early 03 years the best was having it on file with Century so you could see all prices and order surplus ammo, parts and kits from them. Eventually cool cheap ammo and parts dried up. Then there was the barrel ban and sanctions which hit the kits and ammo. SB941 made it pretty much pointless to renew. However, If I was to keep it and actually wanted a C&R firearm, I would order online and...

 

[etrain16]

Story time..........
Remember the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) that became the law in 2004?

Well, when I came to WA (in 2005). At the time....as an ex-LEO, there was no program in place in WA for me to do the live firing qualifications or to get WA law enforcement's approval. So, I wrote to the AG of WA and asked. It took a long time, but after the "rules" were in place....the AG's office responded.

So YES. The AG (if not one of their underlings) will probably/might just reply to your letter.

BTW.....in case you didn't know.....the LEOSA did not spell out the qualification course of fire (or some other details). IMHO the approval process for WA sucks. You know how things go? If you want to make things difficult for your citizens....just make it difficult to comply with or make it expensive.

Aloha, Mark

I didn't see this response when you posted it back in June. I think you're missing the point of the question in my OP. I'm not asking about private party transfers in Oregon - I'm well aware of the law and I'm well aware they make no exception for the C&R license. I am also well aware that a C&R is not a dealer license. None of that is news to me.

What I asked, and I still haven't yet seen answered, is whether I could, legally, use my C&R license to make a purchase of a C&R long gun (shotgun or rifle) in Washington state without being required to go through the usual FFL. To be clear, that means driving to Washington for the purchase. Oregon doesn't regulate gun sales in Washington and I can, and have, legally purchased long guns in Washington before. I'm just curious if I could go into a dealer in WA, show my FFL and buy a C&R gun (not a handgun) without the BGC since I have the C&R. And, the extension of that question is, could I legally buy from another C&R holder, in Washington, conducting the transaction in Washington (again, for clarity, no handguns)?

They've made the whole process unnecessarily complicated just to impose their version of backdoor gun regulations.

As it stands, I went ahead and spent the $30 to renew for 3 more years, as I think there may still be a legitimate use for it. We'll see what happens.

 

[ma96782]

Read it for yourself.

RCW 9.41.113: Firearm sales or transfers—Background checks—Requirements—Exceptions.

Aloha,, Mark

 

[skikir]

I'm in the process of "Decollecting" and have learned that the State of Oregon does not recognize a C&R. I tried to set up an account at the Oregon NICS got a phone message saying that. I talked to some dealers at a gun show I was selling at and yeah, Oregon does not recognize them even thoug I know I had an account with them years ago. Of course I had already made several C&R transfers by then. This came to light when I wanted to sell to someone from Washington two Enfields and we had to go through a dealer who charged him $25 a gun. I am getting sick of Oregon. Maybe we should get the Oregon Firearms Federation involved.