 |
 |
It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:22 pm |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forum rules
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Private F2F transfer BGC illegal?
Moderator: Bill Starks
|
Page 3 of 3 |
[ 37 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
| Print view | Previous topic | Next topic |
Private F2F transfer BGC illegal?
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Site Supporter   Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489 
|
ANZAC wrote: Benja455 wrote: I called the ATF today and then they told me to call the FBI...and the FBI transferred me to their in-house ATF Agent. He pointed out the following regulations: Quote: " § 25.6 Accessing records in the system. (a) FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly prohibited from initiating a NICS background check for any other purpose." Maybe ask him to read this before commenting: https://www.atf.gov/file/4961/download Right...I asked him about this but he said that was more of a "bending the rules" situation and he inferred that it was done to placate the powers-that-be...whereas, what I was proposing (C&R being allowed access to NICS) was something that was clearly disallowed by the wording of the Brady Act. ANZAC wrote: Benja455 wrote: With that said, WA could still create a more efficient system by simply letting us call to confirm that a CPL is valid. As I said before, easy and cheap...but we must remember - this is about controlling guns (or more accurately attempting to control people) and making things easy/cheap is not the real intention. I do support this -- but it not 100% of transactions are to a person with a CPL. There has to be a backup process/4473. Sure, that's a fair compromise - please get working on that and once you do, I'll vote for it and buy you a beer. In the meantime, I'll continue to advocate for the repeal of 594 and/or support litigation against it. |
| Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: Free At last in NC! Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 Posts: 703
|
Benja455 wrote: dan360 wrote: It's Wades. No surprise. This. This**1000. |
| Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:00 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Deckerville Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 Posts: 2946 Real Name: Rob
|
"§ 478.102
(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if— (1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that— (i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm; (ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and (iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS; " Clearly the receiver of the transfer in possession of CPL is exempt from NICS under federal law. It is curious that the state requirement (e.g. 594) forces the Feds to move fast and loose - private party transfer becomes mediated by FFL so there really is no direct transfer between private parties. Is this relationship detailed in 594? Do we suppose the 478.102 (d) exemption applies to 594 transfers? _________________ “The Democrats are playing you for a political chump and if you vote for them, not only are you a chump, you are a traitor to your race.”-Malcolm X |
| Wed Jan 20, 2016 8:55 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Admin   Location: Olympia, WA Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 Posts: 38309 Real Name: Dan
|
That exemption is only for states that have POC (point of contact) approval from the FBI and ATF and who's states laws reciprocate that exemption.
Washington IS a POC approved state, but our lawmakers have never fixed the small language boo boo that makes us not fully comply. |
| Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:21 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
Massivedesign wrote: That exemption is only for states that have POC (point of contact) approval from the FBI and ATF and who's states laws reciprocate that exemption. Washington IS a POC approved state, but our lawmakers have never fixed the small language boo boo that makes us not fully comply. #poorlywrittenlawssuck |
| Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
 Site Supporter  Location: I-5 /512 Joined: Thu Dec 8, 2011 Posts: 15235 Real Name: chris
|
I'll just leave this here.
. _________________  |
| Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:23 pm |
|
|
|
|
Site Supporter  Location: Mohave Valley Arizona Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 Posts: 13371 Real Name: Casey
|
Free men do not need to ask permission to acquire or bear arms.....
_________________ Actor portrayal, Action figures sold separately, You must be at least this tall to ride, Individual results may vary, Sales tax not included, All models are over 18 years of age, upon approval of credit, Quantities are limited while supplies last, Some restrictions apply, Not available with other offers, At participating locations only, Void where prohibited, Above terms subject to change without notice, Patent pending. See my blog: http://tincanbandit.blogspot.com/ |
| Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:28 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
[ 37 posts ] | Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
All times are UTC - 8 hours |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests |
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|