Zero. They all have formed a common trust that names each of them and their firearms. All of the firearms were full auto and the ammo cost exceeded their annual incomes.

Not wanting to start a new thread on I-594 and it's associated bullshit, I thought I would try getting an answer here:

Having graduated high school and some assorted higher education, I thought I could read and comprehend, but RCW 9.41.090 seems to be throwing me a curve ball- missing one word which would change the entire meaning of the law. Let me illustrate:

RCW 9.41.090
Dealer deliveries regulated—Hold on delivery.
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance;
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or
(c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection....

This seems to mean that (1)(a) AND (1)(b) must be complied with. Note there is no "or" following the end of the sentence in (1)(a), as there is in (1)(b). Should there not be an or added, thereby appearing as such:

RCW 9.41.090
Dealer deliveries regulated—Hold on delivery.
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a pistol to the purchaser thereof until:
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license and the dealer has recorded the purchaser's name, license number, and issuing agency, such record to be made in triplicate and processed as provided in subsection (5) of this section. For purposes of this subsection (1)(a), a "valid concealed pistol license" does not include a temporary emergency license, and does not include any license issued before July 1, 1996, unless the issuing agency conducted a records search for disqualifying crimes under RCW 9.41.070 at the time of issuance; or
(b) The dealer is notified in writing by the chief of police or the sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the purchaser resides that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040 and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff; or
(c) The requirements or time periods in RCW 9.41.092 have been satisfied.
(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection...

As written and current, presenting a CPL gives a purchaser ZERO advantage over a non-CPL holder. WTF?

For those who disregard and say "they know they screwed up the law" I would suggest that there is probably more than one asst. D.A. who would love to pounce on this
to make an example of an (apparently) wayward FFL who transfers a pistol to a CPL holder on the same day as payment is made.

And add what SC had to say about 594 supporters too. In triplicate. Disgusting trash.

INFINITY!!!!

Welcome to reading state law. This is not an error in drafting.

The "or" (or "and") is implied to apply across the enter set of subsections.

i.e.
aaaa; bbbb; or cccc means aaaa or bbbb or cccc
and
aaaa; bbbb; and cccc means aaaa and bbbb and cccc

(this is actually mentioned somewhere in state law, I couldn't find it --- but pretty much every RCW section has a similar construction.)

Don't you mean "state law" supporters?

Those who support it, voted for it, and donate money for the "cause".

Give it a rest . . . Jesus.

Do you need a hug? Or cake? We have some left over cake you can have.

One thing that I misunderstand is how people still do transfers at gun shows where that's not the address for the FFL. What if he has all the same setup to do the checks and goes out to an area like a gravel pit and has connectivity; could he do the checks from there if he has the capability? Can someone explain that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO. FFLs are allowed to conduct business at their business license location as well as trade shows, per the BATFE

How is a determination made where a trade/gun show can be held? All I could find is this- https://www.atf.gov/file/56651/download and this- http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... 10&idno=27


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So by that definition it would only qualify if some local organization was sponsoring it. So someone has to have a business license and be the official sponsor, which means they need to have insurance to cover the liability of the event. They are responsible for filing all legal and environmental paperwork to hold the event. Report as a taxable event to he state and feds. and on and on and on....

Back the OP.
Aren't math problems fun!