| Author |
Message |
|
hkcavalier
Site Supporter
Location: NE WA Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 Posts: 5667
Real Name: The Dude
|
Marine3%er wrote: cmica wrote: look at all you suckers for doing the transfer you say that but I have talked to several people on here about buying guns and everyone said they wont do it with out going to a ffl so I have given up on buying used guns . If Im going to do paperwork I will just buy new . People don't want an electronic trail of evidence... Don't fool yourself. Guns are changing hands like crazy right now. There is an iron river flowing, especially from grandparents/parents to their progeny, or between close friends who've known each other for a long time. Prove that I gave X to someone after 12/4/14.
_________________ "Wherever you go, there you are."
|
| Fri May 08, 2015 8:47 am |
|
 |
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7252
|
Massivedesign wrote: ANZAC wrote: Well if it was a handgun they would be denied. An FFL can't transfer a handgun to someone under 21.
I believe that's called.. Infringe... Maybe Impair? Probably both... We agree on that and I agree the conflict between federal and state law should be resolved. Federal law doesn't prohibit a 20 year old possessing a gun, so it is ridiculous that an FFL can't transfer a handgun to them (after a background check).
|
| Fri May 08, 2015 2:16 pm |
|
 |
|
old wanderer
Site Supporter
Location: Bonney Lake Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 Posts: 46
Real Name: Bob Kelley
|
ANZAC wrote: Massivedesign wrote: ANZAC wrote: Well if it was a handgun they would be denied. An FFL can't transfer a handgun to someone under 21.
I believe that's called.. Infringe... Maybe Impair? Probably both... We agree on that and I agree the conflict between federal and state law should be resolved. Federal law doesn't prohibit a 20 year old possessing a gun, so it is ridiculous that an FFL can't transfer a handgun to them (after a background check). This why WA lost it's reciprocity with FL. FL allows active duty military over 18 to buy handguns, (everybody else 21), WA disagreed with that provision for active duty military, and revoked FL reciprocity, then FL revoked reciprocity for WA..... I think FL approach was valid, if you are active duty in the military you should not be subject the the 21YO rule. 
_________________ “I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.” -Anonymous
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 10:52 am |
|
 |
|
golddigger14s
Site Supporter
Location: Faxon, OK Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 Posts: 18063
Real Name: Chuck
|
old wanderer wrote: ANZAC wrote: Massivedesign wrote: with that provision for active duty military, and revoked FL reciprocity, then FL revoked reciprocity for WA..... I think FL approach was valid, if you are active duty in the military you should not be subject the the 21YO rule.  Did you know that at the PX you have to be over 21 to buy any ammo, or any gun to include rifles?
_________________ "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 11:29 am |
|
 |
|
bulldog18
Site Supporter
Location: Seattle Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 Posts: 1936
|
Everyone here is more than welcome to "Call on Me" and I'll be more than happy to share with you how I comply with I-594...or you can just read pages 7 and 8 of my post replies here http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=49829&start=90And for Marine3%er (and our female WaGunners)...I know I-594 has stressed you out so this video is dedicated to you Devil Dog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOgJzlGDz08Semper Fi! And for everyone else (minus our female WaGunners) who is stressed out on I-594 this video is for you... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_fCqg92qksYou can "Call on Me" to comply the best that I can with I-594....just short of using a FFL Dealer until the DOL/State of Washington puts a $2 limit on what FFL Dealers can charge on "Private transfers" just like the maximum dealers can charge when you buy a hunting/fishing license as listed below. MAXIMUM DEALER FEES Dealer fee totals may vary depending on the number of license products purchased together. Dealer fees listed below are the maximum per product. License Documents & Discover Pass $2.00 Charter Stamps $2.00 Columbia River Salmon/Steelhead Endorsement $0.50 One-day Discover Pass $0.50 Two-pole Endorsement $0.50 Transport Tag $0.50 Catch Record Card $0.50 Special Hunt Permit Application $0.50 Specialized Licenses-Commercial $2.00 Multiple Season Permit Application $0.50 Or yet even better...The DOL should have a free web site or a local 360-555-555 phone number for the general public to use 24/7 where all you do is type in (or key in via telephone) your CPL number xxxxxxxxxx and hit "enter" (or press the # key via telephone) and it simply says either "Active" or "Inactive". Active CPL you are good to go. Inactive CPL...I will not sell to you. If you don't have a CPL then you must go through a FFL Dealer and pay your $2 fee. Or just have Bloomberg/Washington Ceasefire pay for everyone's FFL Dealer "Private Transfer" Fees.
Last edited by bulldog18 on Sat May 09, 2015 1:16 pm, edited 6 times in total.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 12:51 pm |
|
 |
|
Stokes
Site Supporter
Location: Oly Joined: Thu Oct 4, 2012 Posts: 1490
|
I hate the idea of telling a business what they can charge for their services. It's one thing to tell someone how much they can charge for your product (similar to MAP), but it's another to tell them they have a limit on what they can charge for their service. Price fixing is about as anti-American as it comes.
I don't like Obamacare telling me I have to buy insurance from a private company. I also don't like I594 telling me I have to buy a service from dealer. But I certainly don't like that dealers might not want to bother selling that service anymore because they don't like the pricing structure mandated to them.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 12:55 pm |
|
 |
|
bulldog18
Site Supporter
Location: Seattle Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 Posts: 1936
|
Stokes wrote: I hate the idea of telling a business what they can charge for their services. It's one thing to tell someone how much they can charge for your product (similar to MAP), but it's another to tell them they have a limit on what they can charge for their service. Price fixing is about as anti-American as it comes.
I don't like Obamacare telling me I have to buy insurance from a private company. I also don't like I594 telling me I have to buy a service from dealer. But I certainly don't like that dealers might not want to bother selling that service anymore because they don't like the pricing structure mandated to them. I hate it too, but a lot of people will take advantage of a bad situation and everyone will be price gouging...which is why the government has restrictions.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 1:03 pm |
|
 |
|
UpDog
Site Supporter
Location: Burien Joined: Wed Oct 5, 2011 Posts: 3434
|
bulldog18 wrote: Stokes wrote: I hate the idea of telling a business what they can charge for their services. It's one thing to tell someone how much they can charge for your product (similar to MAP), but it's another to tell them they have a limit on what they can charge for their service. Price fixing is about as anti-American as it comes.
I don't like Obamacare telling me I have to buy insurance from a private company. I also don't like I594 telling me I have to buy a service from dealer. But I certainly don't like that dealers might not want to bother selling that service anymore because they don't like the pricing structure mandated to them. I hate it too, but a lot of people will take advantage of a bad situation and everyone will be price gouging...which is why the government has restrictions. Which doesn't matter since we're not complying anyway lol. Let the businesses eat shit and lose customers if they want to gouge.
_________________ Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 1:55 pm |
|
 |
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7252
|
old wanderer wrote: This why WA lost it's reciprocity with FL. FL allows active duty military over 18 to buy handguns, (everybody else 21), WA disagreed with that provision for active duty military, and revoked FL reciprocity, then FL revoked reciprocity for WA..... I think FL approach was valid, if you are active duty in the military you should not be subject the the 21YO rule.  WA didn't just wake up and arbitrarily decide that, it is codified law in WA. The AG has no discretion here. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.073
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 2:10 pm |
|
 |
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7252
|
Stokes wrote: I hate the idea of telling a business what they can charge for their services. It's one thing to tell someone how much they can charge for your product (similar to MAP), but it's another to tell them they have a limit on what they can charge for their service. Price fixing is about as anti-American as it comes. Yes, this was one of my main issues with HB 1588, as well as the crazy parallel process with big LE burden.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 2:11 pm |
|
 |
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7252
|
bulldog18 wrote: Or yet even better...The DOL should have a free web site or a local 360-555-555 phone number for the general public to use 24/7 where all you do is type in (or key in via telephone) your CPL number xxxxxxxxxx and hit "enter" (or press the # key via telephone) and it simply says either "Active" or "Inactive".
Active CPL you are good to go. Inactive CPL...I will not sell to you. If you don't have a CPL then you must go through a FFL Dealer and pay I agree with this, it would be great. And they could give you some confirmation number that you can write down to prove you checked at that date/time. The CPL is the closest thing we have to a good guy card. We can determine if someone's credit card is good with a swipe, why not the CPL?
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 2:15 pm |
|
 |
|
Marine3%er
Site Supporter
Location: Lynwood Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 Posts: 3214
|
_________________ You can run but you will just die tired I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil because I am the baddest MOTHER FUCKER in the valley
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 8:03 pm |
|
 |
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7252
|
Marine3%er wrote: but I have a few deals where the people only wanted to do it if we were not going to go through a FFL. Sounds legit.
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 8:13 pm |
|
 |
|
Marine3%er
Site Supporter
Location: Lynwood Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 Posts: 3214
|
ANZAC wrote: Marine3%er wrote: but I have a few deals where the people only wanted to do it if we were not going to go through a FFL. Sounds legit. I would seem legit to someone like you
_________________ You can run but you will just die tired I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil because I am the baddest MOTHER FUCKER in the valley
|
| Sat May 09, 2015 8:31 pm |
|
 |
|
jim_dandy
Site Supporter
Location: Snohomish County & Pierce County Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 Posts: 659
|
ANZAC wrote: TechnoWeenie wrote: Someone has to get arrested for it, or threatened with arrest for it, to have standing..
IOTW, we need to have someone do a transfer in front of a cop, and get arrested, or act like they're ABOUT to do a transfer, and have a cop threaten to arrest them..
Or.... "First, the alleged injury is hypothetical because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that any named plaintiff has actually paid the fee and/or has been subjected to the wait period." That's not in any way exclusive of what TW said. I think it's funny a lot of gun control groups are using the above quote in the erroneous belief the court is ruling on their side, when it really just means we have to wait for someone to be charged before the law can actually be challenged. Quote: Judge Settle acknowledged that “The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs in that one must actually be prosecuted or under actual or immediate threat of prosecution before the Court may address the constitutionality of a statute.” The judge further observed that “the fairness of this rule may definitely be questioned…” It's an unfortunate technical matter really, but the lack of any charges just shows how either law enforcement doesn't care to enforce existing laws, or how useless 594 has been. The aftermath of shootings just have them asking for more laws, and afterwards when those laws have also done nothing, they will ask for more laws.
|
| Sun May 10, 2015 12:40 pm |
|
 |
|