Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Question about purchasing

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Lacey Washington
    Posts
    1

    Question about purchasing

    First time posting and figured hopefully some one would help me figure out if what happend today was legit. I just recently moved back to WA after being stationed in GA for the last few years. I went to the local sporting goods store looking to buy a new handgun, I hand them my vaild WA drivers licence and CCP and beguin the paperwork, I come to the part where it asks how long I been living in my house and I ask what to put since I only been there for 6 days. The clerk suddenly closes the gun case and says he cannot sell to me because I'm not a state residents. Even with a vaild WA drivers licence that doesnt make me a state resident? The most infuriating part was the clerk then called for anther employee to act as back up to just tell me over and over "im sorry we cant sell to you" I asked which rcw covers that and they just got defensive and treated me like a criminal, even refused to sell a firearm to my father who was with me. Ive read through a lot of R.C.W. 9.41 and the only thing I saw closely covering it was 9.41.090. Which to me only said a vaild DL or 90 residents. Sorry for the long post and hope some one can maybe clear this up for me, thanks.

  2. #2
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by dceased84 View Post
    First time posting and figured hopefully some one would help me figure out if what happend today was legit. I just recently moved back to WA after being stationed in GA for the last few years. I went to the local sporting goods store looking to buy a new handgun, I hand them my vaild WA drivers licence and CCP and beguin the paperwork, I come to the part where it asks how long I been living in my house and I ask what to put since I only been there for 6 days. The clerk suddenly closes the gun case and says he cannot sell to me because I'm not a state residents. Even with a vaild WA drivers licence that doesnt make me a state resident? The most infuriating part was the clerk then called for anther employee to act as back up to just tell me over and over "im sorry we cant sell to you" I asked which rcw covers that and they just got defensive and treated me like a criminal, even refused to sell a firearm to my father who was with me. Ive read through a lot of R.C.W. 9.41 and the only thing I saw closely covering it was 9.41.090. Which to me only said a vaild DL or 90 residents. Sorry for the long post and hope some one can maybe clear this up for me, thanks.
    Are you active duty? What is your home of record?
    If its Washington then you're fine. As AD you hold a dual residency of sorts. You have your home of record and where you are stationed.
    When I was AD I could buy in NH or Washington.
    If you list Washington as your home of record then you over thought the question. The last few years in Georgia still count as residency for your home of record.
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by decklin View Post
    Are you active duty? What is your home of record?
    If its Washington then you're fine. As AD you hold a dual residency of sorts. You have your home of record and where you are stationed.
    When I was AD I could buy in NH or Washington.
    If you list Washington as your home of record then you over thought the question. The last few years in Georgia still count as residency for your home of record.
    Well said.

    I could buy in AZ while stationed there.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137

    Welcome home to Washington

    And welcome to OCDO.

    I would like to know what shop this was and where.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    When they have the boot of the BATF hovering over their necks, can you blame them for being almost fanatical about enforcing these stupid laws, whether they properly understand them or not?

    The BATF is not going to accept that they didn't fully understand the complicated laws.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    When they have the boot of the BATF hovering over their necks, can you blame them for being almost fanatical about enforcing these stupid laws, whether they properly understand them or not?

    The BATF is not going to accept that they didn't fully understand the complicated laws.
    But they weren't following any law. Several guys have cited where it says he's good to go with a state ID and he even has his gun permit.

    Maybe they are paranoid? But they are still wrong it seems.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    And welcome to OCDO.

    I would like to know what shop this was and where.

    Ditto

    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    When they have the boot of the BATF hovering over their necks, can you blame them for being almost fanatical about enforcing these stupid laws, whether they properly understand them or not?

    The BATF is not going to accept that they didn't fully understand the complicated laws.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    But they weren't following any law. Several guys have cited where it says he's good to go with a state ID and he even has his gun permit.

    Maybe they are paranoid? But they are still wrong it seems.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    You seemed to miss his point. When you have tryannical acts of government and its agencies it breads fear into people into not acting even when legal. Just recently I had an argument from a retired BATFE who emphatically was stating 18-21 could not own handguns and that it was illegal. That enhances that fear when these agents don't even know the law.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    Maybe they are paranoid?


    Given the BATF's history, they have every right to be.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Given the BATF's history, they have every right to be.[/COLOR]
    +1 Just because hes not paranoid don't mean they are not out to get him. Well he does support the centralized state heavily though, which I think tints his viewpoint heavily.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Home of record for active duty military has NOTHING to do with residency for the purposes of firearms transactions. Residency for active duty military members is defined in 27 CFR 478.11:
    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...2.1.1&rgn=div8



    Military members may have dual residency if their permanent duty station is in one state and their residence where they commute to each day is in a nearby state:
    http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...-p-5300-15.pdf

    Page 8:


    Nowhere in any definition of state of residency for firearms transactions is home of record mentioned. I had orders to CT and lived in MA where I commuted to each day. Both states were legal states of residence for firearms transactions. Wyoming, my home of record state was (and still is) NOT a legal state of residence for firearms transactions because I was neither present there with the intention of making a home there, nor did I have orders there.



    Respectfully, not well said because decklin's post was largely erroneous. You could purchase firearms in AZ while stationed there because you met the definition of resident by having orders to AZ and/or by actually sleeping there every night (presence with the intention of making a home there - at least for the duration of your orders).

    Now - with all that being said, the OP was a resident of Washington, the gun store employees were ignorant, and it would have been completely legal to sell a handgun to him:



    dceased84 became a WA resident for the purposes of firearms transactions the minute he stepped foot in WA with the intention of making a home here. He also had valid proof of WA residence if his WA driver's license had his current WA address on it. There is no 90 day residency requirement for purchasing a handgun, or for obtaining a WA CPL.

    The only thing that changes if the person is a resident for <90 days is the waiting period for a handgun from an FFL:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.090



    And a WA CPL waives the waiting period for the handgun regardless of how long the purchaser has been a resident.
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    When they have the boot of the BATF hovering over their necks, can you blame them for being almost fanatical about enforcing these stupid laws, whether they properly understand them or not?

    The BATF is not going to accept that they didn't fully understand the complicated laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    But they weren't following any law. Several guys have cited where it says he's good to go with a state ID and he even has his gun permit.

    Maybe they are paranoid? But they are still wrong it seems.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    +1 Just because hes not paranoid don't mean they are not out to get him. Well he does support the centralized state heavily though, which I think tints his viewpoint heavily.
    What is there to taint? He they were enforcing LAWS fanatucally out of fear of the atf. That's false. As Navy LCDR took the time to show... there are NO LAWS they are enforcing.

    If they are MAKING UP laws or just turning away people out of fear... well that's paranoia and stupidity.

    So if a person MAKES UP laws or rules and says "oh its so the atf doesn't hurt me" that's on them. That would be..... well paranoia. And none of my views have anything to do with this thread. Its straight forward. The OP asked what the deal was. Navy LCDR showed him and explained it well. Someone else implied they are enforcing laws that DONT exist and its all the atfs fault.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Home of record for active duty military has NOTHING to do with residency for the purposes of firearms transactions. Residency for active duty military members is defined in 27 CFR 478.11:
    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...2.1.1&rgn=div8



    Military members may have dual residency if their permanent duty station is in one state and their residence where they commute to each day is in a nearby state:
    http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...-p-5300-15.pdf

    Page 8:


    Nowhere in any definition of state of residency for firearms transactions is home of record mentioned. I had orders to CT and lived in MA where I commuted to each day. Both states were legal states of residence for firearms transactions. Wyoming, my home of record state was (and still is) NOT a legal state of residence for firearms transactions because I was neither present there with the intention of making a home there, nor did I have orders there.



    Respectfully, not well said because decklin's post was largely erroneous. You could purchase firearms in AZ while stationed there because you met the definition of resident by having orders to AZ and/or by actually sleeping there every night (presence with the intention of making a home there - at least for the duration of your orders).

    Now - with all that being said, the OP was a resident of Washington, the gun store employees were ignorant, and it would have been completely legal to sell a handgun to him:



    dceased84 became a WA resident for the purposes of firearms transactions the minute he stepped foot in WA with the intention of making a home here. He also had valid proof of WA residence if his WA driver's license had his current WA address on it. There is no 90 day residency requirement for purchasing a handgun, or for obtaining a WA CPL.

    The only thing that changes if the person is a resident for <90 days is the waiting period for a handgun from an FFL:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.090



    And a WA CPL waives the waiting period for the handgun regardless of how long the purchaser has been a resident.
    Very well done. I live, have homes, CPLs and ID in two different states when I am in either state I can purchase firearms the key is having a home in both states and be residing in that state when the purchase is made.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    What is there to taint? He they were enforcing LAWS fanatucally out of fear of the atf. That's false. As Navy LCDR took the time to show... there are NO LAWS they are enforcing.

    If they are MAKING UP laws or just turning away people out of fear... well that's paranoia and stupidity.

    So if a person MAKES UP laws or rules and says "oh its so the atf doesn't hurt me" that's on them. That would be..... well paranoia. And none of my views have anything to do with this thread. Its straight forward. The OP asked what the deal was. Navy LCDR showed him and explained it well. Someone else implied they are enforcing laws that DONT exist and its all the atfs fault.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Yes NavyLCDR did a spectacular job explaining he usually does.

    Like I said DeanF's point was lost on you.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes NavyLCDR did a spectacular job explaining he usually does.

    Like I said DeanF's point was lost on you.
    The point was clear to me. Big scary government forcing people to do bad things to people under the threat of violence. I get it.

    But... reality is that's probably (most definitely) that's not what happened here. They didn't refuse him because of the atf or any government agency. They refused him because they are dumb or misinformed of the law they are supposed to versed in.

    Its that easy. And he wasn't just making the point, he clearly said they "were following stupid laws" out of said fear of the big bad wolf. That's inaccurate. There are no laws to follow in this regard. They were making up their own rules.

    Amazing some private entity just infringed on this guys rights. Where the call to not frequent them and refuse them money? Instead it gets blamed on something that had nothing to do with it.

    Again, if it was simply commented that the atf scares people to be super refined in following the letter of the law, then i'd probably agree. But that's NOT what happened here.

    This was pure stupid private seller refusing a good paying customer for made up reasons.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Home of record for active duty military has NOTHING to do with residency for the purposes of firearms transactions. Residency for active duty military members is defined in 27 CFR 478.11:
    http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...2.1.1&rgn=div8



    Military members may have dual residency if their permanent duty station is in one state and their residence where they commute to each day is in a nearby state:
    http://www.atf.gov/files/publication...-p-5300-15.pdf

    Page 8:


    Nowhere in any definition of state of residency for firearms transactions is home of record mentioned. I had orders to CT and lived in MA where I commuted to each day. Both states were legal states of residence for firearms transactions. Wyoming, my home of record state was (and still is) NOT a legal state of residence for firearms transactions because I was neither present there with the intention of making a home there, nor did I have orders there.



    Respectfully, not well said because decklin's post was largely erroneous. You could purchase firearms in AZ while stationed there because you met the definition of resident by having orders to AZ and/or by actually sleeping there every night (presence with the intention of making a home there - at least for the duration of your orders).

    Now - with all that being said, the OP was a resident of Washington, the gun store employees were ignorant, and it would have been completely legal to sell a handgun to him:



    dceased84 became a WA resident for the purposes of firearms transactions the minute he stepped foot in WA with the intention of making a home here. He also had valid proof of WA residence if his WA driver's license had his current WA address on it. There is no 90 day residency requirement for purchasing a handgun, or for obtaining a WA CPL.

    The only thing that changes if the person is a resident for <90 days is the waiting period for a handgun from an FFL:
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.090



    And a WA CPL waives the waiting period for the handgun regardless of how long the purchaser has been a resident.
    A Washington CPL should waive A waiting period but doesn't necessarily mean it will waive it.
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  15. #15
    Regular Member wabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    briar patch
    Posts
    138
    NavyLCDR, nicely done...appreciate the info quite informative.

    wabbit

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    thanks for the excellent commentary on ATF's guidance..

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There is no "right" to but a pistol.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    There is no "right" to buy a pistol.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    The point was clear to me. Big scary government forcing people to do bad things to people under the threat of violence. I get it.

    But... reality is that's probably (most definitely) that's not what happened here. They didn't refuse him because of the atf or any government agency. They refused him because they are dumb or misinformed of the law they are supposed to versed in.

    Its that easy. And he wasn't just making the point, he clearly said they "were following stupid laws" out of said fear of the big bad wolf. That's inaccurate. There are no laws to follow in this regard. They were making up their own rules.

    Amazing some private entity just infringed on this guys rights. Where the call to not frequent them and refuse them money? Instead it gets blamed on something that had nothing to do with it.

    Again, if it was simply commented that the atf scares people to be super refined in following the letter of the law, then i'd probably agree. But that's NOT what happened here.

    This was pure stupid private seller refusing a good paying customer for made up reasons.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Nope you didn't get it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Nope you didn't get it.
    So be it. Whatever it was pretty sure it was irrelevant to the OP. He had his question answered. Everything else is w/e.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    21
    I wouldn't be doing business with that gun shop. Anyone that treats me like a criminal gets none of my money.

    Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
    Using Tapatalk

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6
    Hey guys, I work at a LGS, so I'm glad to see some of you are quite understanding of the enormous pressure the ATF puts on us. Unfortunately, employee turnover tends to be pretty high at a lot of firearms stores and I've noticed that we can never seem to keep up with demand. Notice how long it can take sometimes to get some help at your LGS? WEll, it seems we are always training new employees so I apologize on behalf of all gun shop employees if we make an honest mistake and we think you are ineligible to purchase a firearm. My suggestion is to say (politely), "Thank you, sir, but I was under the impression it was completely legal for me to buy ______. I'm willing to wait if you can check with your coworkers/supervisor." I have walked by plenty of new guys who are trying really hard to answer a lot of customer questions and eventually something insane will come of their mouth. I try to jump in and correct them as diplomatically as I can, but unfortunately I spend the first 7 hours of my day just doing paperwork for the ATF so time is not a luxury I have often. What some of you have said about fear of the ATF is partly true, employees would much rather err on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with the ATF but I realize it is no excuse for turning away completely legal business. Please understand that even though it is not as crazy as it was last year, we are still desperately trying to meet demand and deliver the products us gun-owners need, and sometimes efficiency will come with a cost. I apologize profusely and I hope it doesn't happen again.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by omegagonzo View Post
    Hey guys, I work at a LGS, so I'm glad to see some of you are quite understanding of the enormous pressure the ATF puts on us. Unfortunately, employee turnover tends to be pretty high at a lot of firearms stores and I've noticed that we can never seem to keep up with demand. Notice how long it can take sometimes to get some help at your LGS? WEll, it seems we are always training new employees so I apologize on behalf of all gun shop employees if we make an honest mistake and we think you are ineligible to purchase a firearm. My suggestion is to say (politely), "Thank you, sir, but I was under the impression it was completely legal for me to buy ______. I'm willing to wait if you can check with your coworkers/supervisor." I have walked by plenty of new guys who are trying really hard to answer a lot of customer questions and eventually something insane will come of their mouth. I try to jump in and correct them as diplomatically as I can, but unfortunately I spend the first 7 hours of my day just doing paperwork for the ATF so time is not a luxury I have often. What some of you have said about fear of the ATF is partly true, employees would much rather err on the side of caution when it comes to dealing with the ATF but I realize it is no excuse for turning away completely legal business. Please understand that even though it is not as crazy as it was last year, we are still desperately trying to meet demand and deliver the products us gun-owners need, and sometimes efficiency will come with a cost. I apologize profusely and I hope it doesn't happen again.

    To Bad they make you do all that unconstitutional conscripted work.

    Welcome to the forum!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6
    Thanks! It's very hard to not sit on the scanner when I'm sending faxes to the ATF hehe.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    The point was clear to me. Big scary government forcing people to do bad things to people under the threat of violence. I get it.

    But... reality is that's probably (most definitely) that's not what happened here. They didn't refuse him because of the atf or any government agency. They refused him because they are dumb or misinformed of the law they are supposed to versed in.

    Its that easy. And he wasn't just making the point, he clearly said they "were following stupid laws" out of said fear of the big bad wolf. That's inaccurate. There are no laws to follow in this regard. They were making up their own rules.
    You entirely miss the point.

    They refused him out of fear of the ATF. That was THEIR fear, no matter how mistaken.

    But was it mistaken?

    Even if the transaction was 100% legal, as it was, it was still the kind of transaction that may lead to, and will definitely extend, an investigation by the ATF. Especially if you have a few such "yellow flag" situations on the books. Such investigations may involve lawyers and are always time consuming and stressful and are therefore to be avoided even if you are doing nothing wrong.

    So they did fear the ATF and that fear was justified.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •