-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Question about purchasing
- Thread starter dceased84
- Start date
omegagonzo
New member
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
To Bad they make you do all that unconstitutional conscripted work.
Welcome to the forum!
omegagonzo
New member
Thanks! It's very hard to not sit on the scanner when I'm sending faxes to the ATF hehe.
arentol
New member
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
Primus
Regular Member
Oh I apologize. I wasn't aware that you were that dealer.
I mean you are right? Since your claiming and declaring exactly what the dealer did why they did it. Thus far everyone else has been speculating based on limited facts.
The only facts we had were that the buyer was refused and the dealer mentioned him not being in state long enough. The other facts provided were some pretty helpful cites about the actual law. Said cites proved that the dealer SHOULD have and COULD have sold said firearm.
The concept that it was "fear" that made him turn away a customer and allude to a law that doesn't even apply to said individual was tossed in there by someone as an offhand comment. This comment was (I believe) meant to draw attention to that fact that some dealers are extremely cautious about who they sell to and what firearms they sell, due to the "fear" of breaking some rule and/or regulation and therefore end up in jail, loss of ffl, fines, etc.
But I'm glad you can definitively tell us exactly why the said dealer did this since you are them.
I wish you the best of luck and submit of your that terrified of the atf maybe you should sell used cars instead.
Sarcasm off.... for now.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
OC for ME
Regular Member
Does the WA DL have a GA address listed? If not, the DL is either legit or a forgery. The right to refuse service is intact in this case. Do not do business with that business.
Bill Starks
State Researcher
Once again we have a business that is EXCEEDING the requirements of the law or doesn't know the law.
(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
End of story.......
The 90 day wait under section (c) does not apply as the person has a Washington ID & CPL.
| [h=2]RCW 9.41.090 [/h][h=1]Dealer deliveries regulated — Hold on delivery.[/h] | |
(a) The purchaser produces a valid concealed pistol license
End of story.......
The 90 day wait under section (c) does not apply as the person has a Washington ID & CPL.
Bill Starks
State Researcher
from the DOL Firearms unit
Good Afternoon Bill,
RCW 9.41.090 dealer deliveries regulated – hold on delivery states in (1)(c) “if the purchaser does not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive 90 days, the waiting period under this subsection (1)(c) shall be up to 60 days.” Maybe the dealer is reading or interpreting the law that they need a WA driver’s license and to have resided here for the past consecutive 90 days in order to be considered a resident?
To prove residency for the state law his driver’s license would prove that and be sufficient to purchase.
Thank you,
Firearms Unit
Business & Professions Division
Department of Licensing
Good Afternoon Bill,
RCW 9.41.090 dealer deliveries regulated – hold on delivery states in (1)(c) “if the purchaser does not have a valid permanent Washington driver’s license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive 90 days, the waiting period under this subsection (1)(c) shall be up to 60 days.” Maybe the dealer is reading or interpreting the law that they need a WA driver’s license and to have resided here for the past consecutive 90 days in order to be considered a resident?
To prove residency for the state law his driver’s license would prove that and be sufficient to purchase.
Thank you,
Firearms Unit
Business & Professions Division
Department of Licensing
arentol
New member
I reject your entire argument because you did it first and that was my basis for doing so as well....
primus said:
The reality is that my statement was a bit of a trap. I was curious whether you would ignore my argument to focus on my failure to say "probably", and you did, even though you did the same thing (yes, you said "probably", but you immediately removed it from the statement with your next two words, so you get no credit for it at all.) Please now take your entire argument above and apply it to your prior statement, and thanks for saving me the time of having to write it.
arentol
New member
Yes, but a transaction where the purchaser says they have been at their residence for only 6 days and states or implies that they just moved there from out of state is.
I am not saying it is right or that it is in line with the actual law as written or intended. I am saying it is what likely happens in practice in the real world, especially if there are multiple transactions by a given FFL that are within the letter of the law but which the ATF views, rightly or not, as "iffy".
With the scrutiny gun sales are under these days, and the ease with which one can lose their license, FFL's have little choice but to avoid risk.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk