• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Legal Transfer Advice

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
Ok, this is slightly off the OC topic but it is specifically handgun and laws related. I am hoping any of the lawyer folks on here can give me a few free pointers.

So, here's the situation. I have a customer who purchased a handgun and I'm doing the transfer for it. State law RCW 9.41.090 covers the legal transfer of a handgun and the "Application for Transfer". A transfer can take place immediately if the purchaser has a valid CPL, once the local LEO of his AO approve it, OR once the state required 5 business day waiting period passes.

So Friday the 25th my customer fills out the form, but he doesn't have his CPL yet so I send the top copy off to his local LEO. Monday the 28th I get a call from the LEO saying it's delayed. When I ask for the NTN for the delay they refuse to give it to me. When I ask about a go ahead date I'm told I can never transfer it until they say otherwise.

Now, federal law provides that if NICS gives a delay that after 3 business days the FFL can proceed if they don't hear anything back from NICS. State law says this.

"(4) In any case where the chief or sheriff of the local jurisdiction has reasonable grounds based on the following circumstances: (a) Open criminal charges, (b) pending criminal proceedings, (c) pending commitment proceedings, (d) an outstanding warrant for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, or (e) an arrest for an offense making a person ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a pistol, if the records of disposition have not yet been reported or entered sufficiently to determine eligibility to purchase a pistol, the local jurisdiction may hold the sale and delivery of the pistol beyond five days up to thirty days in order to confirm existing records in this state or elsewhere. After thirty days, the hold will be lifted unless an extension of the thirty days is approved by a local district court or municipal court for good cause shown. A dealer shall be notified of each hold placed on the sale by local law enforcement and of any application to the court for additional hold period to confirm records or confirm the identity of the applicant.

(5) At the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol, the purchaser shall sign in triplicate and deliver to the dealer an application containing his or her full name, residential address, date and place of birth, race, and gender; the date and hour of the application; the applicant's driver's license number or state identification card number; a description of the pistol including the make, model, caliber and manufacturer's number if available at the time of applying for the purchase of a pistol. If the manufacturer's number is not available, the application may be processed, but delivery of the pistol to the purchaser may not occur unless the manufacturer's number is recorded on the application by the dealer and transmitted to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser resides; and a statement that the purchaser is eligible to possess a pistol under RCW 9.41.040."

Now, according to my customer the only thing he has right now is a contested speeding ticket, which as far as I know is not a criminal issue, but a moving infraction and does not disqualify someone from possessing a firearm. My customer is a sailor on active duty with a secret clearance which is being upgraded currently to top secret.

Now the way I read it, the LEO are violating the law by placing an indefinite hold on a transfer without any legal basis and violating 9.41.090.

Can someone point to another RCW where it says that LEO can indefinitely hold without reasonable cause any transfer? Also, should I call the LEO back and quote the 9.41.090 to them? Should I mindlessly obey and never give this guy his firearm until a judge forces the LEO to release it if they decide to never call me back? Should I proceed with the transfer after 30 days if I don't hear from them? Frankly the lady I spoke on the phone with was belligerent and unprofessional.
 
Last edited:

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Not a lawyer but section 4 seems to spell it out pretty clearly. The Chief can require you to hold for up to 30 days. Anything beyond that he must have a court order requiring you to hold the transaction. If on the 31st day he cannot or will not supply you with the copy of the court order requiring a hold then you would be allowed to complete the transfer. I would guess that a reason to not give info to the FFL about the hold would be the verification of a warrant. If I was the chief and a paperwork came into my office about a person who has an old warrant in the system I would definitely not notify the FFL. I would want to verify the warrant is still valid and try to capture the person trying to receive the pistol.

I would follow up with the Chief personally in this case. He is the only one that can require a hold. If he is not willing to give the reason I would wait thirty-one days to deliver if there is no issuance of a hold by a court. The RCW does not require them to give reason only that they notify you of the hold but it does require them to provide you with the application to the court for an additional hold period.

Like I said above I am not a lawyer but this RCW seems to be very clear and concise as to what your requirements, and their requirements, truly are in the case of a delay.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I would follow up with the Chief personally in this case. He is the only one that can require a hold. If he is not willing to give the reason I would wait thirty-one days to deliver if there is no issuance of a hold by a court. The RCW does not require them to give reason only that they notify you of the hold but it does require them to provide you with the application to the court for an additional hold period.

The issue here is that many Chief's delegate their authority regularly. They merely sign whatever is put in front of them that requires HIS authority. Once empowered many of these underlings develop abnormal senses of power.

If the Dealer is following the letter of the law then no problem. If the PD is not, it becomes their problem.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
The issue here is that many Chief's delegate their authority regularly. They merely sign whatever is put in front of them that requires HIS authority. Once empowered many of these underlings develop abnormal senses of power.

If the Dealer is following the letter of the law then no problem. If the PD is not, it becomes their problem.

Correct you are. Hell PD didn't hire my dad, even though he was a business associate of the chief at the time, because the a$$hat Sgt. doing the background put the paperwork in front of him in the no-hire pile. The Chief, after dad was already hired by SPD, admitted to my grandpa that had he looked at the names he would have hired my dad in an instant.

Calling the Chief and actually getting him/her to look at the paperwork might get him to realize that this hold is one that should be reversed to a proceed. Even with that though the law allows them to hold without having to show proof why until they apply to a court and show good cause.
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
Yes, this was Port Orchard PD. Every time I talk to their clerks, they are very belligerent and act as if there's no other PD as awesome/powerful/thorough as they are. They trash talked KCSO last year when I was renewing my licenses. Since I'm sure the chief is likely to be very hard to get hold of on the phone I'll send him an email first. Hopefully he will read it.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
Yes, this was Port Orchard PD. Every time I talk to their clerks, they are very belligerent and act as if there's no other PD as awesome/powerful/thorough as they are. They trash talked KCSO last year when I was renewing my licenses. Since I'm sure the chief is likely to be very hard to get hold of on the phone I'll send him an email first. Hopefully he will read it.

If he stonewalls you on phone calls and e-mail, just send a letter with copy of appropriate passages in law. Also send copies to the City Attorney, Mayor, and President of City Council, noting that these people are getting copies (list of CC's at bottom of letter). That should be enough of an enema to clear the "constipation".
 

Trigger Dr

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
2,760
Location
Wa, ,
When renewing a LCCP at Port Orchard, I was required to wait the full 30 days and then surrender my expired LCCP. "it's our policy was the answer". I waited the 30 days and said I destroyed it as it was expired. They were not happy but issued the new one.
 

therealcombat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
160
Location
Lolo, MT
When renewing a LCCP at Port Orchard, I was required to wait the full 30 days and then surrender my expired LCCP. "it's our policy was the answer". I waited the 30 days and said I destroyed it as it was expired. They were not happy but issued the new one.

Why the hell would they care about getting the old one?
 

sirpuma

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
905
Location
Deer Park, Washington, USA
I sent a polite and professional email to the Chief giving the details of my call with his staff, the law as it is written and a request for a reason for the hold. Hopefully he'll actually respond. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
I sent a polite and professional email to the Chief giving the details of my call with his staff, the law as it is written and a request for a reason for the hold. Hopefully he'll actually respond. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

You could send follow up e-mails if he doesn't One every other day or so. If you choose to move up the food chain these e-mails, without responses, could add "arrows to your quiver". The Police Chief does have bosses and they don't like to be embarrassed by their "employees".
 

dadada

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
112
Location
Edge of the woods
The Chief responded this morning stating he has assigned someone to look into it. Hopefully I'll hear something before the 30 days is up.

Might want to send a reply to the chief stating that if you don't receive a response by his staff within the 5 day waiting period, indicating which circumstance your customer is suspected of violating in section 4, that you will assume the "non-response" is an OK to proceed with the transfer.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Might want to send a reply to the chief stating that if you don't receive a response by his staff within the 5 day waiting period, indicating which circumstance your customer is suspected of violating in section 4, that you will assume the "non-response" is an OK to proceed with the transfer.

The problem is that the Chief does not have a statutory requirement to give a reason for the hold up to 30 days. He is only required to have reasonable cause to hold it. Nothing in the statute requires notification of reason, simply that the dealer be notified that they are to hold the transaction. He has gotten a response from the PD and that response was to hold.
 

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
When I renewed my LCCP last year I walked in to the KCSO ocing and said I would like to renew my permit. They looked at my gun and asked if I realy needed an LCCP. We had a good laugh and I walked out with it about 5 minutes later
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
The problem is that the Chief does not have a statutory requirement to give a reason for the hold up to 30 days. He is only required to have reasonable cause to hold it. Nothing in the statute requires notification of reason, simply that the dealer be notified that they are to hold the transaction. He has gotten a response from the PD and that response was to hold.

Then change the notice to the Chief that after 30 days, if they have not provided an approval, or court order requiring the hold to be extended, the transaction will be completed.

As I read the original post, the PD indicated the transaction was on hold until they said it wasn't. "Up to 30 days" or a court order, not as long as they feel like.

The POPD could well just "shuffle" it around and eat up as much time as they want unless they are strongly advised that their's a limit to their stalling.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
Then change the notice to the Chief that after 30 days, if they have not provided an approval, or court order requiring the hold to be extended, the transaction will be completed.

As I read the original post, the PD indicated the transaction was on hold until they said it wasn't. "Up to 30 days" or a court order, not as long as they feel like.

The POPD could well just "shuffle" it around and eat up as much time as they want unless they are strongly advised that their's a limit to their stalling.

Precisely my thoughts.
 
Top