• 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.

Question about purchasing

dceased84

New member
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1
Location
Lacey Washington
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.
 

decklin

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
758
Location
Pacific, WA
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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
And welcome to OCDO.

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


Ditto

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

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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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-id...6922f33aac25&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1&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/publications/download/p/atf-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.

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

+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
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
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-id...6922f33aac25&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1&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/publications/download/p/atf-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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

1911er

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2009
Messages
833
Location
Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
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-id...6922f33aac25&node=27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1&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/publications/download/p/atf-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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top