OT: Theoretical speeding ticket

[ScottyDog]

imported post

Thanks guys. I truly appreciate all the feedback!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

jbone wrote:

Great senarios all, but what if BOO BOO pulls you over?:shock:

LOL....I would just drive off.

 

[dirvo85]

imported post

I got pulled over two days ago for expired tabs. When the Everett Police officer asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over I said no and also told him I had a CPL. When I told him I had a CPL he said thanks for telling me but I already know. He said in the State of Washington your CPL is attatched to your License plate.

 

[swatspyder]

imported post

dirvo85 wrote:

I got pulled over two days ago for expired tabs. When the Everett Police officer asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over I said no and also told him I had a CPL. When I told him I had a CPL he said thanks for telling me but I already know. He said in the State of Washington your CPL is attatched to your License plate.

Except for when you drive your friend's car or another family member's car who does not have a CPL in WA.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

dirvo85 wrote:

I got pulled over two days ago for expired tabs. When the Everett Police officer asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over I said no and also told him I had a CPL. When I told him I had a CPL he said thanks for telling me but I already know. He said in the State of Washington your CPL is attatched to your License plate.

Except for when you drive your friend's car or another family member's car who does not have a CPL in WA.

I don't remember putting my license plate numbers on the application...

Believe me when I was in a cop car this summer I could see all the info on the computer from just running my plates including every gun I have ever purchased.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

dirvo85 wrote:

I got pulled over two days ago for expired tabs. When the Everett Police officer asked me if I knew why I was being pulled over I said no and also told him I had a CPL. When I told him I had a CPL he said thanks for telling me but I already know. He said in the State of Washington your CPL is attatched to your License plate.

Except for when you drive your friend's car or another family member's car who does not have a CPL in WA.

I don't remember putting my license plate numbers on the application...

Believe me when I was in a cop car this summer I could see all the info on the computer from just running my plates including every gun I have ever purchased.

Sounds to me like the Department of Licensing is way out of control. Is there an anti-gun registration database statute in Washington?

This has been bugging me for awhile especially since we are a non-register state. They even had a few guns over the years I filled out paper work on and then changed mind on or switched to another one.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

We are not a non-register state. The state is silent on the issue. We are a non-required registration state. The problem is that the state requires all handgun purchases to have a state pistol purchase form filled out and submitted to DOL, which we all knows maintains your drivers and auto licensing.

we are a defacto handgun registration state only if it is purchased through a dealer. This is something that annoys the crap out of me but there is no way this process will be struck from the law books by our courts or legislatures. My state rep has told me that the state is not required to track pistol sales, just to record them. When I mentioned the ability of the state to pull them up from a database I was told that they neither mandate nor restrict DOL on the subject.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

We are not a non-register state. The state is silent on the issue. We are a non-required registration state. The problem is that the state requires all handgun purchases to have a state pistol purchase form filled out and submitted to DOL, which we all knows maintains your drivers and auto licensing.

we are a defacto handgun registration state only if it is purchased through a dealer. This is something that annoys the crap out of me but there is no way this process will be struck from the law books by our courts or legislatures. My state rep has told me that the state is not required to track pistol sales, just to record them. When I mentioned the ability of the state to pull them up from a database I was told that they neither mandate nor restrict DOL on the subject.

Thanks for the clarity.

It still bugs the snot out of me.

edit: I forgot to say thought they had my rifles in there too.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

joeroket wrote:

We are not a non-register state. The state is silent on the issue. We are a non-required registration state. The problem is that the state requires all handgun purchases to have a state pistol purchase form filled out and submitted to DOL, which we all knows maintains your drivers and auto licensing.

we are a defacto handgun registration state only if it is purchased through a dealer. This is something that annoys the crap out of me but there is no way this process will be struck from the law books by our courts or legislatures. My state rep has told me that the state is not required to track pistol sales, just to record them. When I mentioned the ability of the state to pull them up from a database I was told that they neither mandate nor restrict DOL on the subject.

Thanks for the clarity.

It still bugs the snot out of me.

 edit: I forgot to say thought they had my rifles in there too.

Hmmm. The rifle info is interesting as that is supposed to be federal only. The info should never have gotten to the state level. Very odd and irritating.

Anybody that has their own FFL want to chime in on this?

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

I am a bit skeptical of the rifle allegation.

I used to be a FFL holder (former store manager at FW Joe's, and no I did not request anyone to leave when I was there, that was the mgr following me)...

as far as rifles were concerned, we called NICS and got approval (NICS is the FBI), once approval was obtained the store maintained the 4473 for the appropriate time required by law for record keeping. Only if the police called and presented a warrant for reasearch did I tryand find the original 4473 to provide them with information to track the firearm because it was stolen, used in a crime, or was the dispute of a domestic situation (this was the most common...i.e. who was the owner for a seperation or divorce)....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Be skeptical all you want I was looking right at the screen. I have only 3 rifles and they were listed.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

I am just curious where they got the info? Are they sharing info with the Feds? I thought I remebered that that was forbidden under the NICS law.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

I don't know, but to see my .22 up on the screen was odd, I was under a lot of stress at the time so I didn't get into it with them.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

It is troublesome. I remember having many conversations with customer's at Joe's about where the paperwork goes after their approval. I said in a box in my attic in this building.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

It doesn't seem like the Washington Department of Licensing pays much attention to statutory restrictions.

Even more concerning is that Joe's only sold rifles and used NICS exclusively. Therefore they would be in cooperation with the FBI to obtain the information.

It would be funny to pull over my dad....over 400 firearms in his collection.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

It doesn't seem like the Washington Department of Licensing pays much attention to statutory restrictions.

The problem is that there are no restrictions to pay attention to.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

joeroket wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

It doesn't seem like the Washington Department of Licensing pays much attention to statutory restrictions.

The problem is that there are no restrictions to pay attention to.

If they truly have rifle ownership data, and they have to obtain that via 4473's, that would be illegal according to Federal statutes.

AND they do not honor the RCW 9.41.090 (7) exception for antique and replica handguns either.

     (7) This section does not apply to sales to licensed dealers for resale or to the sale of antique firearms.

  (1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Ooohhh I forgot about those. Good call.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

I am a bit skeptical of the rifle allegation.

I used to be a FFL holder (former store manager at FW Joe's, and no I did not request anyone to leave when I was there, that was the mgr following me)...

as far as rifles were concerned, we called NICS and got approval (NICS is the FBI), once approval was obtained the store maintained the 4473 for the appropriate time required by law for record keeping. Only if the police called and presented a warrant for reasearch did I tryand find the original 4473 to provide them with information to track the firearm because it was stolen, used in a crime, or was the dispute of a domestic situation (this was the most common...i.e. who was the owner for a seperation or divorce)....

I did get a divorce several years ago I wonder if this is the reason why?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

joeroket wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

If they truly have rifle ownership data, and they have to obtain that via 4473's, that would be illegal according to Federal statutes.

AND they do not honor the RCW 9.41.090 (7) exception for antique and replica handguns either.

     (7) This section does not apply to sales to licensed dealers for resale or to the sale of antique firearms.

  (1) "Antique firearm" means a firearm or replica of a firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898, including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.

Ooohhh I forgot about those. Good call.

I wrote to the DOL about the 9.41.090(7) exception and they wrote back and said, cap and ball revolvers use gunpowder (an explosive) to expel a projectile and therefore are firearms and regulated at the state level.  When I asked the DOL what the (7) exception was for then, they said antiques actually made before 1898 that do not expel a projectile using gunpowder!  What B.S.

I then wrote to the 3 state legislatures and asked them about the state form required to purchase cap and ball revolvers that were either manufactured before 1898 or replica's of, and why the DOL did not observe the (7) exception, and why were state resources being wasted in this way.  I have received no answer in a week now.

Nobody in power seems to care what the DOL does.

I did read that thread. Your experience with DOL does not surprise me one bit. My aunt used to sit on a couple of DOL boards in Olympia and has told us horror stories about how they function and think. It truly is scary that these people are in charge of anything more than a flea on a leash.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

I did read that thread. Your experience with DOL does not surprise me one bit. My aunt used to sit on a couple of DOL boards in Olympia and has told us horror stories about how they function and think. It truly is scary that these people are in charge of anything more than a flea on a leash.

That would be cruelty to animals.