Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 06:21:21 PMIt makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred. However there is an exception if you're related:Quote (4) This section does not apply to:(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.
It makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred. However there is an exception if you're related:Quote (4) This section does not apply to:(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
(4) This section does not apply to:(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;
Quote from: Ridgeratt on January 06, 2016, 06:44:11 PMQuote from: bobcat on January 06, 2016, 06:21:21 PMIt makes no difference if a gun was purchased before 594, it still must go through a FFL if transferred. However there is an exception if you're related:Quote (4) This section does not apply to:(a) A transfer between immediate family members, which for this subsection shall be limited to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift;Looks like we are all Brothers and Sisters in God's Eyes.One thing to keep in mind- the exception only applies if it's a "bona fide gift."
Quote from: h20hunter on January 06, 2016, 07:46:54 AMI'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.Civil disobedience. Look up the numbers on New York's safe act. Something like over 90% of all guns in New York haven't been registered like they were supposed to be. Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
I'm willing to bet that there are still plenty of person to person sales between responsible adults that are not getting registered.
While there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners. If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable. Nobody is "tracking" anything. There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached. The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis. And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping. How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc? The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there! And that was the ATF! The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws! That's how good the feds have their crap together. This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it. It's a political "Look what I did! I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone. This is no "attack" on gun owners. No way to enforce this law. It's simply politics. 'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it. Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law. To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen. It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database. Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for. Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do.
I saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene.
Quote from: DaveMonti on January 10, 2016, 10:05:50 PMWhile there is now a law on the books requiring Washingtonians to undergo a background check to transfer firearms, I tend to realize it doesn't make one bit of difference to responsible firearm owners. If you think that any "governing body" has their crap together when it comes to knowing who has what iron under their pillow, just read about a once popular firearm dealer in Bellingham who was apparently at least extremely irresponsible as a business owner, and may have broken laws so many times that it's uncountable. Nobody is "tracking" anything. There is no registry database with your name and a bunch of serial numbers attached. The FFL holders themselves, in the Bellingham case, couldn't even tell you who bought what from them, or even if a particular firearm in their inventory was even sold, stolen, or still on the premisis. And it took a decade to revoke their FFL, all the while they were continuing their lack of effective record keeping. How many times were the Feds in their facility copying records of sales with serial numbers, models, etc? The FIRST time the ATF visited was in 2005, and they returned once in 10 years, AFTER they knew that there was a problem there! And that was the ATF! The federal agency responsible for enforcing federal firearm laws! That's how good the feds have their crap together. This law was nothing but a prize for those who sponsored it. It's a political "Look what I did! I passed this law!" and NOBODY expects it to make a difference, be enforceable, or penalize anyone. This is no "attack" on gun owners. No way to enforce this law. It's simply politics. 'The only time you will hear about this law not being followed is when somebody transfers a firearm to someone else without doing a background check, and that person commits a horrendous crime with it. Then, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove that you broke the law. To be honest, they will be more concerned about locking up the bad guy than going after a private citizen. It amazes me that people think the government has it crap together enough that some day soon, some government employee will be able to sit down at a computer, pull your name up, and find a list of the firearms that you are in possession from some secret database. Just look at how well they enforce current laws, including 594, how well they followed up on the Bellingham FFL holder, and a host of other complete clusters that various government bodies are responsible for. Just look at how good the feds and locals are at enforcing the drug laws, and drugs kill a LOT more people than firearms do. Wow. I see that now after reading your post. Never thought it through like that. Very profound. Makes me feel even that much more comfortable with this nonsense.
Quote from: smittyJ on January 11, 2016, 07:58:23 AMI saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene. That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything !
Quote from: BOWHUNTER45 on January 11, 2016, 08:27:45 AMQuote from: smittyJ on January 11, 2016, 07:58:23 AMI saw on King5 where only 2% of the reported sales were private and I would tend to agree with that but their opinion was most private sellers were braking the law. The problem is, there is no way to know! Even Sheriff Urchart admitted it. We will never know until someone tracks a gun found at a crime scene. That's exactly right .. unless a criminal uses a stolen or unregistered gun in a crime and gets caught you have no way of knowing anything ! And even then, how will they know? If you sold a gun to a guy today, and 5 years from now it was used in a homicide and recovered, how will they know that it was sold person to person today? Unless you guys document it, there is no way to prove the transaction happened today, or the day before 594 was implemented.