Post by: magnanimous_j on July 20, 2013, 08:11:37 AM
However, I'm kind of paranoid by nature. So what do you guys do to CYA when you do this?
Post by: 724wd on July 20, 2013, 08:18:49 AM
Post by: hrd2fnd on July 20, 2013, 08:20:02 AM
bill of sale. if the guy will give you his DL #, great. otherwise just go with it! :tup::yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 20, 2013, 08:35:44 AM
As a fellow "paranoid by nature" person, I like to require a CPL (or other good guy credentials such as Mil/LE*, current WAC membership, or other credential evidencing a background check has been performed, etc.) for all transactions. But beyond that, I do not keep records, because I am not an agent of the state for purposes of tracking down firearms used in crimes.
Some people use the state firearms transfer record as an additional or substitute CYA, and if a person is not CPL'd and unwilling to undergo such procedures, they pass on the transaction.
*NB - Mil/LE is not as surefire as a CPL or other credential evidencing a background check has been performed, but it gives me additional peace of mind that they are not an illegal alien and/or they have skin in the game as to not risk reckless behavior re: firearms.
Post by: CP on July 20, 2013, 08:37:09 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 20, 2013, 08:54:47 AM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.080 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.080)
You could use this. They only offer one specific to handguns that I can tell.
http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652004.pdf (http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652004.pdf)
Post by: jrebel on July 20, 2013, 09:02:15 AM
With just a WA DL, you cannot tell whether a person is a prohibited purchaser. For example, if an illegal immigrant can get a WA DL, and I have no reason to think that they cannot, you could be selling to an alien without an alien firearms license. (There's some TX case, IIRC, where a guy was prosecuted for selling to an illegal alien.) Likewise, felons or those with DV records or protection orders against them could be prohibited persons and still have a WA DL.
As a fellow "paranoid by nature" person, I like to require a CPL (or other good guy credentials such as Mil/LE*, current WAC membership, or other credential evidencing a background check has been performed, etc.) for all transactions. But beyond that, I do not keep records, because I am not an agent of the state for purposes of tracking down firearms used in crimes.
Some people use the state firearms transfer record as an additional or substitute CYA, and if a person is not CPL'd and unwilling to undergo such procedures, they pass on the transaction.
*NB - Mil/LE is not as surefire as a CPL or other credential evidencing a background check has been performed, but it gives me additional peace of mind that they are not an illegal alien and/or they have skin in the game as to not risk reckless behavior re: firearms.
Just because someone has a CPL does not mean they have good credentials......it means they had good credentials when they received the CPL. :tup:
A quick glance at a picture ID to verify name and a basic receipt to release your liability (paper trail) should it later be used in a crime. As long as you don't sell to a known felon or individual that is not allowed to own a gun and they are of age (18 for rifle purchase, 21 for pistol purchase) you will be just fine.
Good Luck
Post by: runamuk on July 20, 2013, 09:18:29 AM
bill of sale. if the guy will give you his DL #, great. otherwise just go with it! :tup::yeah:
for handguns I always state in my ad cpl, state ID, bill of sale, face to face....one this will cause the sketchy paranoids to not waste my time...I also trust my gut if someones demeanor is off I just walk away. I have sold 2 guns to huntwa members both great transactions and really good people. Also
if you are really paranoid tack on enough to cover the use services of a ffl holder several of the pawn shops will do this for you for a fee
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 20, 2013, 11:39:48 PM
Just because someone has a CPL does not mean they have good credentials......it means they had good credentials when they received the CPL. :tup:
Agree, but you're missing the point. "Credentials" are merely an indication of a persons qualifications, whether valid or not. It is the credentials that you are after, so that in any subsequent inquiry whether you "knew or should have known" that the purchaser was prohibited, you have shown that you have done that which was reasonable, under the circumstances, to prevent selling to a prohibited purchaser.
Even requiring an FFL to conduct the transaction is no guarantee that the purchaser did not commit a crime yesterday, is a drug user/abuser, DV perpetrator, etc. But that would certainly go above and beyond what is reasonable, under the circumstances, to prevent selling to a prohibited purchaser.
Post by: fish vacuum on July 21, 2013, 02:54:40 AM
*NB - Mil/LE is not as surefire as a CPL or other credential evidencing a background check has been performed
LE identification isn't as good as a CPL?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 21, 2013, 09:39:34 AM
Post by: 12Gauge on July 21, 2013, 10:17:06 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 21, 2013, 08:13:35 PM
Post by: Biggerhammer on July 21, 2013, 09:13:11 PM
Post by: mountainman on July 21, 2013, 10:56:02 PM