|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 9, 2017, 03:06 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 9, 2017
Posts: 1
|
New firearm return from manufacturer in WA
It looks like the Taurus Carter settlement has been upheld by the appeals court. This means there are going to be people, like me, sending in our class pistols to get an upgraded G2 of similar caliber.
In Washington state, I would like to know if I will need a background check to receive my new pistol? I have been thinking about going through an FFL for the whole process, I may HAVE TO go through them. I would prefer that I didn't have unnecessary background checks. Am I even allowed, in WA, to send my pistol straight to the manufacturer. If YES, can I receive the replacement pistol to my door? I have attempted to research this. I asked an FFL and they said I would have to go through a FFL... however ... they couldn't tell me why. Thanks Last edited by physicsdudewa; July 9, 2017 at 03:06 PM. Reason: addition of location to title |
July 9, 2017, 05:56 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Federal law allows individuals to send guns for repair and have then sent directly back.
You need to be asking the LEO's in Washington this question since their laws may be different.
__________________
One shot, one kill |
July 9, 2017, 07:14 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
|
I suggest that you should google I-594 and read the actual text of that measure, which is now the law of Washington State. It says that when you send a gun to a licensed manufacturer for repair, that is an exception, and you do not need to go through an FFL (See Sec 3 (4) (e)). However, your situation, where you expect to get a new gun back from the manufacturer, is not covered by the exceptions; therefore I think you are required to go through an FFL.
I must disagree with Snyper. Don't ask an LEO. Many don't understand the this law, and in some parts of Washington State you will find that some might be hostile to gun owners. I would hope that your FFL would be willing to look at the actual text in order to get a better understanding. |
July 9, 2017, 10:18 PM | #4 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Washington State background check law is now found at RCW 9.41.113: If someone needs the most authoritative information regarding the application of the law to a specific set of facts, he should hire a knowledgeable lawyer.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 9, 2017, 10:47 PM | #5 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9, 2017, 11:08 PM | #6 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
There's also paragraph (4)(e): But there's still the question of how a Washington State court would apply that, i. e., would such court read "federally licensed gunsmith" to include a federally licensed manufacturer. A court should, but we won't know for sure until the question comes up.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
July 10, 2017, 12:02 AM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Any volunteers? I suppose another technical question might be, if the manufacturer is outside of Washington state and the owner returns the firearm to said manufacturer for repair, and the manufacturer determines that replacement is to be the mode of "repair," that's interstate commerce. Can Washington state law impose itself on a transaction under interstate commerce when federal law expressly allows the transaction? |
|
July 10, 2017, 02:56 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 3,047
|
Quote:
__________________
One shot, one kill |
|
July 10, 2017, 09:31 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Many years ago, before I had my carry permit, I was dating a woman whose nephew was a police officer in a nearby municipal police department. We were at the cop's father's place for a 4th of July fireworks show (totally illegal in my state), and somehow the subject of going to a shooting range came up. I asked the cop if it was legal for me to take an old handgun I owned to a range for practice. He said "Sure, as long as it's unloaded." I'm glad I never got around to doing it, because when I later read the law I discovered that transporting to a range to shoot is NOT one of the places an unlicensed person is allowed to transport in my state. And doing so is a felony offense. If I had asked on the Internet (if this had taken place after Al Gore invented the Internet), someone would have asked me "What state?" and then someone would have looked up and quoted the law. |
|
July 10, 2017, 10:12 AM | #10 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A) allows a FFL to return a "replacement firearm of the same kind and type" to a non-licensed person (my emphasis underlined). Quote:
Quote:
AFAIK there is some ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the "same kind and type" language in 18 USC § 922(a)(2)(A), and some manufacturers have taken a very conservative and literal approach to the clause—i.e. they will only ship a replacement firearm that is THE EXACT SAME MODEL directly back to the owner. The FFL may have gotten burned in the past in a similar situation, and is hesitant to promise better results this time. I don't really know much of anything about the Carter v. Forjas Taurus settlement specifically, so I can't comment on how Taurus is handling such situations.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|||
July 10, 2017, 01:33 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Hi physicsdudewa. Welcome to TFL.
https://www.tauruscartersettlement.com/ says: Quote:
Call Taurus or the number listed at the bottom of the link above and see what they say.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
|
July 11, 2017, 06:32 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: January 31, 2016
Location: Zephyrhills,Fl
Posts: 78
|
Ruger replaced my new SP101. Had to be sent to an FFL and I had to pay for a background check. If the serial number changes they said it has to go through an FFL.
|
July 11, 2017, 10:47 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
After all, what's the purpose of the 4473 and the background check? To verify that the buyer is not prohibited from taking possession of the firearm. Once it has been established that the buyer is not prohibited, what difference does it make if a firearm sent in for warranty service is repaired and returned, or replaced? The owner still has just one firearm, and he has already passed a background check. In states such as New York, where firearms are registered by serial number, then perhaps a replacement might have to go through an FFL to get it into the system. But, in that case, how does the old serial number get removed from the system? In my case, I shipped the gun directly to the manufacturer, I didn't use an FFL. This is not uncommon -- a number of manufacturers will issue a call tag and pay for the shipping if you ask nicely. |
|
July 12, 2017, 09:39 AM | #14 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 2017
Location: The Free state of NH-Southeast
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
Just curious..
__________________
Retired Navy RM/ITC(SW) 1982-2002 USS Edward McDonnell (FF-1043), USS Pegasus (PHM1) USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Colt Mustang XSP FE, Sig P938/238 , Sig P320C RX |
|
July 12, 2017, 12:26 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Federal law is silent on the topic of the replacement firearm's serial number, so the transaction is treated the same way regardless. FWIW the transaction will be recorded in the manufacturer's bound book, so the replacement firearm's initial disposition can still be traced by the ATF, despite the lack of a 4473 on the receiving end. I'm not addressing WA state law, nor the hypothetical NY licensing scenario posited by Aguila Blanca, as I don't know enough about either state's laws. The important takeaway is that this transaction is allowed by federal law, but it could be prohibited by state law, either explicitly or implicitly.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
July 12, 2017, 01:50 PM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 2017
Location: The Free state of NH-Southeast
Posts: 20
|
Quote:
__________________
Retired Navy RM/ITC(SW) 1982-2002 USS Edward McDonnell (FF-1043), USS Pegasus (PHM1) USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) Colt Mustang XSP FE, Sig P938/238 , Sig P320C RX |
|
July 12, 2017, 03:35 PM | #17 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
The law was quoted in post #10. Read the law. Where does it require a new background check (and a new 4473) for a firearm replaced by the manufacturer under warranty? |
|
|
|