If I wanted to sell a gun that qualifies as C&R to someone that holds a C&R license is it still required to do a transfer through a dealer? It seems like because they are technically a kind of FFL that they would be except in the same way a dealer would be if I sold it to them directly; they would just be required to keep record of it in their C&R bound book.

Does anyone have any insight on this?

At the federal level, you can sell directly to a C&R licensee.

For an in-state Washington sale and dealing with 594, a couple of points:
- The law is clear that a "dealer" does not include C&R.
- The law says something like, and I'm paraphrasing here, "all sales need to be transferred through a dealer unless otherwise authorized by state or federal law." So, does that include C&R licenses as "otherwise authorized"? You make the call.

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any retailers changing their policy about shipping to C&R holders in Washington. The CMP used to ship to everyone, but they will now only ship to 01 FFLs.

Well that clears things up in an unfourtinate but not entirely unexpected way. Hmm.

There is an older thread on this. I am not a lawyer or a cop.

The text says "All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law."

A specific federal exemption exists for FFL03's buying C&R guns in 18 USC 923/922.

Note that state law is clear that a FFL03 issue not a "dealer", as it only refers to the FFL01 section of 18 USC 923.

My opinion is that as an FFL holder buying a gun that federal law says you can buy without a background check, you are fine. But that is worth nothing if the seller doesn't agree too.

Remember there has been a lot of disinformation and fear about 594. We have a thread a week saying "I heard 594 says I can't do xxxxx" which turn out to be false. But you will also find dealers are just going to be cautious about this one.

Thanks for the specifics, ANZAC.

Oh yeah ... I'm not a lawyer either.

Original thread viewtopic.php?f=47&t=47365

Good info. Thank you.

Well, this IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. But I don't think a C&R can be used to buy/sell C&R guns the way licensees did pre-594 (eg. face-to-face and shipping to your front door, for C&R eligible post 1898 guns).

I was going to write the Attorney General for an opine, but I don't think that benefits us. It will be an opine against us, which we don't really want for precedent sake. I started my search out of curiosity by reading a lot of forums (5-10 forums discussing this issue) where reasonable minds differ on 594 and C&R and one where someone wrote and the response the poster received was a decline on providing an opine and to hire a lawyer. Not useful, really. It's cost prohibitive and of limited usefulness (most lawyers will charge many hundreds of dollars, and a legal opine from a civilian lawyer is problematic for other reasons).

So we go to the actual language of the statutes: I BRIEFLY looked into the often incompatible and confusing language of 27 CFR §478.11, §478.41, 18 USC §921, 922, 923, and RCW 9.41.113, RCW 9.41.010(4), RCW 9.41.010(13), RCW 9.41.010(26).

Obviously, this takes several hours of parsing through pretty technical, specific, and poorly worked legal-eaze language and verbiage. Of course it's all designed to harass and frustrate gun owners - no surprise there - and has zero impact on safety, security, or any actual legit purpose. Ambiguities designed to benefit the state and deter ownership. And nobody is paying for my time or risk of a legal review... while it's interesting stuff, financially just paying the transfer fee is far smarter than risking violations or my law license. Yes, of course that's what libs want. Ok. So, again, this is a review by a gun enthusiast and collector, not a lawyer. Anyway, here's my non-legal non-attorney (you're on your own, it's not my issue, this view is only worth what you paid me e.g. nothing) view in a nutshell.

The 03FFL application clearly says it's a collectors license and not a dealers license, nor meant to circumvent state laws to the contrary. See the application last pages under explanations, paragraphs 1 and 4.

State of WA agrees with this so both Feds and WA say an 03 FFL is not a dealer. State law seems to be pretty clear that all gun transfers (with limited unrelated exceptions) must go through a dealer. It even discusses collectors and hobbiests.

RCW 9.41.113
"A person who does not have, and is not required to have, a federal firearms license under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(a), is not a dealer if that person makes only occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or sells all or part of his or her personal collection of firearms."

Therefore, a C&R is per state definition an Unlicensed person (e.g. not a dealer).

Re-read this portion: RCW 9.41.113
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons.
(2) No person shall sell or transfer a firearm unless:
(a) The person is a licensed dealer;
(b) The purchaser or transferee is a licensed dealer; or
(c) The requirements of subsection (3) of this section are met." (2)(c) discusses dealers and exceptions that don't apply.

Note, Antique guns are discussed and defined in both state and federal law similarly - basically antiques are pre 1898 guns that fire old/obsolete/not in common production ammo, and these are exemptions.

So, in sum, the 03 collector is not a dealer and that license requires compliance with state laws and not designed to circumvent these laws. WA has now enacted state law that requires (in arguably ambiguous but legal language) that almost certainly requires that a dealer must be involved and all transactions need have a dealer and background check.

My best argument against this, and for a C&R to still operate as it has, is the following:

"All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law."

But that's a failing argument in my opinion for two important reasons. The second half of that paragraph states:

"The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."

Combine that with the language on the C&R that it's not intended to be a dealer nor circumvent state laws... and using your C&R for F2F transfers without a dealer is in my view playing with fire. I don't think a reasonable person could argue convincingly that a C&R can be used the same as pre-2014 I594 with F2F C&R transfers.

Disclosure. I am just as disappointed in my reading of this and if there was a loophole I didn't see it, and I was looking (albeit cursorily) for one. I just wouldn't risk playing with this and creating a papertrail of FFL and state violations.

Again, not legal advice, and nobody paid me to look into this; just friendly conversation between gun enthusiasts and collectors.

I'm not convinced the same holds true interstate vs. intrastate. But I do believe nothing constructive will come from this discussion in a public forum. Nor would seeking an opinion from any AG in this state. . Lawyers and judges will be involved at some point, and probably judges that aren't reasonably abled. I suggest we all just stfu about it. Noone will interpret this pos law for us, few will enforce it. Knowingly violating the law is a crime. Doing your best to interpret it and attempting to comply, but coming up short, may be the best we can do.
If the first case to go to court is a transfer between two federal licensees, out of state or instate, I doubt we could hope for a better scenario. That doesn't pass the sniff test. Do the antis really want to take that to court? Is that the intended target of this law?

The 2nd part of that refers to unlicensed persons, not DEALERS which are defined as 923(a) by the RCW.
How can an "licensed collector" be an "unlicensed person" under federal law?
(there is no definition of unlicensed person in the RCW)

There is a specific federal exemption (providing it is a C&R gun, not just any gun) (see below)

18 USC 922 wrote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—

....

(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State

...

Paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to transactions between licensed importers, licensed manufacturers, licensed dealers, and licensed collectors.

It's a terrible law. I don't know how or what they could or will enforce. Maybe you do it an never get arrested. I gotta say though, I've sat across the table from countless people who had to look over their shoulder for months or years and it's clear that is not a wonderful life. Just ain't worth it, is what I'm trying to say.

With such a thing here in WA, and the great likelihood that if arrested, the consequences, and the fact you'd surely get a Liberal Judge, a misdemeanor would be very bad. Talking about huge life interruption, possible job loss, attorney fees, loss of guns/computers/records, house raid, being on the news, you name it.

A realistic scenario - WA decides to get tough. An 03 holder has, ironically, kept a tidy paper trail. WA gets a tip and a search warrant on you (perhaps your favorite out-of-state dealer got raided, inventory shows deliveries to your address, WA state gets involved... bingo immediate search warrant for probable cause of illegal firearms trafficking). That might get you a no knock raid because guns are involved, meaning they kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you away in your underwear at 3am (you're fired from your job for no-show). Oh, and all your guns are labeled with duct tape and thrown into a 50 gallon trash can, and your computers are all seized. An attorney takes your case on a up front $10,000 retainer, with more demanded if this sees a courtroom. 6 months of extreme stress. All guns and computers tied up until at least trial, then months or years afterward....
That's for starters. Who knows how it all plays out. What does a "win" look like in that sceario, anyway?

Or, be pissed off and pay the $25 fee and do the BGC.

It's infuriating, but the liberals won this round. We take it in the ass. Clever of them because these little encroachments are just enough to piss us off and erode the BoR, but not enough to take up arms...

"The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."

My HOBBYIST reading interprets this "not limited to" meaning there are other folks that may not be listed but also need to do the BCG and go through a dealer. Pretty darn comprehensive list though - "online" captures a huge portion, "gun shows" another big piece, "unlicensed persons" is discussed and defined... while they didn't include "parking lots, alleyways, living rooms..." it's safe to assume these are covered under "not limited to" language. Trying to say that a collector is somehow except is a biased and narrow, probably incorrect, view of the law - like we really want it so let's interpret it how we think it should be instead of the way it's written and the intent.

(Ironically this is exactly what the left wing anti-gunners have done with the original 2A by twisting and manipulating clear pro-gun language into some meta morphed language that is a purposeful misreading. Oh, and ignoring "Shall Not Infringe." I digress.)

The key language is "ALL SALES," and "NO PERSONS" - absent no clear exception for an 03 FFL collector, there just isn't a viable argument in favor of the collector. Refer to your 03 FFL paperwork wherein, as I said before, it states clearly that state laws trump the 03 FFL license.

Basically, the 03 FFL in my HOBBYIST viewpoint is saying "As long as it's cool with your state and you comply with state laws, you can engage in this collecting activity at the Federal level. You can send guns across state lines to your doorstep, is one key benefit that is otherwise prohibited. We - the Feds - will grant you the ability to do that for C&R guns with this handy permission slip."

Washington state has said, We recognize two people: Dealers (for business) and non-dealers. Starting in 2014, we are NOT cool with face-to-face and transactions where guns are mailed to our residents' doorsteps. So ALL transactions (whether both parties or just one party) are in our state, it must go through a dealer. We don't care if you're a hobbyiest, the gun transfers in our state go through a BGC and Dealer. Period. WA uses this language twice, "ALL transactions" and "No persons shall do a transaction without a Dealer." Granted there is an exception which is vague, that says all transactions go through a Dealer and get a BCG, "unless specifically exempted by state or federal law."

But it's just not crystal clear that an 03 FFL is exempted by state or federal law, since the 03 FFL, which again says, "Hey, comply with state law" which requires a Dealer and BGC (in an endless loop of deferring who to take guidance from - Feds said you could, state is saying you can't unless the Feds say you can, but the Feds say follow state law, which tells you to ask the Feds).

I totally confess that it's very hard language to understand. Perhaps it is even void for being so vague. But the risk just isn't worth the lunch money saved. In a nutshell, far less hassle and cheaper to do the BGC and lunch money fee.

Not to muddy the waters further on this old post about a poorly written law, but …

When I applied for my C&R, notification was sent to my County Sheriff for his review and approval (or denial). Was that not a background check, intended to cover all acquisition under the C&R?

Welcome to waguns! Glad you are here.
And yes in my opinion. C&r ffls have a bound book just like all other ffls.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I believe C&R transfers are now specifically exempted under the statute, so this (extremely old) thread now has some information which is no longer correct.