Please close.

[jfrey123]

So you are saying in essence - the buyer cannot use his CCW to purchase the firearm but the seller can use his CCW to get his firearm returned if need be.

Yes. CCW exemption does not exist for a private party transfer under state law.

And in the case of a failed background check of the buyer, once the weapon is logged in FFL’s inventory, seller must complete 4473 for FFL to show release from inventory. CCW is allowed for that portion under Federal law.

 

[jfrey123]

From the view of the FFL - probably following federal law over state law would be the prudent thing to do

Once the FFL agreed to participate in the transfer, they’re bound to follow the state law while still having to follow Federal law in order to maintain their license.

Once again, clear as mud.

 

[JTW_Jr]

I thought the FFL was not required to hold the firearm while the scamcheck background check was run.

 

[tbirdsc]

I thought the FFL was not required to hold the firearm while the scamcheck background check was run.

My LGS does not keep possession of the firearm for all of the above cluster issues- buyer and seller must return to do the exchange after approval for 4473.

 

[jfrey123]

I thought the FFL was not required to hold the firearm while the scamcheck background check was run.

State law says the FFL has to perform the background as if it was part of their inventory, meaning at some point is has to be recorded in their books. From what I’ve read since it’s implementation, some are doing the background check first before entering it into the book (which leads to conflicts with Federal law for performing background checks on a weapon not in inventory), but some record it right away.

State law allows the seller to take the gun back while the check is being done (in case of delays). But if the gun is in the FFL’s book, they can’t release it back without a 4473 under Federal law.

Mud. Thick, soupy mud.

 

[AMMOMAN702]

I don’t think they’re assuming you’re a criminal, but you’re expecting them to perform a criminal act under the guise of good customer service.

jumped in on a long conversation i did not see prior disregard this text

 

[AMMOMAN702]

I don’t think they’re assuming you’re a criminal, but you’re expecting them to perform a criminal act under the guise of good customer service.

I have similar feeling for the way buyers complain about sellers who won’t break the law. Considering it’s only the seller who faces penalties for non-compliance, which quickly escalate to felonies, I can’t blame a seller for wanting to cover their ass.

I’ll reiterate that I hate the law and think it’s bull(crap), and I acknowledge Sheriffs are on record unwilling to enforce. That doesn’t preclude the State Police, nor municipal police departments, from enforcing it. And you can bet the majority of DA’s will be happy to pursue charges brought to them. The likelihood of being caught up in it is relatively low, but consequences severe.

not sure what you mean by performing a criminal act. It’s there CHOICE to release the gun, I never said is was DENIED. And another thing as you make it sound like they’re just covering the Lee butts. Then why would they release a gun to me then if I show them my CCW at the same time they just made the decision to not realize on a unresolved..

 

[AMMOMAN702]

As of now, the ATF is looking for FFL-s to place their head on the chopping block so you can't blame them for not wanting to skirt the law.
As for FFL-s not wanting to transfer on a "unresolved", the shooter in the SC church shooting was legally transferred the firearm as an "unresolved" and even thought the FFL did nothing wrong - I am pretty sure the legal ramifications (and I reiterate - the FFL did not do anything wrong) put them out of business so that is making a lot of FFL-s think twice about it.

So then what your saying is they shouldent except CCW then also and we should all have to wait to get any gun no matter what because there was a single case of a unresolved coming back as denied later down the line. And they shouldent take into effect my having a CCW and past history of buying over 10 guns from then in less then a year.

 

[AMMOMAN702]

Not their business model.
Ffls are in the business of selling New guns or sometimes used on consignment.
They're being forced to be a go-between by the state.

I wouldent say they’re being forced, sportsmans does not to PPT, it’s just a way for them to get customers in the door.

 

[jfrey123]

not sure what you mean by performing a criminal act. It’s there CHOICE to release the gun, I never said is was DENIED. And another thing as you make it sound like they’re just covering the Lee butts. Then why would they release a gun to me then if I show them my CCW at the same time they just made the decision to not realize on a unresolved..

For an FFL choosing to do a ppt, there is no choice regarding unresolved. State law is binary that the buyer either passes background or doesn’t. To release/approved the transfer on an unresolved looks criminal in my reading of tge state law.

Federal law allowing release on unresolved is not applicable to a state regulated ppt.

 

[tbirdsc]

So then what your saying is they shouldent except CCW then also and we should all have to wait to get any gun no matter what because there was a single case of a unresolved coming back as denied later down the line. And they shouldent take into effect my having a CCW and past history of buying over 10 guns from then in less then a year.

I am not saying that at all - having a CCW should work for any all firearm purchases but the way the question one was written - having a CCW is moot point and I don't see that changing any time soon.
As far a releasing a firearm on an unresolved - I only brought up the SC situation as that was the reason several FFL-s I know decided to not release on an unresolved when they used too.

 

[JTW_Jr]

For an FFL choosing to do a ppt, there is no choice regarding unresolved. State law is binary that the buyer either passes background or doesn’t. To release/approved the transfer on an unresolved looks criminal in my reading of tge state law.

Federal law allowing release on unresolved is not applicable to a state regulated ppt.

NRS: 202.2547 states " A licensed dealer who agrees to conduct a background check pursuant to this section shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law as though the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from his or her own inventory to the buyer or transferee, including, but not limited to, all recordkeeping requirements. For the purpose of determining whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law, the licensed dealer shall contact the same agency as though the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from his or her own inventory to the buyer or transferee. "

202.2547 does not specifically mention how to proceed on a pending. So, then it would fall back to what is the law/reg for if the dealer was selling the firearm from their inventory. Anyone know what the law is when a buyer gets a pending when buying from an FFLs inventory ?

 

[tbirdsc]

For an FFL choosing to do a ppt, there is no choice regarding unresolved. State law is binary that the buyer either passes background or doesn’t. To release/approved the transfer on an unresolved looks criminal in my reading of tge state law.

Federal law allowing release on unresolved is not applicable to a state regulated ppt.

I am really seeing how a lot of FFL-s and us common folk are taking the fed laws and state laws and melding them together - to not release on a unresolved is the safe bet if you value your license.

 

[MAC702]

Ffls ... are being forced to be a go-between by the state.

Well, not really. People are being told they must use an FFL. FFLs are NOT required to participate. But once some do, the state feels vindicated. It's hard to blame the FFLs, even though solidarity would have made the law moot. Many see it as providing a service that [especially existing] customers were going to request because of wanting to follow a law that received a lot of attention even though zero enforcement because of a complete lack of constitutional authority.

 

[GlenBaker]

Well, not really. People are being told they must use an FFL. FFLs are NOT required to participate. But once some do, the state feels vindicated. It's hard to blame the FFLs, even though solidarity would have made the law moot. Many see it as providing a service that [especially existing] customers were going to request because of wanting to follow a law that received a lot of attention even though zero enforcement because of a complete lack of constitutional authority.

I'm confused
Is NRS: 202.2547 a law or not???
And if it's not constitutional why hasn't anybody challenged it???

 

[jfrey123]

NRS: 202.2547 states " A licensed dealer who agrees to conduct a background check pursuant to this section shall comply with all requirements of federal and state law as though the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from his or her own inventory to the buyer or transferee, including, but not limited to, all recordkeeping requirements. For the purpose of determining whether the buyer or transferee is eligible to purchase and possess firearms under state and federal law, the licensed dealer shall contact the same agency as though the licensed dealer were selling or transferring the firearm from his or her own inventory to the buyer or transferee. "

202.2547 does not specifically mention how to proceed on a pending. So, then it would fall back to what is the law/reg for if the dealer was selling the firearm from their inventory. Anyone know what the law is when a buyer gets a pending when buying from an FFLs inventory ?

My layman’s take is that, because pending/unresolved checks are not addressed in the state law, the FFL still cannot transfer to the buyer. Nothing in state law says they can do so. Note that state law uses clever language like “…dealer agrees to conduct a background check…” (basically saying dealer is now obligated to abide by it). I note in the Federal laws, dealers are required to abide by all state and city laws atop their Federal laws.

Section 3 of the state ppt law says the dealer has to perform the check to determine the buyer’s eligibility to purchase the firearm. “Pending/unresolved” statuses do not fulfill that determination.

Section 4 of the state ppt says the state shall notify the dealer the “result” of the background check. Part of the definition of result in the dictionary is “conclusion”, so a pending/unresolved background check is, by definition, not concluded.

I’m not married to my ideas here, and I honestly hope someone can definitively prove me wrong.

Full CFR’s here if you want to cuddle up to a novel of legalese:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

 

[MAC702]

I'm confused
Is NRS: 202.2547 a law or not???
And if it's not constitutional why hasn't anybody challenged it???

Is it the first "law" to get passed that doesn't have constitutional authority and has to spend years in legal limbo? Thank goodness every single sheriff recognized it for what it is.

As someone who attempted to comply and had an obviously non-prohibited buyer refused for "unresolved/too busy to do our job," you are now one with legal standing for the lawsuit as a damaged party.

 

[apnortham]

The U.S. Constitution declares that federal law is “the supreme law of the land.” As a result, when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law will supersede the other law or laws.