Gun stores doing backgrounds even with a ccw?!

[rennD]

Here is what they told me over the phone. $30 transfer fee in total. Clarifying, the scenario I asked them about was coming in to do a PPT with someone.

Which is why I asked if anyone has done a PPT there to verify please. Because if they charge other fees, that would be good to know.

 

[MAC702]

I thought BGC's were free

Only for private party transfers being done at participating FFL dealers.

For sales of guns in the dealer's inventory, including guns shipped to them, the background check is waived for current CCW holders, otherwise it is performed and the fee is $25.

 

[MAC702]

...Which is why I asked if anyone has done a PPT there to verify please. Because if they charge other fees, that would be good to know.

I think you forgot to specify PPT, and this was a thread about a transfer shipped to the store. But your question made me wonder if it was different.

I've not done a PPT at any store. But the BGC is free for such, so I expect the fine folks at Freedom Firearms are giving you good info.

 

[SixshooterSam]

I was under the impression it was transferred to their store without discussing it with them first. Some stores get put on lists of approved transfer stores for vendors, and no details are offered. Some may not realize how differently some stores treat these.

Now, don't get me wrong, this policy is WAY out of line. It's worth nothing that this is not a typical gun shop. It's a huge indoor range just off the Strip that caters to tourists, and probably gets most of its gun sales from first-time buyers.

That's why I think it's on the store to suck it up and refund his money or conduct the sale as normal without a background check. If they have some unexpected policy that goes way above and beyond what is legal or expected, it's up to them to inform the customer of that first before they commit.

Imagine if someone brought their car to me for repairs, we discuss the cost, I do the work, then when they come to pick it up I inform them of some other additional fee and delay for something they weren't expecting and didn't ask for. "Your car is ready, but I have to charge you an additional $50 and have to check with DMV to make sure your license is good before I can release the car to you." That would never fly. It shouldn't fly in this case. Anyone with a CCW would be expecting no background check and no additional fee for one if they're buying something from the store, not a PPT. It's unacceptable to change the rules mid-game like they did.

 

[Gullwing]

I can't understand how any shop would force the bs background check when you have a CCW. Just doesn't make sense.
Now private transfers with the buyer having a CCW I can see shops just doing it as a mail in transfer and not calling it in.

 

[Kinoons]

I can't understand how any shop would force the bs background check when you have a CCW. Just doesn't make sense.
Now private transfers with the buyer having a CCW I can see shops just doing it as a mail in transfer and not calling it in.

I’ve been asking for a year now why can’t a gun shop treat an in state private party transaction as if the firearm came in the mail, log it into the book, and skip the background check for a buyer with a CCW and no one has been able to give me a reason it can’t be done that way.

 

[Mr. B]

I was told that because “California” had people stealing ccws or getting fake ccws and then buying guns and killing people?

At that point, you should have told them that this is not California, and they can either hand you YOUR property, or release it to a non-criminal FFL.

 

[jfrey123]

I’ve been asking for a year now why can’t a gun shop treat an in state private party transaction as if the firearm came in the mail, log it into the book, and skip the background check for a buyer with a CCW and no one has been able to give me a reason it can’t be done that way.

Because the state background check law literally forbids it. Buyer and seller are required by law to appear jointly and request a background check. NRS 202.2547 Sec 2.
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec2547

The CCW exemption is a Federal exemption granted to a Federal dealer when transferring to an unlicensed individual. The Federal statutes don’t require a private persons to have a background check, they require FFL’s to perform background checks before transfering weapons (that’s how the Brady Bill passed constitutional muster; it’s not an infringement on citizens, it’s a rule licensed dealers must follow).

 

[MAC702]

... (that’s how the Brady Bill passed constitutional muster; it’s not an infringement on citizens, it’s a rule licensed dealers must follow).

And with the passage of laws REQUIRING even private sales to go through FFL's, that loophole they used no longer exists.

 

[AngryRed]

Just to clarify , that is Freedom Munitions NOT Freedom Firearms .

Small words have big impact if used incorrectly.

 

[jfrey123]

And with the passage of laws REQUIRING even private sales to go through FFL's, that loophole they used no longer exists.

State vs Federal discrepancy. But a (one of the many) reason(s) the state law should be knocked down as unconstitutional.

 

[Kinoons]

So how would this work if party A in Las Vegas wants to buy a rifle from party B in Reno? Why would there be any issues with the owner in Reno shipping the rifle to an FFL in Vegas and the normal procedure being followed?

edit
And why not for firearms from out of state? Nothing in the NV law states that either party isnt or is exempted by their state of residence. According to that law an unlicensed individual sending a rifle from AZ to a buyer in NV must appear jointly.

Because the state background check law literally forbids it. Buyer and seller are required by law to appear jointly and request a background check. NRS 202.2547 Sec 2.
https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec2547

The CCW exemption is a Federal exemption granted to a Federal dealer when transferring to an unlicensed individual. The Federal statutes don’t require a private persons to have a background check, they require FFL’s to perform background checks before transfering weapons (that’s how the Brady Bill passed constitutional muster; it’s not an infringement on citizens, it’s a rule licensed dealers must follow).

 

[jfrey123]

So how would this work if party A in Las Vegas wants to buy a rifle from party B in Reno? Why would there be any issues with the owner in Reno shipping the rifle to an FFL in Vegas and the normal procedure being followed?

edit
And why not for firearms from out of state? Nothing in the NV law states that either party isnt or is exempted by their state of residence. According to that law an unlicensed individual sending a rifle from AZ to a buyer in NV must appear jointly.

Man, (poop), I dunno. It’s a (poop)ty law written by the (poop)ty Bloomberg people that (poop)ty people in our state passed. Also, I might’ve had a couple whiskeys...

My non-lawyer opinion: Sec 1 of the NRS I linked above flat out states a unlicensed person can’t sell to an unlicensed person in this state unless a dealer runs a background check on the transferee/buyer. Sec 2 says it wants them to appear jointly, but so long as the background check in Sec 1 is fulfilled, I guess it’s supposed to be okay? (Extra evidence in Sec 6 where a seller is allowed to take the gun for storage if the background isn’t finished on the spot).

For the Vegas to Reno scenario, a dealer is just the middle man and a background check must occur since it’s unlicensed persons.

Your interstate question makes for a mix of Fed and State law: unlicensed person in AZ can’t transfer to NV without a dealer involved per Federal law, but since it’s a transfer between two unlicensed persons, State law requires the Nevada buyer to have a background check done.

Throwing dealers into the mix when private cash is exchanging private hands doesn’t negate the issues asked here. My only thought is that a seller could ask a dealer to buy their gun for their asking price (a), then sell it to the buyer for the cost of overhead/fees (b), plus state taxes since it’s a retail sale now (c), and hope that a+b+c is cheaper for the buyer whole still being worth a dealer’s time.

 

[Kinoons]

Man, (poop), I dunno. It’s a (poop)ty law written by the (poop)ty Bloomberg people that (poop)ty people in our state passed. Also, I might’ve had a couple whiskeys...

My non-lawyer opinion: Sec 1 of the NRS I linked above flat out states a unlicensed person can’t sell to an unlicensed person in this state unless a dealer runs a background check on the transferee/buyer. Sec 2 says it wants them to appear jointly, but so long as the background check in Sec 1 is fulfilled, I guess it’s supposed to be okay? (Extra evidence in Sec 6 where a seller is allowed to take the gun for storage if the background isn’t finished on the spot).

For the Vegas to Reno scenario, a dealer is just the middle man and a background check must occur since it’s unlicensed persons.

Your interstate question makes for a mix of Fed and State law: unlicensed person in AZ can’t transfer to NV without a dealer involved per Federal law, but since it’s a transfer between two unlicensed persons, State law requires the Nevada buyer to have a background check done.

Throwing dealers into the mix when private cash is exchanging private hands doesn’t negate the issues asked here. My only thought is that a seller could ask a dealer to buy their gun for their asking price (a), then sell it to the buyer for the cost of overhead/fees (b), plus state taxes since it’s a retail sale now (c), and hope that a+b+c is cheaper for the buyer whole still being worth a dealer’s time.

so what’s going on here is a (poop)show....

So it is now impossible to sell a rifle from Reno to LV since the buyer and seller simply cannot appear jointly.

 

[Gullwing]

So how would this work if party A in Las Vegas wants to buy a rifle from party B in Reno? Why would there be any issues with the owner in Reno shipping the rifle to an FFL in Vegas and the normal procedure being followed?

edit
And why not for firearms from out of state? Nothing in the NV law states that either party isnt or is exempted by their state of residence. According to that law an unlicensed individual sending a rifle from AZ to a buyer in NV must appear jointly.

For some shops no issue. Considering that NICS has been almost impossible (or impossible) to get into this month.

 

[Kinoons]

For some shops no issue. Considering that NICS has been almost impossible (or impossible) to get into this month.

But as Jfrey noted above there is no provision in NV law to allow for the seller to ship a firearm to an FFL for the buyer to pick up as they must present simultaneously for the background check. Are you saying there is no issue because the system is broken or no issue as some FFLs are not following the letter of the law?

 

[Stanley Spidowski]

I thought a CCW exempted a buyer from the check?

 

[Gullwing]

But as Jfrey noted above there is no provision in NV law to allow for the seller to ship a firearm to an FFL for the buyer to pick up as they must present simultaneously for the background check. Are you saying there is no issue because the system is broken or no issue as some FFLs are not following the letter of the law?

Does it matter if it is shipped to the dealer or brought in???? I mean if person A is selling to person B and B has a CCW. CCW is good for mail in transfers so why not in person? Not saying anyone is or isn't playing by those rules or thoughts.

 

[Tophog]

Does it matter if it is shipped to the dealer or brought in???? I mean if person A is selling to person B and B has a CCW. CCW is good for mail in transfers so why not in person? Not saying anyone is or isn't playing by those rules or thoughts.

How does the crap work for consignment guns? Seller must be present? Or are the guns 'logged in' somehow?

 

[Kinoons]

Does it matter if it is shipped to the dealer or brought in???? I mean if person A is selling to person B and B has a CCW. CCW is good for mail in transfers so why not in person? Not saying anyone is or isn't playing by those rules or thoughts.

That’s the argument I’ve been making. If you take the state law literally it outlaws any sales from one unlicensed person to another unless they can both appear at the same FFL at the same time. In theory that means no one can order a gun from an unlicensed person out of state and have it shipped to an FFL here in NV either.