Posted: 12/17/2014 3:10:49 PM EDT
So I purchased a complete lower from PSA and had it shipped to my FFL. Went to go sign the paperwork and they tell me there is a mandatory 48 hour wait on all lowers. Is this correct? Or does this apply only to stripped lowers? Why can I just walk into the store and buy a full AR and walk out with it the same day but the lower requires a wait? 
|
|
Quoted:
So I purchased a complete lower from PSA and had it shipped to my FFL. Went to go sign the paperwork and they tell me there is a mandatory 48 hour wait on all lowers. Is this correct? Or does this apply only to stripped lowers? Why can I just walk into the store and buy a full AR and walk out with it the same day but the lower requires a wait? Find a new FFL. hey probably transferred it like a pistol. Search out one that actually knows what they are doing. |
So I went yesterday to inspect the lower and I filled out the 4473. There was no $10 charge to the handgun hotline. They just said with lowers, you have to wait 48 hours to pick up. I asked why I have to wait 48 hours to pick up the lower half, but I can purchase a fully built AR15 and walk out with it that same day. This is the answer I received 
|
|
Quoted:
I probably don't even want to know how much you paid for the transfer.
But like everyone said, find a new FFL who actually knows their stuff. To be honest I paid $0. Its a large outdoor retailer and I work there so I didn't want to raise to much hell. |
|
Quoted:
To be honest I paid $0. Its a large outdoor retailer and I work there so I didn't want to raise to much hell. Quoted:
Quoted:
I probably don't even want to know how much you paid for the transfer.
But like everyone said, find a new FFL who actually knows their stuff. To be honest I paid $0. Its a large outdoor retailer and I work there so I didn't want to raise to much hell. So when are you quitting? 
|
|
Quoted:
With 5-0 on this one. The complete lower should ahve been transfered as "other", since it it neither a rifle nor a pistol. Since it is not a pistol, it is not subject to teh WI check or the $10 fee. Unless it had a stock mounted on it. All the PSA complete lowers I have seen for sale come with a rifle stock and fire control parts installed. In any case there should be no wait seeing as though it's a rifle then and not a receiver or "other". OP.......did the receiver have a stock mounted to it? |
|
Quoted:
Unless it had a stock mounted on it. All the PSA complete lowers I have seen for sale come with a rifle stock and fire control parts installed. In any case there should be no wait seeing as though it's a rifle then and not a receiver or "other". OP.......did the receiver have a stock mounted to it? Quoted:
Quoted:
With 5-0 on this one. The complete lower should ahve been transfered as "other", since it it neither a rifle nor a pistol. Since it is not a pistol, it is not subject to teh WI check or the $10 fee. Quoted:
Yes it did. And they did classify it as "other". Even though I did try explaining that it IS a rifle and NOT a pistol. Unless it had a stock mounted on it. All the PSA complete lowers I have seen for sale come with a rifle stock and fire control parts installed. In any case there should be no wait seeing as though it's a rifle then and not a receiver or "other". OP.......did the receiver have a stock mounted to it? Doesn't matter if a stock was attached or not. A complete lower is still "other" on a 4473 unless the manufacturer has it in their records, along with the build tax, that it was fully assembled & logged as a complete firearm. In order to change the designation from the manufacturer, a dealer (FFL doing the transfer) must also be a manufacturer. Otherwise they are incorrectly filling out a 4473. |
|
gtfoxy has it right. As a "for instance" I bought a BCM lower that came with a stock. It doesn't have a barrel so it can't be a pistol or rifle until assembled as such. It transferred as an "other," I pulled the stock, assembled it with my 8.2" upper as a pistol, took a picture, then pulled the upper and replaced it with my pinned 14.5" and put the stock back on so I can return it to a pistol configuration if I want. Yeah, I know it's overkill but fuck it I'm not wasting film doing it that way or anything.
I don't understand why they wouldn't charge the background check fee yet still insist there is a waiting period. That's fucking clownshoes right there as it isn't even internally consistent as a policy. |
|
Quoted:
Email campaign at hand? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WI needs to dump the worthless waiting period. Problem solved. For licensees, at a minimum. Email campaign at hand? Meh. Not for me. The only irritant with the 48 hour thing is that I have to make two trips to my FFL. But he's a good guy, that I rarely see, and I really don't mind chatting for a few. The sensible position would be, if you already have a handgun, then you don't have to wait to get another one, because the additional firearm clearly is not enabling any action that you're not presently capable of. Truth is, WI firearms law is so good that I'm not willing to be an agitator for change, especially over petty things, because it presents too much opportunity to wreck a good thing. Better to focus on criminal definitions: Multiple persons committing street violence = Riot. All riot participants are liable for all crimes committed by the riot. If one rioter commits a violent act, then defense against all riot participants is warranted, justified, legally excused, and civilly protected. Obstructing motorists on streets = kidnapping. Those things would make a major shift to benefit square tax payers and hurt violent criminals. In contrast, 48 waiting periods don't matter. |
|
Quoted:
Meh. Not for me. The only irritant with the 48 hour thing is that I have to make two trips to my FFL. But he's a good guy, that I rarely see, and I really don't mind chatting for a few. The sensible position would be, if you already have a handgun, then you don't have to wait to get another one, because the additional firearm clearly is not enabling any action that you're not presently capable of. Truth is, WI firearms law is so good that I'm not willing to be an agitator for change, especially over petty things, because it presents too much opportunity to wreck a good thing. Better to focus on criminal definitions: Multiple persons committing street violence = Riot. All riot participants are liable for all crimes committed by the riot. If one rioter commits a violent act, then defense against all riot participants is warranted, justified, legally excused, and civilly protected. Obstructing motorists on streets = kidnapping. Those things would make a major shift to benefit square tax payers and hurt violent criminals. In contrast, 48 waiting periods don't matter. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WI needs to dump the worthless waiting period. Problem solved. For licensees, at a minimum. Email campaign at hand? Meh. Not for me. The only irritant with the 48 hour thing is that I have to make two trips to my FFL. But he's a good guy, that I rarely see, and I really don't mind chatting for a few. The sensible position would be, if you already have a handgun, then you don't have to wait to get another one, because the additional firearm clearly is not enabling any action that you're not presently capable of. Truth is, WI firearms law is so good that I'm not willing to be an agitator for change, especially over petty things, because it presents too much opportunity to wreck a good thing. Better to focus on criminal definitions: Multiple persons committing street violence = Riot. All riot participants are liable for all crimes committed by the riot. If one rioter commits a violent act, then defense against all riot participants is warranted, justified, legally excused, and civilly protected. Obstructing motorists on streets = kidnapping. Those things would make a major shift to benefit square tax payers and hurt violent criminals. In contrast, 48 waiting periods don't matter. Interesting perspective. As it pertains to Cooling off periods, as that is relevant to the topic of discussion, I highly doubt, with our State composition of representatives, any negative additions would make it through the process. But I agree a thumb-on-tack approach would be very prudent in seeing this go away. |
|
The 48 hr waiting period inhibits the purchases of handguns for no valid reason, and this "infringes" on our RKBA. It places a burden on those who want to purchase handguns from licensed dealers at gun shows, those who want to take advantage of "sales" at retailers not nearby, or those who might find a "deal" at a far away location (in state) they'd jump on, if it didn't mean 2 trips... or an additional transfer fee. Personally, I've been "victimized" by the 48 hr wait in each of those 3 scenarios at least a dozen times.
A federal court has already ruled that the waiting period in CA is a constitutional violation against those who are licensed to own, or already own, firearms. While that ruling doesn't have any effect anywhere but that circuit court, it's only a matter of time before a similar suit is filed in our area. Not a big fan of "don't rock the boat" either. This law should've been done away with when NICS was put on line, and again when CCW was passed, and I see no reason not to get it done right now. 
|
|
Quoted:
The 48 hr waiting period inhibits the purchases of handguns for no valid reason, and this "infringes" on our RKBA. It places a burden on those who want to purchase handguns from licensed dealers at gun shows, those who want to take advantage of "sales" at retailers not nearby, or those who might find a "deal" at a far away location (in state) they'd jump on, if it didn't mean 2 trips... or an additional transfer fee. Personally, I've been "victimized" by the 48 hr wait in each of those 3 scenarios at least a dozen times. A federal court has already ruled that the waiting period in CA is a constitutional violation against those who are licensed to own, or already own, firearms. While that ruling doesn't have any effect anywhere but that circuit court, it's only a matter of time before a similar suit is filed in our area. Not a big fan of "don't rock the boat" either. This law should've been done away with when NICS was put on line, and again when CCW was passed, and I see no reason not to get it done right now. Amen. Given our majorities, this is the time to do it. 
|