According to a (widely debunked) Harvard University study that was widely touted by The Trace, 40% of firearms transactions in the United States happened without a background check. The real number is actually more like 20%. Still, the state of Washington implemented a new law last year designed to close the so-called gun show loophole which allowed citizens within the same state to transfer a firearm between themselves without going through the NICS system.

The FBI has just released a report showing that private party transfers in Washington following the new law accounted for only 2% of the total background checks.

From Only :

Only 2% of background checks in Washington in 2015 stemmed from “private party” sales of guns, according to data in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check – or NICS – system.

That number is surprising to researchers Philip Cook of Duke and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who study gun violence.

They say that their own research – and studies by others – have shown that up to 40% of gun sales nationwide are between private citizens. They’re skeptical that the 2% reported to the FBI is an accurate picture of the private gun market in Washington state.

“I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

There are a couple possible explanations for the discrepancy between the expected number (even at 20%) of private party transactions and what the FBI is reporting…and none of them are very good news for gun control activists.

Option #1: the law simply doesn’t work. Many gun owners seem to be open to the idea of background checks for all gun sales, but the system only works if it’s convenient to use for everyone involved. Forcing gun owners and buyers to go to a gun store, wait for the clerk, pay a fee (frequently as high as $50), fill out paperwork, and only then be able to transfer the firearm is a laborious process that does more to deter compliance.

All that inconvenient only results in people ignoring it, as one Washington resident admitted.

Jonathan says he’s bought or sold several guns since the law went into effect.

“As far as following the law, roughly 50% of those (sales) I followed the law,” Jonathan said.

Background check laws can work, but only if they are designed in a way to enable and empower gun owners to participate in the process instead of trying to punish gun owners and make the process complicated and annoying (like it is now). Even so, from the worst offender that the article could dredge up, it still prompted them to get background checks for at least 50% of the transactions.

Option #2: the documentation is incorrect. The system is new, and gun stores may not be filling out the paperwork correctly. From the article:

Firearms dealer Kelly Bachand, who owns Kelly’s Gun Sales in Tukwila, say the low number may also be attributed to firearms dealers incorrectly filling out federal paperwork.

“It’s not very obvious or easy to find the information as far as how it should be filled out,” said Bachand.

Reporting issues can wreak havoc on any meaningful analysis — garbage in, garbage out as they say. But even then it’s hard to believe that 95% of gun store transactions are incorrectly recorded. Gun store owners, by necessity, are rather good at paperwork.

Option #3 is one that isn’t even considered by the article in question: maybe the original studies were garbage to begin with. Maybe the actual number of firearm transactions without a background check in the United States is actually far lower than even the 20% number.

As we pointed out when the 40% number first gained traction, that figure seems to be based on a 20+-year-old phone survey of a whopping 251 people. That hits all of the usual alarm bells for a bogus survey with complete garbage results. But since that number sounds good and fits with the gun grabbers’ narrative it gets get a confirmation bias pass. Even the Washington Post gave the 40% figure two Pinocchios when they reviewed it when President Obama made the claim.

Despite all the debunking, the 40% figure continues to reign supreme in the minds of the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex. Just as in the Acc Mag article. No doubt reports of the disparity between the bogus 40% number and the new FBI stats will lead to a crackdown on illegal gun sales in Washington and calls to strengthen the law with enforcement and punishment provisions. Something which will probably have an even more chilling effect on the use of the process and lead gun owners going further underground.

If the law is to remain on the books, the proper response is to work with gun owners to develop a system that works and is easier to use. But don’t hold your breath. The point of the law was never to increase the number of background checks — it was to increase the difficulty and risk involved with buying a firearm so that fewer of them change hands. Same as it ever was.

71 Responses to FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law

  1. If these people want a universal background check system which I’m against, allow everyone to call or go online themselves to make sure the buyer can purchase the firearm. A simple yes or no then the sale. No records are necessary or needed. There is already one from the original sale. I would rather know I’m selling to a none criminal and I’m against record keeping on firearms. I bet there would be gun owners open to that.

    • Welcome to Illinois where our FOID check system works wonders. I’m not actually against your proposal but in Illinois I’d like suppressors, SBRs, and of course carry anywhere if we’re to keep FOID.

      • I’m not suggesting having to get a card to call the NICS system. Literally anyone can call enter a name and get a yes or no answer. Again I don’t really care about instituting this or if it would help anything. It shouldn’t even be mandatory. But if a private seller wants to check before a sale why not?

        • How about they just give everyone who is not prohibited a FOID card. This can be done by marking every prohibited person’s driver license or state ID with no-gun for you. Then provide a website or phone number that allows people to verify the status of the current ID.

        • Myself and most gun owners I know would be open to a system like this. I’ve actually thought about the same kind of system. Something that wouldn’t allow tracking, because it only gives a yes or no on the buyer. Maybe provide a confirmation number to prove you followed the law.

        • Binder. That idea sounds good. When you get a drivers license the DMV puts a logo that says if you’re a prohibited person or not. The seller can check if it’s still current and valid from the drivers license ID. Before hand the buyer could even send a photo or copy of the drivers license with some of the address info covered to the seller. As the name and ID# is all that’s really needed. They should do the same for voting! Everyone has one so its not a registration process. Even non gun owners will have the same info on the drivers license. And no paperwork is required for either seller or buyer nor is it mandatory. Just a choice as most things should be in a democracy.

          It doesn’t need to be a drivers license I know some people don’t drive and have a government ID for beer and stuff.

        • This idea was discussed and rejected by the Democrats during the Brady Bill debating in the 1990s and again in the post-Sandy Hook attempted freedom grab.

          The Democrats won’t allow public access to the NICS system for background checks because this was never about background checks, per se. Background checks are about restricting gun sales only to federal firearms licensees (FFLs).

          Thus, “universal background checks” really means “all gun sales must go through an FFL.” In other words: universal background checks mean banning private sales of firearms.

          Since FFLs must keep records if the transaction, this is a de facto gun registry scheme. Since the federal government dictates who can receive an FFL and their business operating requirements, they can throttle the flow of firearms by constricting the number of FFLs in business.

          If firearm eligibility is maintained in a publicly accessible database and people driver’s licenses are simply marked yes or no, as with organ donations, or “Under 21”, as with alcohol purchase eligibility, then the background check would only serve one purpose: as a background check!

          The Democrats don’t want that, because it doesn’t advance their long term goal of firearms prohibition, so the Democrats won’t allow that. In fact, it would take away their civilian disarmament Trojan Horse.

        • Hmmm. LIke a state-issued ID that you can get that, say, has a (RE) on it for Restricted if the person is a prohibited person or a non-resident/non-citizen, and (U) for unknown if the credentials cannot be verified.

          There’s no reason why that shouldn’t be doable for all driver’s licenses from 2018 forward right? Or if you want a different state-issued ID, you can make them get off there asses and check to make sure the issuee doesn’t need an (RE) for restricted?

          Make a felony to falsely produce or possess any ID that lacks the (RE) or (U) if the credentials were not presented. (Not going to snag college kids who want fakes, they can try to get (U) IDs if they want.

          Once you’d got that going strong, then you make new legislation requiring a state-issued ID with (RE) status check to be presented at the voting booth. How could someone legally vote if they’re a felon or a non-resident?

          Kills several birds with one stone. Oh and MG, SBS, SBR, Suppressors, DDs, and AoWs are sold normally to people with standard unrestricted IDs because ATF NFA background checks are redundant.

        • Switzerland has an interesting take on background checks. You go to the post office’s website and you request a certificate that says you are a citizen in good standing. The certificate is good for 30 days and is used for things besides gun purchases over there. You take the certificate to the gun shop (it’s a secure document like currency) and you are good to go to buy as many guns as you want. Of course they have registration over there.

          If people are so hell-bent on background checks, why don’t we do something like that? Shut down NICS, and just make a public CJIS portal. Anyone can run anyone else as long as they have the pertinent info. Whether it’s for a job, volunteer position at a school, or buying a gun – it’d be an open resource. There’s no “reason” attached to the transaction. Maybe log the response “transaction number” in case it comes back to bite you in the ass later.

          I believe the BIDS proposal amounts to the same idea I’m having. Standard Fed criminal database, type in SSN, etc – response comes back as good/bad.

      • Yeah that FOID stopped everyone in Chicago from killing huh….
        Only thing FOID does is infringe on the law abiding citizens

    • I too would like to be able to access NICS from my phone or laptop so I can check out that shady guy I met in a Walmart parking lot before I sell him stuff.

      • This Baldwin has it right. I get nauseated at all the “Papers, please!” lovers here, who think that having a card from the government makes them kool.

        The only paper I need to speak my mind, go to church, tell the officers to come back with a warrant, peaceably assemble, publish a newsletter, or strap a gun on my hip (even if that’s all I choose to wear!) is the Bill of Rights. The burden to produce papers to demonstrate they have the authority to do ANYTHING is on the employees of the government.

  2. No, Nick… it doesn’t “work” for anything good. It’s all an infringement on peaceful people, and pretty much irrelevant to the non peaceful. The only people who are prevented from buying a gun with these “checks” is the person who is confused, or simply unaware of their “prohibited” status. And most of those prohibitions are pure bogus as well.

    The tool chosen by the real violent criminals is not relevant either. He/she can kill and injure people just as easily with a motor vehicle, matches and gasoline, BARE HANDS and a thousand other things.

    The gun, however, is the most effective and easily used tool to defend oneself against most violent aggressors, and the only thing this “background check” can do is to deprive some of the intended victims of any chance they have to defend themselves. And that’s why a lot of people do not and will not comply with these idiot “laws.”

    • +1

      And MamaLiberty did not even mention the fact that many “prohibited persons” have never threatened anyone with harm. Why should they not be able to own and possess firearms to defend themselves and their family?

      • That’s what I meant by writing that the prohibitions are bogus. All of them. Attempting to stop people from hurting others ahead of time with such “laws” is always a bad/stupid idea. Nobody but the criminal knows his/her intentions. Everyone else is an innocent bystander until and UNLESS they do something to harm other people. And yes, that goes for the “mentally ill” – whatever that actually means.

        And nobody is automatically exempt from an attack because they are below some arbitrary and useless minimum age, or whatever. If someone does stupid, threatening things with ANY tool, then take it away from them! Just don’t try to make everyone “safe” with preemptive laws that criminals will ALWAYS ignore.

    • Way to say, Mama!
      “Background check laws can work, but only if they are designed in a way to enable and empower gun owners to participate in the process instead of trying to punish gun owners and make the process complicated and annoying (like it is now). ”

      The entire NICS system is a violation of the Second Amendment and should be repealed IMMEDIATELY, not encouraged or massaged. Something about “…shall not be infringed.”

      As for the “…trying to punish gun owners and make the process complicated and annoying…” For the Anti-2A gun-grabbers those are features, not bugs.

  3. Many gun retailers won’t do the check even for a fee. They don’t want the risk if something goes amiss. So even with good intentions it can be very difficult to comply with the law. Which of course was the objective…

    • Retailers just want to sell you one of their own guns, not be content processing the paperwork for someone else’s sale. Their big concern is small profit margins.

      The proof? Watch what would happen if a bill to repeal the Gun Control Act’s FFL requirement ever got traction. If you completely bypass FFLs and buy directly from manufacturers or from any private seller anywhere in the country, the retail FFLs would go, well, ballistic.

      The further proof? There are FFLs who specialize is just doing transfers, but who don’t sell firearms in any retail store. Absent the option to sell you that same gun, they’re fine with just processing the transfer.

    • They have to put it on their books to then transfer it to the buyer. That means they have another annoyance to deal with when the ATF comes to audit their books.

      Also, they can’t run the background check until after they take possession of the firearm. If the buyer fails, then have to run a background check on the seller just to return the gun. If the seller gets a pending or rejection response, he doesn’t get his gun back, at least not for a while.

  4. Everything else is online, why can’t I simply access a web site, plug in a SSN, get a yes or no and, if you’re really concerned with a CYA, print a approval screenshot that the seller can keep with a hand written bill of sale. All anyone would know is someone did a BG check on someone else.

      • Ok, you plug it in, or just plug in the same info on a SF. I put my SSN on those because I really don’t care. I’m an environmentalist so I buy guns, clean them, and immediately throw them in the ocean for artificial reefs so I don’t worry about confiscation.

  5. Reminds me of an expose that was done by one of the local Denver news papers back just before CO passed their bill requiring background checks for all firearms transactions at gun shows. The paper reported that 50% of the vendors at gun shows did no background checks. There was outrage I tell you, OUTRAGE!

    After the law was passed some editorial writer went to a gun show and tallied up the vendors. Turns out that over 50% of the vendors STILL didn’t do background checks. Turns out the new law didn’t require background checks on beef jerky, holsters, books, jewelry, ammunition, military memorabilia, clothing, bumper stickers, or any of the other things that 50% of the vendors at the show sold.

    Lies, damn lies and statistics.

  6. Having a background check also sucks when you work during the hours that most gun shops are open. Try buying a gun from a private party on a Sunday when you can’t find an FFL that will do it and/or is open. That’s why around here(Utah) most guys will either look at the buyers ID and CC permit or just the ID and feel the person out. If the guy seems legit and is willing to talk with you and BS then you make the sale. If you feel weird then you walk away. I always CC when buying or selling a firearm, but I haven’t run into any issues. Most of the time I have to remind myself I have something else to do because I get talking and shooting the sh%t with a like minded, decent, human being.

    • That’s what we did in Washington before I-594. WA DL? Check. WA CPL? Check. Here’s your gun; here’s your cash.

      Now we only sell to people we know aren’t cops always go to an FFL for a transfer.

  7. What’s particularly bad about I-594 is that it requires a background check for almost ANY transfer – even temporary. With rare exceptions, you can’t even loan a gun to a buddy for hunting, and instructors have stopped bringing loaners to class for fear of running afoul of the law. Sister in law wants to borrow a pistol for fear of an abusive ex? Not without a background check.

    So, those tiny numbers coming in don’t (supposedly) just reflect private sales – they should be reflecting the entire gamut of transfers. And since most of the rural sheriffs in the state have publicly stated that they won’t enforce the law, it isn’t that the citizens aren’t complying, it’s citizens AND law enforcement that is tell the state legislation to FOAD.

    • I594 was a bunch of rich pricks pissing in gun owner’s cereal. I say f*ck you all. There is no way to prove when any gun made before the law passed was transfered. We need massive civil disobedience against this useless “law”. I could accept it if it only applied to actual sales of guns because that is what people thought they were voting for. They shouldn’t get to put a referendum in effect when all the ads promoting it were outright lies.

  8. In NJ, because you need a permit to buy a handgun, the face-to-face sale is pretty easy. Just check the FOID card versus driver’s license for address match, fill out the info on the permit, separate the copies and you’re done except for mailing one to the SP. No NICS required because it was done for the permit. The rub is, the state has a handgun registry and that makes confiscation a real danger. No matter how you look at it, we are screwed.

  9. People will obey the law only if it is reasonable and reasonably easy to follow.
    Case in point, in my former state, to dispose of a refrigerator you call a licensed technician who drains the freon and affixes a sticker stating it has been done in compliance with the law. You can then call a disposal service to pick up the refrigerator, having to pay for both services.
    OR, you can dump it on a back road for free, guess where lots of dead refrigerators are turning up?

  10. Slight correction. Initiative 594, mandating universal background checks in Washington State was passed in 2014. Initiative 1491, allowing seizure of guns, without due process, passed in 2016.

    In the two years since I-594 has been enforced, there has been one (1) arrest. However, there is no gun and the person they want to arrest can’t be found.

    The gun is alleged to have been used in a murder. If police ever find it (likely tossed into the Pacific) they might match ballistics.

    The evidence appears to be a partial text message that uses a slang term for gun. The accused replied he could get one. Authorities also alleged the suspect told them he had given the gun to the man charged in the murder.

    http://nwnewsnetwork.org/post/washington-murder-case-results-gun-charge-under-2014-background-check-law

    • Can’t be true. All the ads promised me that I-594 would prevent criminals from getting guns from other criminals, because they’d fail the background check. Are you saying the campaign ads lied to me?

  11. The technology exists to make universal background checks simple, painless and foolproof (between information databases and the biometric scanning potential of smartphone cameras). But what is point? Compliance will never be universal.

    Every gun that I (as a private citizen) have sold went to the buyer through an FFL. I believe that is the responsible way to do it. But I have no delusion that those guns can’t eventually find their way in to the hands of bad actors. Compliance will never be universal.

  12. So in CT all face to face sales now require the background check, but because we have a state system (which I assume just plugs into NICS?) anyone can call and request a check on the prospective buyer.

    The system is even simpler for dealers – they can just punch in your CT firearms license number into the phone and get an approval without even talking to a person.

    Of course, there’s a bunch of reasons why this is horribly statist and unconstitutional, but at least it’s efficient!

  13. This all shouldn’t be news to law makers. They do not seem to think very deeply about their laws.
    TL;DR – I-594 makes doing the right thing harder and more expensive. They’re purposely disincentivizing doing the legal thing.

    I-594 is deeply flawed. Their goal in making the law was supposedly to enforce background checks on everybody, but the effect is that it simply makes a legal transfer more expensive and harder to arrange. While our lawmakers may say this is a win, what they’ve actually done is just made it more enticing to commit a crime.

    If the goal is compliance, making it both more difficult and more expensive comply is obviously going to fail. Look at what happened to illegal downloading of music, it wasn’t the increase of penalties for illegal downloading that stopped a lot of the illegal activity, it was that iTunes, Spotify, etc., who made the legal thing easier at an affordable rate.

    So, if WA legislators want compliance with background check laws, the surely shouldn’t take money out of the pockets of the parties involved in the transfer, if anything they should incentivize good behavior.

    Meanwhile, the WA AG is proposing a ban on anything that takes a magazine and makes loud noises (bathroom joke in here somewhere). This too, will incentivize many to become criminals. They’ve offered no good way for those who have potentially banned guns to get their money out of their investments. Legal sales will be worth less, as gun stores would have no-one to sell to, while individuals’ demand will go up because they are harder to find. If the legal-market price goes down, but the illegal-market price goes up, all the laws in the world won’t prevent a rise in illegal transfers.

    I’m sure they mean well, but I do not think they have enough empathy with gun owners to actually predict the outcomes from their crappy legislation, or figure out any kind of compromises that would lead to better compliance.

    • “I’m sure they mean well.”

      Don’t be naive. They didn’t mean well. They meant to further demonize and stigmatize gun owners and make it more expensive and more inconvenient for us to exercise a Constitutionally protected right. Because they hate us.

      • Exactly. I’m talking in moral relativistic terms. I generally don’t believe in absolutes, other than provable facts. The folks making these laws, believe they are doing good through stigmatizing and demonizing gun owners.

        Few, if any, people wake up in the morning thinking, “what evil shall I do this day.” Most think, in their own warped perspective that most of their actions are towards a good end, for themselves, or for their community, or for the world.

        Despite their intent for “good”, in morally relativistic terms, the law is a failure, in absolute terms, because it obviously incentivizes the very behavior it deems illegal.

        Don’t make the same mistake they do, and write them off as bad people because they don’t agree with us, on this one thing. Instead, empathize with them, see what motivates them, and either change their minds, or propose something that is effective, but leaves room for us to do what we want too.

        The law should have read: “It is illegal to sell firearms to prohibited persons (as it already is). It is up to the seller to do due diligence to make sure of this (possibly already true as well). Here is a free, easy, and provable way to show this if ever questioned on it (NICS web-portal with a certificate you can save) for your peace of mind.”

        • If you really think pols are trying to do good I think you give them too much credit. Gun owners are the “deplorables” and they enjoy f*cking with us. They already know this stupid shit isn’t going to work and they don’t care. They have co-opted HK’s motto “you suck and we hate you”.

  14. If you have a gun deal going on between people that know and trust each other, and there’s no record of the gun being in possession of the seller after the law took effect, why bother ? That 2% number will probably go up over time.

  15. Colorado had the same results. The politicians were told 40%. The politicians believed 40%. The politicians budgeted money to handle 40%. After 18 months, it was closer to <5%.

    • They reported it here on TTAG that the after Colorado implemented UBC it was only about 2%. I’d say it’s a safe bet that the Number of private firearms transfers is probably only 2-5% which makes sense based on what I have observed.

  16. The Washington law is so badly written that it is mostly ignored. It requires a background check just to lend a gun to a friend at the range, and another for him to give it back to you, hardly a reasonable provision.

    California has had universal background checks (and a ten day wait) for many years, and it hasn’t been much of an issue, primarily because there is a statute limiting the fee the FFL can charge to do a person to person transfer–otherwise, as it is with internet interstate sales, the fee is unlimited, and even in the rural parts of the states, is $75 for the transfer plus another $25 for the background check (DROS). The real PIA for PPTs though is that both parties have to show up to the same FFL at the same time, and if the sale falls through because of a no-go on the background check, the dealer has to do a background check on the seller before he can return the firearm.

    But then again, there is a new law on the books the first of this year that mirrors the Wa law–no lending of firearms except to designated family member without a background check. The only exception is for range guns rented by the range to the shooter. I wonder if the exception applies to the Boy Scouts…Any way, it is a stupid law whose sole and intended purpose is to attack “gun culture”.

  17. “Background check laws can work, but only if…”

    Define “work”, please. If by “work”, you mean that a system can be constructed that makes it relatively easy and painless for a private seller to get a go/no-go on whether someone is a “prohibited person”, then sure, you can make such a system workable.

    If by “work”, you mean the laws could accomplish their stated goal of “keeping guns out of the wrong hands”, then the last 20 years of American history has shown pretty well that background check laws don’t work very well at all, and that the entire concept is fatally flawed.

    Of course, despite what the supporters of such laws say their purpose is, any benefits toward crime reduction (if they exist at all – the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise) would be purely incidental, as the primary purpose of such laws is simply to discourage gun ownership by making the process of buying a gun as intimidating and as much of a hassle as possible.

  18. “I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.”

    Captain Obvious reporting…

  19. What is most likely happening is called “patterned evasion of social norms”. When traditional behaviors are proscribed by law, people will create inventive new ways of continuing their customary and traditional behavior in spite of the state’s efforts to curtail it. Think bathtub gin.

  20. Haven’t seen a single person mention the issues with NICS like all of the false refusals on people. Until the database is clean and having bogus and false information easy to correct I will not comply. Period.

  21. I don’t know what all the fuss is about. It seems to me that WA’s UBC law is working precisely the way it was intended to work. The sponsors never expected or wanted compliance. They wanted to create more challenges, more difficulty and more felons.

    • Just like the Seattle gun/ammo tax. They are [sarcasm] totally not trying to regulate guns within the city[/sarcasm], they were just trying to raise some money for gun shot victims in the hospital. They won’t even share how much they made from the added taxes, because it was too little, and those that paid it were too few (identifiable information).

      I wish that laws were defined with a measurable success case, so we could cut laws that were obviously not doing the thing they were intended to do.

  22. Oh it’s true. Probably the number is a lot higher. I live in Washington state. According to the law, if I hand you my gun to look at, I am supposed to run a background check on you. Before you can hand it back to me to put away, you are supposed to run a background check on me. See how the law is bull shit, and how it gets violated daily?

  23. Either universal background checks are 95% ineffective, or only 2% of firearms transactions take place privately.
    It’s one or the other. Take your pick.

  24. “In a related story: the FBI says ‘Hillary Clinton is guilty of multiple crimes but won’t recommend prosecution.'” Also, water is wet.

  25. I buy less since the law and back out of transactions when someone wants to go to an FFL. I simply won’t do a background check on a private transaction. I buy new or wait until someone else has what I want.

  26. Option 5: a lot of gun owners took one look at the new law and said “Screw this,” and stopped engaging in private sales. It’s a new law that adds new hassles and fees. A lot of potential buyers and sellers may have simply decided that it wasn’t worth it. Over time, peoples’ attitudes might change and they might come back to the private transaction market. But for now, people may have simply decided to buy from FFL’s if they are going to have to do the background check anyway.

  27. “I suspect…there are a lot of unreported private-market sales going on,” Ludwig said in an email to KING 5.

    No shit, Sherlock. Same thing happened in the People’s Republic of California. If a gun owner knew the person they were buying from or selling to, they ignored the law. Cash ruled. When the PRCa passed their first “assault weapons ban” in 1991, they estimated there were 300,000 firearms that met their new criteria and would have to be registered. They actually got 10% registration – 30,000 or so. Apparently, all of the others were moved to Nevada.

  28. Attention all WA residents. Don’t forget to fight the current assault weapons ban/high capacity magazine ban legislature going on right now! Ferguson and his comrades are the worst.

  29. Quick question, If two Washington residents drive into Idaho and while there, make a transfer, have any laws been broken?. The transfer did not occur in WA state and therefore WA state does not have any jurisdiction?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *