Just because the NRA has not chosen to appeal a lower Court ruling on a particular law, it does NOT mean the law is Constitutional. They have limited resources and are very selective as to where they spend them.
LMAO… Is the law still in effect?
I never said that Kelley was an air force officer. So, get your facts straight
.I said that it was not one single air force officers fault Kelley’s data was not entered into the data base. That it was a government problem that it was not entered.
Ramblin man was trying to push the fantasy that it was one officer that decided that the data did not have to be entered. And some how this officer was a gun owner and a criminal.
So strike one read a little more slowly and keep up.
Just checked: The law just states that FFL’s may charge a fee to cover the fair market value of the administrative cost incurred by the licensed dealer.
That’s the same as buying any gun from an FFL and as such buyer pays.
Not sure what you’re getting at in your last sentence, but if you mean a seller can offer to cover the transfer he’s free to do so privately with the buyer.
I’m sorry tired, maybe you shouldn’t post your intent to lie to officers about never having owned that gun,"now what are they gonna do or about having lost your guns like this.
I hope in the real world you will choose to do the law abiding thing and obey any new gun control laws that are passed. Good luck to you.
You tell me. But regardless, that has nothing to do with anything that I said. Just because a ruling on a law has not been appealed, does not mean the law is Constitutional.
Yes, but the law as you described it authorizing the FFL to charge a fee does not say the buyer has to pay the fee. That was the point being discussed. When a private sale is involved, the price of the transaction is negotiable … including any fees imposed by the bureaucracy. For that matter, even an FFL dealer can absorb the administrative cost of conducting the transfer if they so chose to do so.
That’s pretty much what I said.
Pardon me. It appeared that you were challenging what I said.
I initially jumped in to state that private sales conducted at FFL’s in my state the buyer pays the transfer fee (regardless whether the buyer privately agreed to lower his price to cover that fee).
So the only ‘infringement’ on the seller is the hassle of taking the firearm to an FFL and providing some basic info to the dealer.
There are a hundred million or more legal firearms in this country that have been through multiple personal transfers since manufactured which cannot be traced to the current owner and in many cases to multiple previous owners.
Where idiotic, unconstitutional laws like this are put into place we laugh at them and those who draft and pass them because such laws amount to no more than mental, emotional, and political masturbabation since it makes those laws all but utterly ineffectual and unenforceable.
The only way an FFL can be involved in the transfer at all is to sign it into and out of inventory creating a new paper trail on the transfer unless there has been a fairly recent change in the law/regulations.
It is also an infringement for the government to impose conditions on the transfer of legally owned, Constitutionally protected, personal property.
Really? See McDonald and Heller and get back to us.
Correct.
As we have discussed before, the whole issue of “universal background checks” could be simply and easily resolved by allowing individuals to voluntarily access the NICS to check out a prospective buyer of one of their personal guns. But what the liberals really want is control, and they cannot control do-it-yourselfers.
I agree.
More infringements are coming in July with additional (ill-thought out) requirements on purchases of semi-auto rifles.
I presume you are talking about in your State. The gun bill passed recently in the House is going nowhere. That action was pure political nonsense.
Which State do you live in?
Yep, we’re in full agreement there and that would go a long way towards solving the issue where mandatory background checks will only drive those with ill intent into the black market, encourage more gun thefts, and make those willing to sell paperless guns extremely wealthy as the value continues to climb.
Of course NM is a small state with open borders so it’s not like it’s going to matter anyhow.
We were discussing the California requirement for selling/purchasing firearms that was passed in 1991 which is still enforced and in effect in California. Has the NRA or any other organization gotten the law overturned?
You stated.
Yet, the NRA nor any number of gun organizations have been able to get ruling in their favor in almost 20 years… It’s almost like it’s not a violation of constitutional rights…
Which is patently false.
