I received an email from reader Tionico:
It is my understanding that the federal regs regarding background checks and the NICS system might be useful to nullify this atrocious new law.
My understanding:
FFL's are REQUIRED to run the BGC when selling a gun from their inventory
No one except an FFL can run this check through the system
Many but not all FFL's will run the check for a customer who is receiving a gun being transferred from out of state. My understanding is that they are not REQUIRED to perform such NICS checks.
IF this is the case, then no FF: would be REQUIRED to run BGC on face to face transfers, as the new law wants done.
What would happen if every FFL in Washington STate would refuse to run face to face transfer background checks?
Seems to me the idiots that drafted this initiave measure are conditioning the whole thing on VOLUNTARY performance of a task necessary to make this law work.
IF no FFL in Washington would perform the BGC then the law becomes a clearly unconstitutional infringement on the RIGHT to own and carry aobut arms, as guaranteed, and government have inposed an unlawful infringement upon that right.
WHAT would it take to get this idea going mainstream in this state? And promote the ocncept across the nation, as we KNOW Bloomie is already working on Oregon, Arizona, Nevada...... and likely has a few more states in his sights.
What do you think? Am I off base in my understanding of the law? I think its 18 USC dealing with BGC and NICS... but not sure where.
My reply:
Unless I'm missing something, offhand what I'd say would happen is all non-FFL transfers would stop except for the "illegal" ones. I'm not seeing how the antis wouldn't love that outcome, and what recourse gun owners would have except be captive to a system where they lose some price bargaining leverage by being forced to sell only to dealers, assuming an FFL wants what they're trying to dispose of and is prepared to offer top dollar.
I'm not a lawyer, but there could be anti-trust/collusion implications as well and then there would be the matter of dealing with FFLs who don't go along with the idea and offer BGCs anyway. I think you'd find gun owners divided on defending or condemning that.
If you have any knowledge to share, please do.
3 comments:
In addition, the FFLs in Washington State would certainly be coerced by BATFE to run the checks anyway, legally required or not.
When I worked law enforcement in the northernmost part of California back in the late '80s - early '90s, BATFE agents in California went to every gun dealer in Ashland and Medford, Oregon (just over the line into Oregon) and told them that they would be forced out of business if they sold any rifles or shotguns to residents of California.
In spite of the fact that it was legal to do so, the agents told them they would crawl up their backsides with a microscope and nail them for every un-dotted "i" and un-crossed "t" until they found a reason to pull their licenses.
Consequently, the gun store owners refused to sell any firearms even to those of us in California law enforcement (I worked for CHP at that time), where prior to that we could buy across the counter without even a waiting period. All because the State of California had decided they wanted tighter control of gun buying in "their" state.
It truly sucks that this conversation is even happening. If the molon labe crowd had put effort into defeating this monstrosity, it would be moot.
Seems to me the information was out there.
Washington is a 'Partial-POC' state:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/participation-map
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/poc
This suggest the state could force checks on handgun transfers.
Post a Comment