Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:11 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.

PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
I grew up in Anaheim. OC. I went to Mel Gauer Elementary, Brookhurst Junior High and Savanna High ...Go Rebels... Class of 69..And UC Irvine class of 73..
I brought my conservative OC ideologies with me to Utah..
There are still those in my age group that grew up with me in CA and still live in CA that think the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-13-2019, 9:51 PM
Widdle's Avatar
Widdle Widdle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 799
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, and the entire state of UT has the same population as OC. Big deal. If you got EVERY voter in the states of UT, MT and ID TOGETHER they'd still be outnumbered by LA county 2 to 1.
PEOPLE vote. LAND doesn't
Those less populated states saved our butts from Hillary. Show some respect. They all get 2 electoral votes per senator, and at least 1 electoral vote from a rep. Their votes end up “counting” more, per capita.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-14-2019, 8:50 AM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I'm sure a majority support background checks. I don't want to sell guns to criminals and mentally unstably people.

Over 30,000 Americans are killed each year with guns. Do you think murder is a problem? Do you support murders with a history of crime and mental illness acquiring guns? Do you support background checks to prevent that with exemptions for gifts to family and loans for lawful purposes including hunting?

Most people will say yes after being led down that path either because they buy into it or don't want to look bad to the askwer.

Conversely, if told

America is the one civilized country still allowing civilians to own military weapons which are used in mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas claiming 59 lives. As New Zealand politicians just discovered, without registration a ban on these guns can't be enforced. Do you support requiring these guns to transfer through licensed dealers so we know where they are when we prohibit them?

most gun owners would say "no" qualified with a few choice expletives.

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 09-21-2019 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-14-2019, 9:45 AM
foxtrotuniformlima foxtrotuniformlima is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 191 / 100%
Default

Have they forgotten about '94 already?

The 1994 AWB may not be 100% the reason so many lost their seats but it sure didn't help them.
__________________
Try knocking on the door.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-14-2019, 12:42 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,210
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima View Post
Have they forgotten about '94 already?

The 1994 AWB may not be 100% the reason so many lost their seats but it sure didn't help them.
Times have changed. It is likely that no dems will lose house seats because of guns or gun control, however, the far left screaming of the 2020 Presidential candidates should turn the house red and gain a couple more seats in the Senate.

With Robert Francis screaming about confiscation the right will be energized and the middle will have to choose between steady economic growth or absolute economic chaos in a quick transition to socialism.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-14-2019, 4:35 PM
OttoLoader OttoLoader is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: SE NC
Posts: 168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The media is pushing that line about ubc.
I called both of my US Senators both NC Republicans.
Talked with their staff.
They are getting their phones "melt down" by constituents no more gun control callers.
Now that " Beto" said hell yeah wer'e going to take your AR-15 -. Even more no gun control callers.

I mentioned that those Republican senators promised that fix nics would solve the problem.
Now they want even more gun control.

Also noted that many of the recent mass shooter had run ins with authorities school and or le. But no action taken.
Instead of red flag laws how about using existing laws and file criminal complaint?

I slammed the house ban of more than ten rounds. Mention 9th circuit court unconstitional ruling on california mag limit. Then during 5 days more than a couple million full capacity mags shipped to california. Etc.

Basically show true motives of gun banners .

Some high profile shootings then organized gun control PR campaine in media. Then Congress will ban guns, mags put in place ubc on millions of law abiding Americans and not even file a criminal complaint with clear probable cause against known suspect.
Let's see how things progress.

Last edited by OttoLoader; 09-17-2019 at 3:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-15-2019, 8:30 PM
PaDanby PaDanby is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Obviously people can't read in context. 51% of all gunowners. Not 51% of politically active gunowners. All. To them, they make sense. The politically active, the politically astute, people paying attention, not, not most of them. But those aren't the ones he and I were talking about . All

And when I was talking about CA gun owners, I didn't mean guys in other states, that's why I said CA gun owners. This is after all a CA based forum. If I wanted irrelevant commentary on your state, I would have asked for it. But since we are talking about CA, I was speaking about CA.

How many places and transactions don't require at least a minimal check?

If you really and truly believe all the gloom and doom forecasted, why aren't you in the streets already. If you are convinced it is coming, and you are too late. Why haven't you gone out in a blaze of glory?

Based on the normal reaction to Californians from gun owenrs in other states, well yeah, I'd trade a significantly better regime for us, compared to a slightly worse regime for everybody else. Or do you really think your legislators aren't going to save you. If a Fed law comes though, which it isn't very likely, it should be the same for all of us, and I doubt it will be bad. If it is, don't blame us, blame the people you voted for.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-15-2019, 10:13 PM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 712
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Joe didn't call and ask me.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-16-2019, 12:49 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,082
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
And when I was talking about CA gun owners, I didn't mean guys in other states, that's why I said CA gun owners. This is after all a CA based forum. If I wanted irrelevant commentary on your state, I would have asked for it. But since we are talking about CA, I was speaking about CA.

How many places and transactions don't require at least a minimal check?
A couple of things to consider...

First, this may be a California based forum, but you are in the section entitled "National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion." NATIONAL. That means we are looking at, you are going to get, and should be expecting to receive input, not just from California, but "other states" as well. So, the commentary is not 'irrelevant.' It is, in fact, invited so as to create a more complete picture rather than simply basing it off the perceptions of and the happenings in California.

Remember also that, as you peruse this forum, many members are not from California. Many others are looking to 'escape' from California. This means that while the site focuses on California and its issues, it does not do so to the exclusion of other states. For some, California serves as a warning; the canary in the coal mine, so to speak. For some, it's about getting a sense for the attitudes and direction of politics in other regions. Then, for others, it is simply nice to know that there are still places where things are more what they used to be and Californians still wish it was than the increasing government control we have in this State.

In addition to all of that, there are members here who reside in both California and another state; or, at least, they own property in both or work in one, live in another, etc. Thus, they are in an unique position to provide some insight into how things are 'elsewhere' compared to what we now have in California.

Speaking of which... Second... You might be surprised how many places don't have what you declare to be a 'minimal check' on certain types of 'transactions.' If you're old enough to remember, there was a time in California (not all that long ago to many of us) when there were not 'minimal checks' on the same types of transactions. Likewise, Constitutional Carry is now the norm in many states and that movement is still attempting to expand; meaning that, in some locations, no 'license' is required, meaning no 'minimal check' is involved.

As a case in point, Joe Manchin (check the thread title) is a Senator from West Virginia. He is referencing a national poll; not strictly a California one. Manchin is one of the players now involved in the background checks legislation which Trump has noted specifically... Trump has 'encouraging' call with bipartisan Senate negotiators on gun control While such a bill may or may not impact us in California based on what we already have in place, one still needs to keep abreast of what is happening nationally; particularly given that, if California already has it in place, what are you looking to TRADE???

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby
So you wouldn't trade what we have now for a national standard check? Pass the NICS and leave with the gun? You like the10 Day waiting period? or the one gun every 30 Days rules?
Remember, states are allowed to craft, implement, and enforce laws separate from the Federal Government. When it comes to something like 'gun laws,' if the Federal Government does not, legally, "occupy" the entirety of that area of law, a state can 'fill the void.' This is why we have differing waiting periods (which is a distinctly separate issue from background checks), variable standards in terms of may vs. shall issue, limitations on numbers of purchases in a given time frame, etc.

There is no guarantee that "a national standard check" would, could, or should be written so as to legally preempt all state standards. In fact, it is more likely that it won't be and that many, if not most, states would resist such an effort if for no other reasons than 'state's rights.' As I already pointed out to you, there's also the very real possibility that any 'national standard check' will be utilized as what many 'gun grabbers' have to declared to be a necessary step in their quest for gun confiscation. Not to mention, as others have observed, there is no incentive for residents of other states to restrict their liberties so that you might get back some of your liberties in a state intent upon taking even more of those liberties.

So... Once again... If you are going to talk about a 'national standard check,' what are you, as a Californian, thinking you are going to 'trade' to 'get?' What are you thinking that residents of other states, which do not have anywhere near the restrictions California does, are going to be willing to trade in exchange for the same 'national standard check?'

Think their input is irrelevant? Good luck. California may have the largest population, but it is still only ONE state out of fifty. Therefore, when you talk about a 'national standard check,' it might behoove you to 'think outside the box' which is California.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-16-2019 at 2:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-16-2019, 5:41 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,027
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post

What are you thinking that residents of other states, which do not have anywhere near the restrictions California does, are going to be willing to trade in exchange for the same 'national standard check?'
I will answer that question. Absolutely nothing. In about half of the states, a CCW exempts the person from a NICS check. So any purported trade would not be a trade at all, but an imposition of additional requirements.

Quote:
Think their input is irrelevant? Good luck. California may have the largest population, but it is still only ONE state out of fifty. Therefore, when you talk about a 'national standard check,' it might behoove you to 'think outside the box' which is California.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-17-2019, 9:46 PM
PaDanby PaDanby is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fine, I don't care what rights the people that cut and run on the fight here lose. All the out of staters that **** on CA can continue to do so. But expecting us to try to better our situation better learn to live with it.

All I want are the same rights everybody else has. It can't get much worse for us, so it behooves those that can fight the fight for all of us to do so. Because, it's YOUR legislators that need to carry the ball. We all know what the CA reps on our side can do.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-18-2019, 5:24 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,221
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFancyPants View Post
So what is your point? The only thing your stats prove is OC and LA county are overcrowded ****holes. Or are you with the Hitlery crowd and saying to hell with the electoral college? Fortunately for us the founding fathers had infinitely more wisdom than you ever will.

The fact that UT has 10% of the population of CA is one of the main reasons we moved here, to get away from you idiots.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Unfortunately you can't get away from the idiots by moving g to another state when it comes to federal law.

I have posted all kinds of stats on demographics and why we need to reverse immigration, both legal and illegal as well as chain migration and the vitriol and shoot the messenger mentality from everyone who had left California was unbelievable. I want to leave too but I understand you cant run. California's house seats and electoral college votes effectively render yours useless, the liberals know this and they are using the Republicans love of cheap labor to change Utahs demographics too.

Utah was sued by Obama for allowing illegals to drive before another state, even California. I know the next thing people will say, I dont love in SLC, well the dems k now that they dont need the whole state, just the population center. The dems may be sick but the leaders are not stupid.

The only chance we have of fixing this is massive deportations and end chain migration for ever.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-18-2019, 10:16 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
Based on the normal reaction to Californians from gun owenrs in other states, well yeah, I'd trade a significantly better regime for us, compared to a slightly worse regime for everybody else. Or do you really think your legislators aren't going to save you. If a Fed law comes though, which it isn't very likely, it should be the same for all of us, and I doubt it will be bad. If it is, don't blame us, blame the people you voted for.
"Us" referring to California?? Californians overwhelmingly chose FHRC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PaDanby View Post
Fine, I don't care what rights the people that cut and run on the fight here lose. All the out of staters that **** on CA can continue to do so. But expecting us to try to better our situation better learn to live with it.

All I want are the same rights everybody else has. It can't get much worse for us, so it behooves those that can fight the fight for all of us to do so. Because, it's YOUR legislators that need to carry the ball. We all know what the CA reps on our side can do.
We moved the hell out of California 30 years ago. Gun laws were definitely not the major reason. We moved for a FAR better place to raise a family.

We currently contribute in the high 4 figures a year to the NRA ILA fund, and we direct the money to go to California lobbying. How much do you give, and what do you do regularly (other than biatch on the internet) for RKBA in California.

Our legislators, both in Texas and Idaho, have had no issues in "carrying the ball".

Both posts are what out of state folks refer to as "the California attitude".
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-18-2019, 1:32 PM
nitehawk117 nitehawk117 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Antelope Valley
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I contacted his office when I read about this in the news. Of course I have yet to hear a response. I outlined how current gun laws aren't even enforced and that new laws will just criminalize those that don't have any criminal intent.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-19-2019, 5:38 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,082
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For those who haven't been following the OT thread by Dirtlaw, it is reported that Attorney General Barr has been floating a background check proposal similar to the Manchin-Toomey one. Kestryll provided a link to the document so you wouldn't have to click a Huffington Post link...



Sheepdawg provided a link to the Daily Caller article that got it started, that article starting with...

Quote:
The White House and Department of Justice (DOJ) have met with multiple Republican senators and congressmen to shop legislation on expanding background checks consistent with the Manchin-Toomey bill, sources familiar with the effort told the Daily Caller...
Here's the NRA's reaction... NRA: Trump Administration’s Background-Check Proposal a ‘Non-Starter'

Quote:
...“This missive is a non-starter with the NRA and our 5 million members because it burdens law-abiding gun owners while ignoring what actually matters: fixing the broken mental health system and the prosecution of violent criminals,” said the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, Jason Ouimet, in a statement.

The proposal, drafted in part by Attorney General William Barr, would expand background checks to all commercial sales, including purchases at gun shows. The plan is similar to one proposed by Republican senator Pat Toomey and Democratic senator Joe Manchin, which has previously failed in the Senate...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-19-2019, 6:33 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So could it be dead in the water??? I hope.

Otherwise another BIG loss.. One Big loss after another if our "free state" Senators continue to drop the ball.. I was crushed by the retirement of our conservative Senator Hatch here in Utah. He was a staunch supporter of Kavanaugh and the conservative agenda in general for decades..
Pretty sure Rino Romney will not support his constituency.

Last edited by Dan_Eastvale; 09-19-2019 at 7:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-20-2019, 9:23 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I love how they are trying to paint individuals selling single weapons on gunbroker as "commercial sales." Doesn't that completely redefine the definition of commercial and private sales as far as federal law is concerned?

And how does that work? If I sell it on gunbroker it has to have a background check, but if I sell to my friend it does not? Who makes the determination that my buyer did not find out about the sale via a "commercial" path?

Stupid. Also, I love how the proposal concedes that no one likes the FFL background check process, but then it turns around and creates a new "FFL Lite" designation, that will still require you to find one, travel to them, pay a fee, etc., all the bull**** that you have to do with an FFL.

The only shot they had of actually trying was the phone app that would allow anyone to do a background check on their buyer, without cost, time, or effort. But I think the obvious issues with anyone being able to check anyone else (and having to get their PII) makes an app out of the question.

The Senate as a whole was never behind this anyway. McConnell was just letting the Prez waffle while the heat subsides. Now Red Flag laws... that is the one that may go somewhere. But I think they will sidestep it by supporting the state grants law.

Last edited by mit31; 09-20-2019 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-20-2019, 9:25 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 129
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

What if you don’t have a smart phone or live in an area with no reception? I think it would be a nonstarter. Essentially this was brought up during CA’s assault weapon registration scheme where folks had to take pictures of their arms and upload them.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-20-2019, 9:27 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's not worth arguing the finer points, since there is no real way to have an app or computer system, etc., available to everyone, without running afoul of privacy issues. I just wanted to point out that at least that proposal tried to streamline things and remove as much burden as possible. Now we are back to them wanting to lump private sales in with the burdens set for commercial sales, which was NEVER intended. But none of the people that want "background checks for all" understand the current process, (nor do they care about any burden) so this is not surprising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
What if you don’t have a smart phone or live in an area with no reception? I think it would be a nonstarter. Essentially this was brought up during CA’s assault weapon registration scheme where folks had to take pictures of their arms and upload them.

Last edited by mit31; 09-20-2019 at 9:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-20-2019, 9:32 AM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: TEXAS
Posts: 18,044
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

No compromise. We need to take the rights that were already "compromised" away back.

I stand on the words "Shall not be infringed."
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-20-2019, 10:07 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,897
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Most gun owners don't support Joe Manchin.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-20-2019, 12:07 PM
A-J's Avatar
A-J A-J is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,247
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
everyone else saying if you go to a commercial transaction, gun show, or on the Internet,
You know, I'm not a lawyer, hell I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But isn't this already the law?
__________________
It was not a threat. It was an exaggerated response to an uncompromising stance. I was taught never to make a threat unless you are prepared to carry it out and I am not a fan of carrying anything. Even watching other people carrying things makes me uncomfortable. Mainly because of the possibility they may ask me to help.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-20-2019, 1:24 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Most gun owners don't support Joe Manchin.
My bet is that in West Virginia, where they should know and do better, do support him. Unfortunately.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-20-2019, 1:28 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
For those who haven't been following the OT thread by Dirtlaw, it is reported that Attorney General Barr has been floating a background check proposal similar to the Manchin-Toomey one. Kestryll provided a link to the document so you wouldn't have to click a Huffington Post link...



Sheepdawg provided a link to the Daily Caller article that got it started, that article starting with...



Here's the NRA's reaction... NRA: Trump Administration’s Background-Check Proposal a ‘Non-Starter'
Doing a transfer via FFL results in a prohibition of handgun ownership by any person 18 to 20 years old. This seems to me a problem, not only socially but according to Heller. And we have the registration issue. Prohibited per FOPA but necessary for enforcement of any UBC scheme.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-20-2019, 3:22 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 11,279
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-J View Post
You know, I'm not a lawyer, hell I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But isn't this already the law?
It's federal law to transfer through a licensee if the gun is from a different state, and/or the purchase is through the licensee's shop in the same state as the buyer.

No federal laws against selling to someone in your own state as long as you have a reasonable belief that buyer is a resident of your state and is otherwise qualified to buy the weapon...e.g., I typically want to see an Idaho CWL, even though Idaho is a constitutional carry state.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:07 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.