View Full Version : Possible workaround for universal BG check?
Zundfolge
08-15-2013, 10:38
Was discussing the BG check nonsense with a friend and he has an interesting idea but I was hoping some of the legal beagles that post here could comment (so no FUD please, if you want to poke holes in this idea, please cite statute).
He was saying that under Federal Law it is perfectly legal for two residents of one state to transfer a firearm to one another when they're both in another state. For example, two Coloradoans run into each other in Cody Wyoming while on vacation and Coloradoan A can legally sell a gun he happens to have with him to Coloradoan B without going through an FFL since even though you're in a different state, the transfer is not going across state lines.
According to the new stupid law here in CO, transfers between Coloradoans THAT TAKE PLACE IN CO are required to go through the BG check. But the law is silent on transfers between Coloradoans THAT TAKE PLACE OUTSIDE CO.
Ok, this sounds to my layman's ears like it wouldn't work ... so any thoughts from people that know the law?
Sounds off to me, particularly for a handgun. Will have to do some research.
Bailey Guns
08-15-2013, 11:58
Negative:
Q: From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Zundfolge
08-15-2013, 13:52
nope ... that answers my question.
BlasterBob
08-15-2013, 13:59
He was saying that under Federal Law it is perfectly legal for two residents of one state to transfer a firearm to one another when they're both in another state.
It would be VERY interesting have him to quote the Federal Law that indicates that this is "perfectly legal". I doubt he'll find such a Federal statute!
newracer
08-15-2013, 14:27
If both parties are OK with it just don't comply.
Great-Kazoo
08-15-2013, 14:43
If both parties are OK with it just don't comply.
DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL OOPS different .gov reg.
Zundfolge
08-15-2013, 15:14
If both parties are OK with it just don't comply.
And if you're gonna do that, don't complicate things by crossing state lines.
Not that I would EVER suggest anyone even THINK about disobeying even the smallest and most insignificant of laws (all my mattresses still have they're tags ... just sayin').
What ever you do dont totally go to a gunshow on the otherside of the state lines and bring back what ever you want.
DON'T ASK - DON'T TELL OOPS different .gov reg.
Lots of truth right there, and a sad commentary about the state of our PC culture.
Whoever wins the war gets to write the history.
JM Ver. 2.0
08-15-2013, 17:56
Can we lock and delete this thread? Last thing we should have on the site is a discussion on how to circumvent the new laws....
Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.
If it is a "Curio & Relic" (50+ years old or having historical significance), it is specifically exempt.
Bailey Guns
08-15-2013, 18:21
If it is a "Curio & Relic" (50+ years old or having historical significance), it is specifically exempt.
Specifically exempt from what?
Aloha_Shooter
08-15-2013, 18:48
Specifically exempt from what?
C&Rs are specifically exempted from the UBGC requirements (as are gifts between immediate family members).
Exemptions
The new law exempts from the background check requirement transfers:
1. of an antique firearm (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16)) or a curio or relic (27 C.F.R. § 478.11);
2. of a bona fide gift between immediate family members;
...
7. of a temporary nature that occur while in the continous presence of the owner of the firearm;
8. for up to 72 hours, during which time the transferor may be jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the transferee's unlawful use of the firearm; or
9. to any immediate family member from an armed services member who will be deployed outside the U.S. within the next 30 days.
BlasterBob
08-15-2013, 19:07
What ever you do dont totally go to a gunshow on the otherside of the state lines and bring back what ever you want.
Oh, you can do this providing you have an FFL from that state do the required BGC, run it through his books AND this will apply only to long guns if you are going to personally bring it back home with ya.
If it is a "Curio & Relic" (50+ years old or having historical significance), it is specifically exempt.
Sweet we can transfer all the mosins we want. What makes it historically significant? Does me owning it make it significant?
Sweet we can transfer all the mosins we want. What makes it historically significant? Does me owning it make it significant?
Also M1 carbines, Makarovs, SKS or 1911 manufactured prior to 1963, lot of other stuff too. As for "historically significant" that was never clearly defined but seems to apply to firearms that are less than 50 years old. I briefly owned a custom Single Six that was owned by a former NRA president (with supporting documentation) which probably would've qualified.
DavieD55
08-15-2013, 21:09
Can we lock and delete this thread? Last thing we should have on the site is a discussion on how to circumvent the new laws....
Don't be such a democrat JM. [LOL] JK
spqrzilla
08-15-2013, 22:06
When someone asks about an interpretation of legislation, it does not help to add a comment like "Just ignore the law". Of course, everyone always has the option of committing a crime but when they ask a question, they are asking for help in not committing a crime. Regardless of others opinions on the likelihood of prosecution.
Great-Kazoo
08-15-2013, 23:38
Don't be such a democrat JM. [LOL] JK
He has a valid point, Which i agree with. some of this shit by the same folks asking the same thing only phrased differently is tired, along with the same replies. Not to say sites are monitored, however as another board member mentioned. Something he has posted / replied / commented on was brought up during what ever he was involved in off the board. Fortunately for him his explanation was accepted.
C&Rs are specifically exempted from the UBGC requirements (as are gifts between immediate family members).
There's your loophole! How much does it cost to get married?
Bailey Guns
08-16-2013, 07:57
C&Rs are specifically exempted from the UBGC requirements (as are gifts between immediate family members).
I'm aware of the C&R exemption in the new law but I took the "specifically exempt" statement to mean they could be transferred from one individual to another outside their state of residence...in keeping with the theory in the OP. That's why I was confused.
There's your loophole! How much does it cost to get married?
Take a look at ChunkyMonkey's signature.
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
Zundfolge
08-16-2013, 08:56
Can we lock and delete this thread? Last thing we should have on the site is a discussion on how to circumvent the new laws....
There's nothing wrong with discussing how to circumvent the new laws LEGALLY AND VIA LOOPHOLES (which is what I originally brought up).
Now that we've established that what I heard isn't one of those "legally and via loopholes" methods, I see no reason to keep this discussion going either but also see no compelling reason to go as far as lock it.
Certainly nobody on this forum is ever seriously recommending that one break any law under any circumstance (hell, I'm going to go so far as to remind everyone to cross the street ONLY at the light). :D
Take a look at ChunkyMonkey's signature.
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
so are you implying we will see a lot of "civil unions" from members here that will only end in a messy divorce and possible annulment due to a lack of consummation?
lowbeyond
08-16-2013, 10:29
Since government workers break the law every damn day as a matter of SOP. If the state is not going to comply with the laws that it passes, piss on these laws.
Its not illegal if you are not caught.
There's your loophole! How much does it cost to get married?
Take a look at ChunkyMonkey's signature.
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
so are you implying we will see a lot of "civil unions" from members here that will only end in a messy divorce and possible annulment due to a lack of consummation?
Only referencing cost...but that's an interesting take on it...
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
spqrzilla
08-16-2013, 18:52
Certainly nobody on this forum is ever seriously recommending that one break any law under any circumstance (hell, I'm going to go so far as to remind everyone to cross the street ONLY at the light). :D
I always cross at the light, when the pedestrian signal specifically allows.
Since government workers break the law every damn day as a matter of SOP. If the state is not going to comply with the laws that it passes, piss on these laws.
Its not illegal if you are not caught.
Yeah, wrong. Still illegal. And we don't condone illegal acts on this forum.
BPTactical
08-16-2013, 19:07
There's your loophole! How much does it cost to get married?
Woot! As "Civil Unions" are now legal, go through the process with the seller to be civilly unionized,purchase/exchange items then dissolve the "Union"!
Whether you choose to consumate the union is on you......
Disclaimer: The preceding statement is for entertainment purposes only.
I don't think that the statute recognized "civil unions," only people who are married . . . but in Colorado "common law marriage" basically equates with two people who cohabitate and present as married.
"Of course, everyone always has the option of committing a crime but when they ask a question, they are asking for help in not committing a crime"
Correction: 'crime' is NOT the correct term to use in this context. The statute being discussed is itself illegal; on the state level, it clearly, "calls into question" the "right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state" and it "infringes" on a U.S. Constitutionally protected right - it is therefore not a 'law', but a statute enforced 'under color of law'.
From a purely conceptual perspective, if there is no victim (someone harmed against their will) there is no crime; it might be 'against the law', but it is not a crime.
spqrzilla
08-17-2013, 19:48
Milt, the semantic game is not useful.
Bailey Guns
08-17-2013, 20:00
"Of course, everyone always has the option of committing a crime but when they ask a question, they are asking for help in not committing a crime"
Correction: 'crime' is NOT the correct term to use in this context. The statute being discussed is itself illegal; on the state level, it clearly, "calls into question" the "right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state" and it "infringes" on a U.S. Constitutionally protected right - it is therefore not a 'law', but a statute enforced 'under color of law'.
From a purely conceptual perspective, if there is no victim (someone harmed against their will) there is no crime; it might be 'against the law', but it is not a crime.
[facepalm]
"Milt, the semantic game is not useful,"
Actually, it is not a game and, in fact, precise thought is impossible without clearly understood concepts and definitions. Sloppy semantics and fuzzy 'thought' is partially responsible for the decline of Liberty in the United States - people who 'feel' instead of think are easily manipulated; people who are capable of precise, logical thought are rather difficult to mislead. Just look at what passes for political or philosophical 'discourse' today...
Bailey Guns
08-17-2013, 21:38
You seem to think you have the authority to determine what is law and what isn't. Why don't you go out and openly violate some of those statutes and see what happens. You can be the test case that saves the rest of us.
Furthermore, society or the state is often the victim in many offenses. I'm sure it makes you feel good to believe the way you do but I seriously doubt your willingness to put your convictions (so to speak) to the test.
" You seem to think you have the authority to determine what is law and what isn't."
The 'authority' is to be found in the Declaration of Independence and, to the extent that it follows the principles laid out in that Declaration, the Constitution of the United States. The fact that the government is in the hands of scofflaws and outright criminals such as your beloved Barry Sotero and similar statist trash from both parties does not make illegal statutes legal.
Your response seems to indicate an excessive devotion to 'authority'. Are you or were you by any chance a cop? If so, you might consider the difference between 'law enforcement' and being a 'Peace Officer'. The first is content to let 'higher authority' sort it out. The second (the true Peace Officer) honors his or her oath, actually reading and understanding the Constitutions of both the United States and of their own state and refusing to enforce illegal statutes or regulations. Federal drug and all firearms 'laws' are obvious examples of illegal statutes. Absent a Constitutional amendment giving Congress authority to prohibit/regulate drugs, the Tenth Amendment makes it quite clear that such 'authority' does not exist (alcohol prohibition required an amendment, if you recall). 'Infringed', as in 'shall not be infringed.' along with the Fourteenth Amendment's application of the Bill of Rights to all citizens against all levels of government rather clearly puts ANY restrictions on firearms out of bounds at ALL levels of government.
"Furthermore, society or the state is often the victim in many offenses."
Bullshit. Your statement implies that 'society' or the state have rights that can be violated. There are NO collective rights; only individual human beings can have rights. While force can be additive, rights by their nature cannot be collective - one person's rights are equal to ten people's rights (otherwise, lynch mobs would be perfectly 'legal').
"I'm sure it makes you feel good to believe the way you do..."
Sorry, but all this 'feel good' thoughtless crap is how we got into this mess in the first place. If more people would think instead of 'feel', perhaps fewer statist assholes would be elected and fewer government intrusions on our Liberty would be tolerated. If you want to see who else 'felt that way', you might want to read what our country's Founders had to say about this stuff; the Declaration of Independence would be a good place to start...
Bailey Guns
08-18-2013, 01:00
Like I said...put your money where your mouth is. If your wallet's as fat as your mouth that shouldn't be a problem. Let us all know how all your big talk works out for ya.
ETA: Saw your ad in the TP...looks like you're more than willing to follow those pesky illegal laws, huh?
Bailey Guns
08-18-2013, 06:43
All your self-righteous preaching to the rest of us is interesting but I'd say it's also coming from a typical internet blowhard:
You don't, "get my guns restricted" by voting for or against any political scumbag. You allow your guns (or any other right) to be restricted/infringed by failing to defend those rights through integrity-driven action - "Come and take them." Until Liberty (the government fears the citizens) replaces tyranny (the citizens fear the government), this crap will only get worse. The people must, once again, teach our would-be masters to fear us. At this late juncture, civil disobedience (with teeth) is the only way to deliver that lesson. Unfortunately, I find that the great majority of my 'fellow travelers' lack the courage of their so-called convictions. If you are not willing to risk 'conviction', you can make no real contribution to winning this fight.
Must do background check; can be at Liberty Arms in south Ft. Collins or your LGS.
Please PM or call Milt at (970) 207-1596
Why not "teach our would-be masters to fear us", Milt, by saying to them, "Shall not be infringed! I'll sell to whomever I want without following your illegal statutes,"?
As one of those who believes in and worships my "beloved Barry Soetoro" (my bad...found the reference) I could use a good role model. [/sarcasm]
"All your self-righteous preaching to the rest of us is interesting but I'd say it's also coming from a typical internet blowhard:"
Thanks for showing your true colors with this ad-hominem attack substituting for any real argument in defense of your position. Seems to me to be a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black... By the way, you did not answer my question, are you or have you been a cop?
I am not 'preaching to the rest of (you)'; but simply pointing out the undeniable fact that all that voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense has not worked out so well. The Republican party and The Democratic party are merely two wings of the same predatory bird. It is past time for a different approach if we are serious about reclaiming Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
"Why not "teach our would-be masters to fear us", Milt, by saying to them, "Shall not be infringed! I'll sell to whomever I want without following your illegal statutes,"?
The rules of this forum (a voluntary, private sector service) require that language and procedure for all who choose to use the 'Trading Post' function. When I am a guest on someone's property, I follow their rules; When someone is on my property, they follow my rules. What I do outside this forum regarding my right to dispose of my property as I choose is nobody's business but mine.
The 'Barry Sotero' reference was still on my post as of this morning. What prompted that comment?
One last thought: it is a bad sign that even on a forum primarily dedicated to something high on the statist's 'ban real soon' list, some people's panties get in a bunch over the mere suggestion that blind obedience to the 'law' might not be the best course of action.
32815
Bailey Guns
08-18-2013, 09:30
Well, Milt, I just don't like hypocrites, regardless of the side they profess to be on. Especially the type that shows up once in a blue moon and tries to stir up a bunch of crap. Have a nice day.
"...the type that shows up once in a blue moon..."
Some of us actually work for a living. As much as I enjoy this forum, I do have a life in the real world and internet stuff is not my highest priority. As far as hypocrisy is concerned, you choose not to answer the simplest yes or no question and also refuse to address the actual issues I attempted to raise in a civilized manner. You have a nice day, too...
spqrzilla
08-18-2013, 21:00
I am not 'preaching to the rest of (you)'; but simply pointing out the undeniable fact that all that voting for the lesser of two evils nonsense has not worked out so well. The Republican party and The Democratic party are merely two wings of the same predatory bird. It is past time for a different approach if we are serious about reclaiming Liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Which has absolutely F*** All to do with the thread.
Actually, the thread is about evading an illegal statute - I was attempting to address the root cause of our problems, including, specifically, the continued unchallenged existence of such statutes.
By your silence on the 'gay' marriage comments, that 'topic drift' must be completely relevant to the original subject of this thread.
You guys have fun with this; I'll keep those pesky principles out of this discussion since they seem to make some of you uncomfortable...
spqrzilla
08-19-2013, 11:50
No, your "principles", and your continual table pounding about the "illegal statute", are irrelevant to the discussion of how to interpret the actual statute.
milwaukeeshaker
08-20-2013, 07:28
What he is trying to say is, don't interpret, just ignore. Called passive resistance.
Bailey Guns
08-20-2013, 07:33
Oh, yeah. When it comes to following the law that's probably a first-rate tactic. Probably provide a really effective defense in court, too.
milwaukeeshaker
08-20-2013, 12:54
Bailey, you just love to stir the schiess don't you. Do YOU follow ALL laws, no matter how rediculous?? I don't think so. Please stop preaching the tired "I am a good citizen" line. You sound like a good little Govt. toadie. There, I stirred back.
Bailey Guns
08-20-2013, 13:07
No, I don't always follow every law. But I'm also not a dumbass.
ETA: I'd suggest you think about why what you said in both posts doesn't make a lot of sense. But I know it would be a waste of time...for both of us.
milwaukeeshaker
08-20-2013, 13:21
Ok, try civil disobedience, and no, I'm not gonna think any more about any of it, and I'm not gonna argue with you about it. It's impossible to discuss anything with someone who thinks he is alway's right like you do. Just a waste of my time, and yours. Think what you like, don't mean a hill of beans to anyone, anyway.
Bailey Guns
08-20-2013, 14:14
Despite your uniformed and ignorant opinion of how and what I believe, I have no problem with anyone who chooses to disregard either the mag law or the private sale law. Civil disobedience with either of these two laws wouldn't bother me one bit. The difference is, if I were going to violate either (or recommend someone else do the same) I'd use a little common sense and discretion.
I do think it shows a lack of good judgment to publicly advise others to openly violate either of the laws. While you didn't say to specifically do it openly you didn't say do it privately or discreetly, either, and I believe that's the key.
While on the job I frequently saw people who were just begging for attention by the way the talked, acted, dressed or all of the above. I was more than happy to oblige them, often with results that were detrimental to their enjoyment of life. If you want to be one of "those people", knock youself out. But don't be surprised if your behavior causes someone to take a big bite outta your ass.
spqrzilla
08-20-2013, 14:31
People who have decided that they want to discuss the boundaries of gun control legislation have no need for, and should not be subject to, heckling about their decisions.
milwaukeeshaker
08-20-2013, 14:43
Now it finally makes sense, you're an ex-cop, or some other macho, badge-heavy, "public servant". Sorry, but I never advocated breaking any laws. On my first post of this thread, I was merely reacting to your vilification of the poster MILT. You always seem to have all the answers, and those answers are generally sarcastic and look down on other posters as if they are beneath your level of intelligence. You DON'T have all the answers, and others have the right to their opinions. And finally, to reply back to you with your usual use of vulgarity, go sh-t in your hat.
Despite your uniformed and ignorant opinion of how and what I believe, I have no problem with anyone who chooses to disregard either the mag law or the private sale law. Civil disobedience with either of these two laws wouldn't bother me one bit. The difference is, if I were going to violate either (or recommend someone else do the same) I'd use a little common sense and discretion.
I do think it shows a lack of good judgment to publicly advise others to openly violate either of the laws. While you didn't say to specifically do it openly you didn't say do it privately or discreetly, either, and I believe that's the key.
While on the job I frequently saw people who were just begging for attention by the way the talked, acted, dressed or all of the above. I was more than happy to oblige them, often with results that were detrimental to their enjoyment of life. If you want to be one of "those people", knock youself out. But don't be surprised if your behavior causes someone to take a big bite outta your ass.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.