Printable View
If Congress passes the proposed legislation for "universal" background checks for private transactions, and drastically enlarges the ATF to enforce violations, do you think the simple act of selling or trading a rifle in a parking lot or at one's home would constitute "gunrunning?" Any idea how the legislation is worded or how they intend to enforce it? And would the NRA and Republicans feel the legislation was "reasonable"?
This is fundamentally a regulation on private trade. I'm not sure from what authority Congress would purport to draw in order to impose regulations on intrastate commerce. For all intents and purposes, this type of overarching regulation is without a doubt unconstitutional. But then, Congress does a hell of a lot of things they don't have the power to do.
The gun, its components, its raw parts, have traveled in or have affected intrastate commerce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelhund
That's their justification for their authority on the matter. Read the gun free school act (part duex).
That's a good question: How do you enforce this kind of law/rule if the government does not keep a proper database of firearm serial # and owner's info?.... Scary stuff right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Sting operations...they'll set up "meets" to see if you will sell the gun without background check.
Learn something every day. Thanks for the reference. I'm still reading through the breadcrumb trail of case law, but I think several statements in the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Lopez actually provides a lot of substance to the case against this type of regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by asmotao
As a side note, H.R.2613 is a bill which seeks to repeal the provisions of the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. Naturally, it hasn't been touched since being referred to subcommittee in 2011. . .
what if I walk down the street, buy a Glock here in Smyrna, walk back home and a guy in the parking lot decides he wants to pay me panic price for it...
this is actually one of the things Bugging manufacturers and owners
I can see that happening in another year, if the law is passed and the ATF triples in size. I can see them posting WTB ads on armslist. I can also see the possibility of them posting ads selling AR15s then arresting anyone who shows up at the parking lot to buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 20X11
It will be a pain in the ass, but simple to avoid jail, have them meet you at a local FFL and buy the weapon. Problem is if the weapon is placed in the FFLs hand he may have to run a 4473 on the owner if the deal does not go through.
If you place a rifle on consignment at your local shop and want it back, they have to run a 4473 in order to give you back your own rifle. I learned this just the other day.
ok thats just dumbQuote:
Originally Posted by rockhound
Guess what, taxes would have to collected and paid also at that point.
How do you figure that? If you, as the seller, collected taxes from the buyer then who would you forward those taxes on to?Quote:
Originally Posted by MattR
yep, this is how they'd do it. You'd never know if selling to an individual was going to land you in jail. I wouldn't stop selling to someone you know but that's not the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by 20X11
how so, the FFL doing the check would have no idea what money changed hands and since it did travel through their chop they couldn't collect the tax. Should any law state otherwise, average selling price of a used gun may drop to $0.99Quote:
Guess what, taxes would have to collected and paid also at that point.
And then you see what happened with cars, the tax is levied by what the govt estimates a firearm of that type is worth no matter wtf you say you paid for it
At this point in time the atfE does not have the funds to hire more agents. Concentrate them in different areas, that they can do.
They will only need to make examples of a few. They can do that with current staff and the help of local LEO
We just need to make a list of the people we will deal with, after a future date no one new is added to the list unless someone already on the list will vouch for them. F Troop be damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
We call that a Small Circle of Friends. You're not on it;)
Let's be realistic about this. IF, KEY WORD IF Any LE Agency wants you, you're screwed.
Rights Are NOT Gifts from Government. Following the recent school shootings, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.
Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.
A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.
A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from ‘misconstruing or abusing its powers.’ To accomplish this, ‘further declaratory and restrictive clauses’ were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.
[dig]
^^ Well said. It is sad (and a little frightening) this has to be explained to so many.
So with going through an FFL for a private party sale- what's the FFL going charge to use their "services"? I don't know any FFL in town that would say "sure, you can do the sale through us," without charging you something... and that's not taking into account the $8 or so for the check with CBI...
Most if them currently offer this service. Usually ten to twenty bucks depending on the dealer. You and I could go somewhere today and have an FFL run a 4473 through for us on a private party transaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
You can also do it though CBI's website.