My FACEBOOK post to try to educate my contacts about Universal BGC

Just to clear something up. "Guns purchased online without a background check" is a term used by the media and politicians to scare uninformed people. People aren't buying guns from Amazon.com and getting them shipped to their houses. I've bought several guns online and each one had to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer and I had to undergo a background check in order to take the gun home (once or twice while I had a gun on my hip...but hey, gotta go through that background check because I might be dangerous when I get that next gun right?)

What they're talking about is classifieds online, where you still have to meet a person face to face to exchange money for a gun.

The primary issue I have with these "common sense" laws is this. If someone is so dangerous that they can't be trusted with a firearm in public(i.e. not passing a background check), why aren't they in jail?

The new "Universal Background check" law enacted in Colorado says that if I leave my house for more than 72 hours, I have to gift all guns in my house to my wife. If We leave the house for a week for vacation, I have to perform a background check and transfer every gun to whomever we leave with a house key. For instance for me to comply with the law this summer my mother in law will be watching the kids and house for a week and we'd have to spend ~$300 on background checks when we leave, ~$300 when we come back, and even then several guns would be illegal to transfer because she isn't a citizen of Colorado and can't take possession of a pistol except in her home state. So despite our best efforts to comply with the law, we would still be committing crimes.

Additionally If someone leaves a gun for me to keep in my safe while they're on vacation I have to undergo a background check to keep it for them, they have to undergo a check when they get back so I can give it back to them.

You want "Universal background checks" because it's common sense? Please rethink what "common sense" means. If someone can't be trusted with a gun in society (can't pass a bg check), they can't be trusted in society and don't belong there PERIOD. That's common sense. Or does common sense refer to harassing legal gun owners, creating laws that are impossible to obey.


Here was the first response from a VERY liberal family member:
Any time you give a simple task to a bureaucracy, you end up with red tape. I agree with background checks for the purchase of assault and automatic weapons, but what you describe above is a nightmare, Purchase, not tacit temporary transfer of title. You're right about this being impossible to obey or enforce.

Yes, I corrected her about the "assault and automatic weapons" comment.




I realize that some of you don't like facebook, or don't have facebook, but it allows me the opportunity to influence the knowledge and opinions of people I know, without being forceful or intrusive. We are, after all, fighting a war of education and information against the popular media.

May I steal this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

May I steal this?

---

of course.

If you want a concrete example (rather than "ifs"), I am temporarily holding an AR for a friend who was stationed in Germany. His wife bought it so she could practice her marksmanship over and above what the US Army allowed her to do annually but they couldn't take it overseas with them. Under the new law, we will have to go to an FFL and conduct a background check for me to return his wife's rifle to him! This for a person I've known for nearly 10 years, who just had a very extensive reinvestigation for his clearance a few months ago and who will get the same periodically for the rest of his career ...

Can I steal(borrow) this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brokenscout

Can I steal(borrow) this

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter

If you want a concrete example (rather than "ifs"), I am temporarily holding an AR for a friend who was stationed in Germany. His wife bought it so she could practice her marksmanship over and above what the US Army allowed her to do annually but they couldn't take it overseas with them. Under the new law, we will have to go to an FFL and conduct a background check for me to return his wife's rifle to him! This for a person I've known for nearly 10 years, who just had a very extensive reinvestigation for his clearance a few months ago and who will get the same periodically for the rest of his career ...

---

There are hundreds of examples, that have impact on all of us.

For example, If you drop your rifle off at a gunsmith's for some work and it's there more than 3 days...BG check required?
If you want your 30rd magazines refinished professionally...would it be legal to leave them with the refinisher?
I have a friend's rifle in my safe, BG check required to give it back to him.
I have a box filled with AK mags that belongs to a friend, Cant' give them back after July 1

Well done Goodbourbon.

Educating the ignorant cannot harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

There are hundreds of examples, that have impact on all of us.

For example, If you drop your rifle off at a gunsmith's for some work and it's there more than 3 days...BG check required?
If you want your 30rd magazines refinished professionally...would it be legal to leave them with the refinisher?
I have a friend's rifle in my safe, BG check required to give it back to him.
I have a box filled with AK mags that belongs to a friend, Cant' give them back after July 1

---

1st example- there is provision in the BGC law that exempts "repairs". No change at all compared to current protocols.
2cnd example- there is no exemption in the magazine law "for repair/refinishing purposes", so your example is correct. If a customer brings in an item with a magazine in excess of 15 round capacity both the customer and gunsmith have violated the law if the gunsmith accepts the "transfer" of said magazine. I believe the same would apply if a magazine was "readily convertible" which is basically any magazine with a removable floorplate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

For instance for me to comply with the law this summer my mother in law will be watching the kids and house for a week and we'd have to spend ~$300 on background checks when we leave, ~$300 when we come back

---

Where'd you get this drivel? You can transfer any number of firearms in one transaction, with one background check for all.

The argument itself is specious, as you could simply secure the firearms so they're not accessible, and MIL would need no bg check to watch the house.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Circuits

Where'd you get this drivel? You can transfer any number of firearms in one transaction, with one background check for all.

---

While the CBI/NICS check may cover any number of firearms per transfer, nothing prevents the FFL from insisting on one firearm per BGC.

Quote:

---

The argument itself is specious, as you could simply secure the firearms so they're not accessible, and MIL would need no bg check to watch the house.

---

Given the vagaries of the law, can you show where being in possession of the house precludes possession of any of the contents, locked up or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

The new "Universal Background check" law enacted in Colorado says that if I leave my house for more than 72 hours, I have to gift all guns in my house to my wife.

---

Somewhere between the 5th version of this bill (rerevised) and the final bill signed by the Governor, the language was changed to allow both bona fide gifts and loans to immediate family members.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1229_enr.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

I believe the same would apply if a magazine was "readily convertible" which is basically any magazine with a removable floorplate.

---

That's how I believe as well, but this is a quote from CPW site:"Removable base plates
One section of HB 1224 that has drawn attention defines a high-capacity magazine as one that is "CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION. " As most removable base plates are designed for cleaning purposes - not for accepting additional rounds or for conversion - there is a presumption that they are legal."

Wonder if the AG has confirmed either yet?

I like your facebook post. It presents the facts in a simple, non-argumentative way that cannot be countered.

I recently disarmed my extremely liberal sister during a discussion of national gun registries as follows: A gun registry is simply a list of citizens who have exercised their 2nd amendment rights. If that's OK, then certainly she would have no problem with other lists of citizens who exercised other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Perhaps a list of citizens who resist random searches? How about a database of troublemakers that petition to redress government actions and decisions?

Analogies, corollaries, and simple examples go a long way to point out the hypocrisy and stupidity in these knee-jerk reactions. Fight emotion with facts, logic, and common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Somewhere between the 5th version of this bill (rerevised) and the final bill signed by the Governor, the language was changed to allow both bona fide gifts and loans to immediate family members.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1229_enr.pdf

---

Yes, but according to the wording of the law my wife's mother is not immediate family to me. I have to "gift" to my wife, then she "gift" to her mother? What about handguns? Can you gift someone a handgun in a state they aren't a resident of?

Also, the wording of the law is all singular. Transfer a weapon/perform a background check. There is no provision for limiting the cost to $10 to do multiple transfers. Assuming that they will do what makes sense, is just that, an assumption.

I'm not a lawyer, I can't assume they mean anything they don't say.


This of course only has to do with the UBC law and ignores the fact that I have dozens of magazines around the house, that can't change possession at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

There is no provision for limiting the cost to $10 to do multiple transfers. Assuming that they will do what makes sense, is just that, an assumption.

---

Neither I nor anyone else can slay the monsters you imagine in your fevered dreams. Look into getting an FFL yourself so you can limit those $300 a pop transfer charges?

I'm stealing this....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Circuits

Neither I nor anyone else can slay the monsters you imagine in your fevered dreams. Look into getting an FFL yourself so you can limit those $300 a pop transfer charges?

---

Is there a reason you're provoking me instead of using the law to prove me wrong. Because I'm down to be proven wrong, but not in the mood to be provoked.

I completely agree with OP.
Goodburbon, I "borrowed" the whole thing and posted on my fb wall....

Well put. If I was on spacebook I'd put this on there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bkincaid

That's how I believe as well, but this is a quote from CPW site:"Removable base plates
One section of HB 1224 that has drawn attention defines a high-capacity magazine as one that is "CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION. " As most removable base plates are designed for cleaning purposes - not for accepting additional rounds or for conversion - there is a presumption that they are legal."

Wonder if the AG has confirmed either yet?

---

That is what the CPW states in its press release which is not legal advice according to them (so why did they release it?). Further, the Attorney General's opinion on the law is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

Is there a reason you're provoking me instead of using the law to prove me wrong. Because I'm down to be proven wrong, but not in the mood to be provoked.

---

While I agree with the spirit of your statements, their expression as a series of missing-middle worst cases remind me of the way "progressives" exaggerate and misrepresent, and as your stated purpose was to 'educate', I guess I expect more reasonable discourse from our side.

For "using the law to prove you wrong"... the law does not prevent such a thing from happening, but until the law also requires you to use one particular FFL, it's a fallacy to claim the $300 a pop each way as a real consequence of the legislation, since the checks actually wouldn't be required if the firearms were secured, and would not cost $300 each way even if they ended up being necessary. Obamacare doesn't prevent a doctor from charging anything they want for their services, for instance, just sets limits on what the government will pay. It is incorrect to say that obamacare will make your office visits to the doctor cost you $3500 out of pocket, just because the law doesn't PREVENT such a thing from happening - and there are still doctors out there who will do it for less even if some might like to charge that $3500.

For the storage requirements, it's been done that way for around the last 80 years with NFA firearms stored with someone other than the person they're registered to. If Colorado in the future re-interprets things in a manner stricter than the feds have been doing, the point perhaps could be revisited, but for now there's about 79 years of precedent in support of my interpretation, and no precedent that I'm aware of in support of your interpretation.

So, I'm not wrong but you disagree with me. Good to know.

OK just saw this RFB post

http://www.ar-15.co/threads/95531-Tr...ees-as-follows

So, there would only be 1 $10 fee. but an additional $15/firearm. So with 30 firearms it would be. $460 not $300, so you are right Circuits, my original estimate was untrue.

I'm not here to insult or argue with you, but I do think you're wrong about the consequences and cost for the reasons I explained above.

I can prove you wrong on the cost - I charge one flat fee for any number of firearms in a single transaction. If it ever becomes necessary, I'll do your whole house transfers for you for $30 plus the $10 bgc fee, like I do for all my other customers. Down to $40 each way now - I just saved you $420. You're welcome, sir.

That's great, Circuits, but the Front Range is a relatively dense population area. Folks who live in sparser areas may not have the option to have access to such a friendly, reasonable FFL.

That's great, Circuits, but the Front Range is a relatively densely populated area. Folks who live in sparser areas may not have the option to have access to such a friendly, reasonable FFL.

In what real world scenario am I ever going to have to explain to anybody who I left my guns with and for how long ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stvros

In what real world scenario am I ever going to have to explain to anybody who I left my guns with and for how long ?

---

Hopefully none, ever. The problem is that the law is set up now and it would be up to a prosecutor to decide when and who to enforce the law on.


I don't have a safe big enough for all guns and magazines, your other argument to secure them costs more.