"Assault weapon" ban 2025 version

[eddiememphis]

FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.

25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.

Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)

[FoxtArt]

FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.

25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.

Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)

Good discussion.

922 is interesting because (a) provides exeptions to something deemed unlawful while (b) lists things that are unlawful. This creates an interesting conundrum.

922(a)(3) (it is unlawful) "For any person...to transport into [the State]... except that this paragraph shall not preclude... ... if it is lawful to purchase OR possess such firearm in that state.
Though purchase/transfer is prohibited without the cards, possession is not. Thus, the declaration of exceptions combined with the "OR" creates an interesting interplay in ?(a).


922(a)(5) Is the same... (it is unlawful) "For any person".... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport.... to any person who the transferrors knows.... does not reside in [the State]... except this paragraph shall not apply to.... a person who is permitted to acquire OR possess a firearm under the laws of the State of residence.


You are probably right with 922(b)(2) because it states the converse "it would be unlawful to sell or deliver.... where the purchase OR possession by such person...". Thus a FFL dealer under plain-text reading of ?922 commits a crime selling a firearm where possession is legal, but acquisition is not.

Arguably, the private party is not necessarily implicated under 922(a)(5) and the CO resident is arguably not implicated by tranporting into their home state under 922(a)(3) as possession is legal. The statute should, more correctly, state "AND OR" in section 922(a). (a person who is permitted to acquire AND OR possess a firearm".

Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.

ETA: I'll also add they get to assert legislative intent to read language that isn't even in the law, whenever they want to. Appeals take 9 months to a year and a half with an average remand rate of about 5%., whatever a judge decrees is usuallly a done deal.

[eddiememphis]

Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.

Which is why it's probably not a good idea to makes posts like #202 if you are indeed going to ignore a particular law.

The internet never forgets.