One gun a month schemes

Adrian -- you are correct... it's handguns. That's what I get for being a lazy typist. Thanks.

Re: Ammo bans: Not constitutional. Nor would be separate taxes specifically on ammo or components, even if it is the same rate as the sales tax.

SCOTUS ruled that a similar scheme -- a tax on newsprint paper that was the same rate as state sales tax -- violated the 1st Amendment. The justices indicated that a separate tax being equal now could later be changed to a higher rate with the effect taxing newspapers out of existence. Special taxes aimed at activities that are protected rights won't stand. Thus, you could not pass a separate tax to collect taxes for
- Buying a Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.
- Printer's ink used in publishing
- Each visit to a church or taxing the church by headcount.
- Crossing some state or local political boundary.
 
BillCA, do you agree that used guns sold out of the dealer's inventory (i.e., not on consignment) are subject to the one-a-month rule?
Click to expand...
Essentially true. Provided that the handgun in question is still on the state's "approved handgun" roster at the time of sale.

In California, a dealer may purchase any handgun from a private party who desires to liquidate the gun. Only handguns that are currently on the California "approved" roster may be resold within California by the FFL dealer.

Handguns which are not on the list, nor C&R handguns must be sold to an out-of-state buyer (pursuant to all federal and state laws of the states involved, of course).

For instance, if you take your S&W Model 19-3 to an FFL and sell it to him, he will give you about 25-35% of it's value because he will have to find an out-of-state buyer, probably another FFL. In order to gain some profit, each FFL has to buy it below current value. On the other hand, you can "contract" with your FFL to sell the gun on consignment as your agent. You pay him a (%) fee which includes handling the paperwork. You will garner substantially more money than by selling it to the FFL.

If the handgun is a recently made gun (e.g. S&W M&P 9mm) that is still on the "approved" list, the dealer can give you 50% to 60% of it's value because it doesn't have to be sold twice before reaching the retail buyer.

In California, dealers are cautioned to sell their private gun collections "on consignment" instead of transferring them to inventory. This avoids complications with CA-DOJ and BATF authorities.
 
The Supreme Court, as well as the other federal courts, are only empowered to hear cases of actual controversy, not hypothetical situations. That means that an individual would have to file a legal claim that his rights were infringed by a limit of one handgun per month, then find a federal or constitutional infringement based on it.

The Supreme Court in the Heller case allowed for reasonable restrictions. It is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will find a one gun per month law to be unreasonable at all, let alone so unreasonable as to nullify the law.
 
I don't purchase nearly one a month, but if I was subjected to that restriction I would start buying one every month :D
 
I would say it's an infringement.

I'm not at all sure where the SCOTUS will come down on the issue, though.

In southern states, even though they might not have one-gun-a-month laws, you're at risk of becoming a suspect if you buy several guns at a time. ( http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365460 )

I'm not sure which is worse... laws that forbid us from buying multiple guns at a time, or overzealous law enforcement treating people as suspects for buying multiple guns at a time...
 
I usually can't afford to buy one month

in the serious side, Is it an infringment? Morally, I think yes. BUT, legally? Hard to say. The SCOTUS decision in Heller ruled that outright prohibition was a violation of our rights, but some regulation was not.

Restricting citizens to one per month clearly does not deprive them of the abilty to have a handgun for personal defense (after all, once you buy the first one, your rights are exercised), but the 2nd Amendment doesn't say deprived or denied, it says infringed.

Until/unless a court says its void, it is the law, for better or worse.
 
Suppose your family who haven't been gun owners, suddenly faces a threat. What if your family needs two or three guns right away? I could imagine a number of exigent scenarios where that might be the case. You have a stalker, or a threat has been made against a family. A sixteen year old can't buy his or her own gun, but some 14-17 year olds might be trustworthy enough, and responsible enough, and well trained in the use of firearms to defend themselves, should the need arise.

If such exigent circumstances existed, and if my 16 year-old daughter were home alone for even a short while before I arrived home from work. I would want to make damn sure she had the training, and the means to fend off an attack.

Whatever the reason, having the government decide how many guns I may immediately purchase for the defense of hearth and home seems to me an infringement.
 
Dewhitewolf said:
The Supreme Court in the Heller case allowed for reasonable restrictions. It is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will find a one gun per month law to be unreasonable at all, let alone so unreasonable as to nullify the law.
Click to expand...

I'll disagree. Our fundamental rights exist to be exercised "at will" - when WE want to exercise them for our own reasons. This does not mean recklessly or in ways that cause danger to others by the exercise of that right (i.e. inciting to riot, disturbing the peace, making false alarms -fire, bomb threats, etc.).

SCOTUS has ruled that any scheme that requires a citizen to pay any fee, tax or toll or requires "permission" from the government to exercise a right is prior restraint of the right. That means your "right" is only valid when the government authorizes it -- which is no right at all.

Paying a tax or fee before voting is prior restraint. Requiring a permit to peaceably assemble violates the constitution.¹ The government can't charge you for witness subpenoas in a criminal trial.

Limiting the exercise of any right to some arbitrary time frame is a violation of the right.

In practical terms, a citizen becomes the target of some kind of violence or threat of violence. As one step in providing for his safety, he purchases a handgun. Shortly after that purchase, the threat expands to his wife and/or family members. He gives his wife the new handgun and decides to buy two more, one for his minor daughter and one for himself. Yet, the State has decided that he cannot do so out of an unfounded fear that he will traffic those guns illegally.

Rights may not be restricted based on what a citizen might do with those rights. Limitations can only be imposed on specific acts or actions that injure others or by their nature are highly likely to cause injury to others.

For example, we do not have laws that say you may not yell in a crowded pubic venue. That would make it illegal to yell "Popcorn!" to the vendor at a ball game - indeed it would make football games as quiet as tennis matches. But we do have laws that prohibit yelling certain words or phrases in crowded public venues - ones that would instill a panic -- "fire" "bomb" "Gas" etc.

SCOTUS has said that the right to arms is a fundamental right of Americans. Allowing the government to restrict the exercise of that right to some arbitrary time limit is repugnant. If deemed permissible then other "rights" could likewise be restricted -- only one editorial opinion per month; Rush Limbaugh limited to monthly comments; Chris Matthews could only criticize Republicans once a month. You only get to invoke your 5th Amendment rights once a month. Few people would tolerate such blatant trampling of their rights.

This does not mean that the government can't require you to fill out several tedious forms in order to buy two or more guns at a time. But they cannot limit you to exercising your right arbitrarily.

¹ Other laws may apply that require permits, such as sanitation requirements for large public gatherings, permits for amplified sound equipment, etc.
 
I would love a one gun a month club! What a great way to explain my addiction to my wife. BUt sweetheart, I HAVE to buy a gun every month, it's the law!

The only thing is I can never remember to return those Do Not Send card, so I would end up with multiple copies of some offbeat firearm that are automatically sent. Like a bunch of Llama .45, French Chauchaut, Persian musket, Lorcin .25 and the like. BUT, if I could get 4 firearms of my choiice for one cent each just for joining, then maybe ...
 
vranasaurus said:
The clueless often argue that it is about preventing weapons trafficking across state lines.

But isn't that what all the laws and regulations prohibiting non ffl interstate transfers was supposed to prevent. It's already a felony to traffic weapons across state lines if you are committing two felonies (straw purchase and trafficking you're not going to care about a third one.

Since the criminals ignored those laws let's pass some more.
Click to expand...

If I can be the gungrabbers' advocate for a second...

While it's true that gun runners are already violating a couple of laws and will violate another, this law is different from those two.

The law about straw buying only affects buyer and seller, and we know we won't stop them with a law.

The law about crossing state lines only affects the seller, again we won't stop him.

The law about one a month affects seller AND FFL DEALER, who the govt has by the short hairs.

I can imagine that if I had a little business where I bought some guns and took them to a more restrictive place and sold them, I would be unhappy to see this one gun a month law, as my FFL dealer would no longer be allowed to sell me my inventory.

As it is, like most of you, I can't buy a gun a month anyway, so it can be said that the law doesn't really hinder law abiding people.

In other words, they have a point with this law, and it's not a nonsensical one, and we have to address it.

We can argue that the databases required to keep track of who bought what are an infringement.
 
6_cased_pair_of_irish_flintlock_due.jpg


fuggetaboutit

if I had a little business where I bought some guns and took them to a more restrictive place and sold them
Click to expand...

Then you would most likely just make a fortune selling AR15s or you would pay the CCW tax and avoid it. If that was your business, doubtful this law would hold you back.
If the law was raised to 2 handguns a month...would that make your venture so much more worthwhile?
Cause if you were buying 20-30(which you seem to suppose is the law's intent) a month...you would most likely already be on someone's radar.
 
Last edited:
BillCA, I suggested that the Supreme Court would not find a one-gun-per-month law to be an "unreasonable restriction." I did not suggest that I agreed with that. I also suggested that an individual would have to show that the law caused him to suffer some loss of a constitutional right in order for any of the federal courts to even have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Supreme Court is not simply going to point to an existing law and say "foul!"

My state has just passed the one-gun-per-month law, to go into effect in January. At least three other states have such a law in place already, and none of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found it to be constitutionally void.

Back in the late '90's, NJ gun rights groups tried to challenge NJ's assault weapons ban to the Supreme Court. Our case was rejected. I believe the same will happen if we try to challenge one gun per month laws to the Supreme Court.

Your comments about restraint of rights, government abuse, and limits on how many times per month a person can invoke other rights are appreciated, but purely academic.
 
I really hope they'll attack NY's Sullivan Law soon. Needing a may-issue license that you have to wait 6 months to a year to apply for then another 6 months to a year to get, after paying over $100 plus training courses, then having judge issued permit coupons for each and every pistol, sure doesn't seem like anything constitutionally permissable to me.
 
Dewhitewolf,

I'm glad you don't agree that a 1-gun-a-month scheme would be legal. Because it isn't.

My state has just passed the one-gun-per-month law, to go into effect in January. At least three other states have such a law in place already, and none of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have found it to be constitutionally void.
Click to expand...
That is because no one has yet filed a challenge to these schemes in a post-Heller environment. Once the RKBA is incorporated against the states, these laws will fall. In fact, a challenge could be coming in a western state within the 9th Circuit - which has already incorporated.

Back in the late '90's, NJ gun rights groups tried to challenge NJ's assault weapons ban to the Supreme Court. Our case was rejected. I believe the same will happen if we try to challenge one gun per month laws to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
There is a challenge to California's AW ban forming as we speak. Once again, what happened in a pre-Heller court does not necessarily apply in a post-Heller world.

Constitutional rights cannot be legislated away nor restricted by legislation alone. To lose or restrict any of your rights, you must first have due process before a court.

Legislating that you can only attend a place of worship once-a-month is prior restraint on a fundamental right. It is the same with the 2A right.
 
If only new guns are restricted by the law, then its only purpose would seem to be to slow the flow of firearms into the hands of people not disqualified from owning them. That would seem to be a prima facia infringement, would it not?
Click to expand...

Prima facie..and no, the stated purpose is to prevent the flow of firearms to disqualified persons via resales...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top