S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

[Evan Thomas]

Carguychris, you're correct. As far as Federal law goes, it's fine to ship a firearm to another resident of your state:

From the FAQ on the ATF website:

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm through the U.S. Postal Service?

A nonlicensee may not transfer a firearm to a non-licensed resident of another State. A nonlicensee may mail a shotgun or rifle to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. The Postal Service recommends that long guns be sent by registered mail and that no marking of any kind which would indicate the nature of the contents be placed on the outside of any parcel containing firearms. Handguns are not mailable. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun.

[18 U.S.C. 1715, 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5) and 922 (a)(2)(A)]

Q: May a nonlicensee ship a firearm by common or contract carrier?

A nonlicensee may ship a firearm by a common or contract carrier to a resident of his or her own State or to a licensee in any State. A common or contract carrier must be used to ship a handgun. In addition, Federal law requires that the carrier be notified that the shipment contains a firearm and prohibits common or contract carriers from requiring or causing any label to be placed on any package indicating that it contains a firearm.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(2)(A), 922(a) (3), 922(a)(5) and 922(e), 27 CFR 478.31 and 478.30]​

 

[MLeake]

I stand corrected.

However, I do not think UPS or FedEx will ship it for you, even if Federal law does not prohibit intrastate shipment, unless you ship to yourself or an FFL; and you can't ship via USPS unless you are an FFL.

 

[carguychris]

...you can't ship via USPS unless you are an FFL.

It's a bit more subtle than this. Only FFL Dealers, Manufacturers, Importers, and Pawnbrokers* are allowed to mail handguns, but an unlicensed person IS allowed to ship a rifle or shotgun via USPS to another unlicensed person provided that (a) the transaction complies with federal, state, and local law, (b) the shipment originates within the destination state, and (c) the USPS 26" minimum length specification is met.

From the Domestic Mail Manual or DMM (emphasis mine):

12.2 Rifles and Shotguns
Except under 12.1.1d and 12.1.2, unloaded rifles and shotguns are mailable. Mailers must comply with the rules and regulations under 27 CFR, Part 478, as well as state and local laws. The mailer may be required by the USPS to establish, by opening the parcel or by written certification, that the rifle or shotgun is unloaded and not ineligible for mailing under 12.1.1d. The following conditions also apply:

a. Subject to state, territory, or district regulations, rifles and shotguns may be mailed without restriction when sent within the same state of mailing. These items must bear a “Return Service Requested” endorsement, and must be sent by Express Mail (“signature required” must be used at delivery), Registered Mail, or must include either insured mail service (for more than $200) requiring a signature at delivery or Signature Confirmation service.

The remaining conditions (a. through f.) concern interstate shipments, so I've omitted those.

Regarding the length... the definitions in the DMM are worded in such a way as to restrict mailability of rifles and shotguns with any "...alteration [or] modification... if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches." AFAIK this provision has been interpreted to prohibit the mailing of a disassembled rifle or shotgun if the disassembled configuration has a length less than 26", even if this length results from using a factory takedown feature.

More here:

http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm300/601.htm#12_0

*Footnote: The mailability of handguns to and from C&R licensees is a complex topic that is somewhat outside of the scope of this post. The short version is that it's not allowed under most circumstances.

 

[lcpiper]

Depending on the text matching the reported summary by Toomey, it's not that bad of a bill, and gives gun owners a lot of what they wanted too.

Wait up, I haven't seen anything that is giving gun owners anything they didn't already have. All I have seen is misleading wording that says your going to lose out and not even know how bad.

Can you show me something different?

Like, can my Dad who lives in Texas give me one of his guns next Christmas, that I can actually take home to Arizona with me, without making me a felon if I don't spend a hundred bucks or so in shipping and FFL fees to have it "laundered" clean?

Is that something they are going to give us?

 

[Win]

Emailed the one Arkansas senator who concerns me, Mark Pryor

I think there is good reason to be concerned about Mr. Pryor's vote. Fortunately, he has good reason to be concerned about his reelection.

 

[JimDandy]

This is the Summary from Toomey himself

Here's one we want-
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

and another -
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

and another -
- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.

and another -
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

and one more -
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

So no, as a private interstate instead of intra-state you'll probably have to go through NICS (There is a family exemption written into this one that MAY contradict this IF it passes so it's a ways off from happening IF it's gonna)

But if you go to a gun shop while visiting Dear Old Dad, and see a handgun you like, and have a state issued concealed carry permit, you can walk out with it that day, drive up through California/NewYork, stop off at a motel when it gets late, have dinner, get your ingrown toenail excised, and fill up the tank all before leaving NY/CA and not have to worry about their laws. (much)

 

[lcpiper]

To continue, since we have determined that it is possible for a private seller to advertise a firearm, and sell it, to include shipping it to the private buyer by shipping service. We can conclude that this would be an example of an Internet Sale that currently can be conducted without a background check.

Do I have anything wrong on this part?


If not then it is less deceitful but I still don't think it's the Federal Government's permit to regulate private intrastate commerce. I still stand that this is for the States to decide and not the Fed.

 

[JimDandy]

Internet sale isn't well defined. It COULD be an internet sale. As far as Federal regulation, they use the same argument they used in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US. As the shipping company you're using is likely to be multi-state it would affect interstate trade, using fuel supplies that could even be international trade.

 

[Spats McGee]

To continue, since we have determined that it is possible for a private seller to advertise a firearm, and sell it, to include shipping it to the private buyer by shipping service. We can conclude that this would be an example of an Internet Sale that currently can be conducted without a background check.

Do I have anything wrong on this part?

(emphasis supplied by Spats)

As it currently stands, what you have described is two things: (1) an advertisement; and (2) a private party sale (assuming that the seller is not an FFL). Accordingly, the sale may be conducted without a NICS check, if both parties reside in the same state. If they reside in different states, an FFL is required.

We do not know if that will hold true under the proposal, because we do not know how "Internet Sale" will be defined. Until we have that bit of information, we're guessing.

 

[led0321]

This is the Summary from Toomey himself

Here's one we want-
- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.

and another -
- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.

and another -
- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.

and another -
- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.

and one more -
- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.

So no, as a private interstate instead of intra-state you'll probably have to go through NICS (There is a family exemption written into this one that MAY contradict this IF it passes so it's a ways off from happening IF it's gonna)

But if you go to a gun shop while visiting Dear Old Dad, and see a handgun you like, and have a state issued concealed carry permit, you can walk out with it that day, drive up through California/NewYork, stop off at a motel when it gets late, have dinner, get your ingrown toenail excised, and fill up the tank all before leaving NY/CA and not have to worry about their laws. (much)

So if I have a SC concealed carry permit I can buy a gun in NC?

 

[JimDandy]

Well IF this bill passes, and IF this provision stays in the bill and IF it isn't amended, and IF the actual text says what Toomey says it said, then MAYBE. There MAY be a restriction that you must be a resident with a permit from that state to bypass NICS.

And remember they're adding handguns, you can PROBABLY already buy a long gun. Different states have different rules that interact differently with even more states with different rules. For a specific answer, you'd have to read the law yourself, or hire someone who does it for a living.

 

[lcpiper]

This is what I get out of the Summary;

- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
(All I got to say is we never should have given a hammer to the Fed to use on States to begin with, they take our tax money to use against our own State and thus us)

- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
(It doesn't seem to require submissions).

- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
(If I am not mistaken every combat vet must go through screening for PTSD and usually some form of counseling, has this been a reason for them being flagged in NICS?)

TITLE TWO: REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR FIREARM SALES

Summary of Title II: This section of the bill requires background checks for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.

- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
(Imposes background checks on Private firearms Sales both interstate and intrastate)

- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
(The Federal Government had no laws against this before, this was only effected by State Law, Fed again deciding for the States)

- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
(So it's now going to be OK for families of victims of gun violence to go after the seller even if the sale was legal unless you do the BG Check?)

- Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
(So dealers get to sell out of State, They do it already via the Internet. And how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

- Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
(I don't see anything great here, again how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
(Already that way in Arizona and many other states, again, State Business)

- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
(how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

- Allows active military to buy firearms in their home states.
(Active Military can already buy firearms from their home state, and because many P/X Exchanges sell firearms on Federal land, they can still buy from them too)

- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
(Giving me nothing, just saying your not taking this as well)


OK, enough, this entire bill does nothing except tell us how it's not going to be as bad as we thought. They are taking with one hand while they say "See, that wasn't so bad". Everything they are giving are things that we already have if our States haven't said otherwise and as I have said earlier, it's still all State Business.

 

[overhead]

We are not going to see the complete bill in time to read it before they can try to slam a vote through, are we? Another we will know what is in it after it passes sort of deal. I called both my senators today, one is a lost cause and the other is up for election in 2014. My impression is he will vote for it if it is likely to pass, but his office would not admit to that.

 

[BumbleBug]

Has there ever been any discussion how all this extensive back ground checking & it's associated bureaucracy will be funded? I'm referring to taxation of some form on buyers & sellers of firearms & ammunition?

 

[gc70]

... we do not know how "Internet Sale" will be defined. Until we have that bit of information, we're guessing.

It is unfortunate that Manchin and Toomey did not post the text of their proposal for all citizens to read.

I am not encouraged about the potential definition of "internet sale" or "online sale" by the following statement in Manchin's Fact Sheet about the proposal:

You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check.

 

[lcpiper]

Unfortunately Senator Toomey was mum on how this bill is going to protect us from unreasonable taxation in regards to firearms, ammunition, and accessories.

 

[JimDandy]

You're not quite right lcpiper

- Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.
(All I got to say is we never should have given a hammer to the Fed to use on States to begin with, they take our tax money to use against our own State and thus us)

That is unfortunately because we didn't also give them a screwdriver. When all you have is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail. The only stick they have is the one used to take away the carrot.

- Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).
(It doesn't seem to require submissions).

They're not allowed to "require" anything. See Carrot and Stick.

- Provides a legal process for a veteran to contest his/her placement in NICS when there is no basis for barring the right to own a firearm.
(If I am not mistaken every combat vet must go through screening for PTSD and usually some form of counseling, has this been a reason for them being flagged in NICS?)

There has been some concern over this issue, yes both from veterans and from/about the VA.

- Closes the gun show and other loopholes while exempting temporary transfers and transfers between family members.
(Imposes background checks on Private firearms Sales both interstate and intrastate)

Only those between strangers

- Fixes interstate travel laws for sportsmen who transport their firearms across state lines in a responsible manner. The term "transport" includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, buying fuel, vehicle maintenance, and medical treatment.
(The Federal Government had no laws against this before, this was only effected by State Law, Fed again deciding for the States)

Not against this, FOR this. There has been a law on the books that was too vague and ignored by various states for interstate travel. Google Fly Out of New York Gun Arrested, and look at all the results. This clarifies the law so people who have to drive THROUGH one of these states are protected like the law said they were supposed to be.

- Protects sellers from lawsuits if the weapon cleared through the expanded background checks and is subsequently used in a crime. This is the same treatment gun dealers receive now.
(So it's now going to be OK for families of victims of gun violence to go after the seller even if the sale was legal unless you do the BG Check?)

You're able to be sued today. If you use the system, you get immunity. Not bad insurance for $25 when you sell to a stranger.

- Allows dealers to complete transactions at gun shows that take place in a state for which they are not a resident.
(So dealers get to sell out of State, They do it already via the Internet. And how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

The bill title doesn't say anything about gun violence. This is one of the protect rights parts.

- Requires the FBI to give priority to finalizing background checks at gun shows over checks at store front dealerships.
(I don't see anything great here, again how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

Also a protect rights part. Prioritize the sales before the FFL At the gun show packs up and leaves.

- Authorizes use of a state concealed carry permit instead of a background check when purchasing a firearm from a dealer.
(Already that way in Arizona and many other states, again, State Business)

Not in all states, and the FFL check is a national law and database. If the feds want to allow a state substitute, it's their perogative.

- Permits interstate handgun sales from dealers.
(how is this supposed to stop Gun Violence?)

It doesn't. It's supposed to reduce intrusion on the second amendment.

- Family transfers and some private sales (friends, neighbors, other individuals) are exempt from background checks
(Giving me nothing, just saying your not taking this as well)

Don't forget this is competing with Senator Schumer's bill. Exempting those transactions is a hell of a lot better than INCLUDING the temporary transfer while you tie your shoes.

 

[BarryLee]

OK, enough, this entire bill does nothing except tell us how it's not going to be as bad as we thought.

Well, I guess this is a little conspiratorial, but I think the Bill lays the groundwork for a National Gun registry down the road, but that’s just me. I have heard the Brady Bunch make the statement that they are pursuing “incremental” restrictions and not overnight bans. So, a few years down the road when this Bill has no impact on violence they demand improvements and surprise - a Registry.

 

[hunttheevil]

Phase 2 of background checks

I started a new thread so everyone would see this. The ATF is ready to update their 50 year old Firearms Tracing System:

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-deal-b...f9d6c7ebb&bcmt_s=u#mediacommentsugc_container

Though Sens, Joe Manchin (R) of W. Va and Pat Toomey (R) of Penn. have reached a deal on background checks to take form as an amendment to the Senate gun control bill, a key piece of the White House’s gun control plan is at risk of failure *– specifically, the process by which law enforcement agencies trace the original source of a gun sale during criminal investigations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is using 1960s era technology to manage a 21st century problem. As gun traces increase under stepped up enforcement, the system must be updated in order to keep up.

You can take it as you will, I see this as the next step to prepare for the future national registry!

 

[lcpiper]

I suppose this is where some folks differ from others.

Some see the Federal Government covering us all in a nice warm blanket of protection from individual States who would do us wrong. Even when the recent wrongs that have been done haven't been given time to stand the light of day from the Courts.

Others see this as just more intrusion into State Rights by the Federal Government which are completely unnecessary as the States are perfectly capable of sorting themselves out.

The Constitution allows for the kind of differences we have between States for expressly these reasons. It allows 50 States to come up with separate and diverse solutions and over time the smart plays can be identified and separated from the bad ones.

When the Feds get involved in State business they are making decisions for all of us all at once and we lose all sense of alternative.

We no longer get our box of chocolates, we just get M&Ms and you better hope you like M&Ms