Don't know if this has already been posted?
(my short term memory is going to hell lately, not enough sleep.)
Thought it would be of some interest.
http://www.goal.org/articles/snowshiplaws.html
A GOAL member, Mark C., recently called the office. He needed to ship his rifle back to the factory for repair, and was wondering about the proper way to comply
with the law.
In searching the law, I could not find an exemption from our state's storage laws for a person shipping it back to the manufacturer. There is an exemption from our
state's licensing laws for common carriers, so that the UPS or FedEx drivers won't be in trouble for transporting the guns. But it appears there are no exemptions for
the owner of the gun.
I advised Mark to call the Firearm Records Bureau of the state. He stated that he talked with an official there, and asked, "Do I have to ship a trigger lock or cable lock
attached to the rifle?" The state official replied, "Yes," and suggested he put the key in the same package.
Mark then asked, "But what if the truck is broken into and someone steals the package? Won't I be held liable?" The official admitted,
"Well, yes."
Mark then indicated that rather than include the key, he would use a cable lock on the gun, and tell the manufacturer to cut the cable lock.
He also said he would include a second lock for the manufacturer to use upon return.
Mark then asked, "If the gun is stolen, and the firearm gets into the hands of a juvenile who cuts off the lock, how can I prove the lock was
on it?" The official responded that Mark could not prove it and would likely be held responsible. He suggested that Mark have a witness to
the act of putting the cable locked gun in the package.
By now, Mark was a little worried. So he asked what would happen if the manufacturer were to fail to include the second cable lock on the
return shipment. The official told him that he would still be held responsible, and recommended that Mark put in writing to the manufacturer the instructions on
shipment, and to keep a copy of that letter.
We invite any state official reading this article to prove to GOAL that the law does not require that you ship all of your guns with a lock, with witnesses, and with
copies of written instructions. And if it can't be proven that these aren't required, we urge the legislature to promptly reform this ridiculous law. (And while they're
at it, there are several other changes they should make.)
Prove us wrong by giving us the cite for the section, and we'll be happy to clarify it for our readers next month.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
(my short term memory is going to hell lately, not enough sleep.)
Thought it would be of some interest.
http://www.goal.org/articles/snowshiplaws.html
A GOAL member, Mark C., recently called the office. He needed to ship his rifle back to the factory for repair, and was wondering about the proper way to comply
with the law.
In searching the law, I could not find an exemption from our state's storage laws for a person shipping it back to the manufacturer. There is an exemption from our
state's licensing laws for common carriers, so that the UPS or FedEx drivers won't be in trouble for transporting the guns. But it appears there are no exemptions for
the owner of the gun.
I advised Mark to call the Firearm Records Bureau of the state. He stated that he talked with an official there, and asked, "Do I have to ship a trigger lock or cable lock
attached to the rifle?" The state official replied, "Yes," and suggested he put the key in the same package.
Mark then asked, "But what if the truck is broken into and someone steals the package? Won't I be held liable?" The official admitted,
"Well, yes."
Mark then indicated that rather than include the key, he would use a cable lock on the gun, and tell the manufacturer to cut the cable lock.
He also said he would include a second lock for the manufacturer to use upon return.
Mark then asked, "If the gun is stolen, and the firearm gets into the hands of a juvenile who cuts off the lock, how can I prove the lock was
on it?" The official responded that Mark could not prove it and would likely be held responsible. He suggested that Mark have a witness to
the act of putting the cable locked gun in the package.
By now, Mark was a little worried. So he asked what would happen if the manufacturer were to fail to include the second cable lock on the
return shipment. The official told him that he would still be held responsible, and recommended that Mark put in writing to the manufacturer the instructions on
shipment, and to keep a copy of that letter.
We invite any state official reading this article to prove to GOAL that the law does not require that you ship all of your guns with a lock, with witnesses, and with
copies of written instructions. And if it can't be proven that these aren't required, we urge the legislature to promptly reform this ridiculous law. (And while they're
at it, there are several other changes they should make.)
Prove us wrong by giving us the cite for the section, and we'll be happy to clarify it for our readers next month.
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998