First pass through the amendment
I finally got throgh my first run through the amendment, and here are my impressions:
(u)It shall be unlawful for a person to steal or unlawfully take or carry away from the person or the premises of a person who is licensed to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, any firearm in the licensee's business inventory that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Ok. This is from the pre-amendment § 922. I’ve never really looked at it before, but it’s rather a silly subsection:
1) It shall be unlawful for a person to unlawfully take?!? I’m pretty sure it’s always unlawful to do something unlawful. Kinda goes with the territory.
2) Was there some reason to think that theft was somehow legal when it came to firearms?
Now, on to the amendment issues:
(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs-
"(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or
"(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
I think we’ve pretty well established what this would do to private sales at gun shows, or on the curtilage thereof. The only real question is what this does to all of the other non-gun-show, non-curtilage-thereof private transfers. I can see two readings of subsection (B), above. The first is that background checks would be required in connection with any “advertisement, posting, display or other listing,” in which the internet was involved. The second, which is (IMHO) less plausible, but nonetheless the one I (suspiciously) expect BATFE to take is more along the lines of “pursuant to an advertisement,” (may be unconnected with internet), posting (may also be unconnected), “display or other listing on the internet.” IOW, if it’s on da webz, it gets a background check. If it’s advertised, it gets a BC. If it’s displayed, it gets a BC. That interpretation covers pretty much all private transfers except:
Bob: Nice rifle, Frank.
Frank: Thanks, Bob. I was thinking of selling it.
Bob: Take my money NOW!
Now on to Paragraph 2:
"(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if-
"(A) the transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), and upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee-
"(i) complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee, except that when processing a transfer under this chapter the licensee may accept in lieu of conducting a background check a valid permit issued within the previous 5 years by a State, or a political subdivision of a State, that allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law;
Let’s stop here for just a moment. OK. So Paragraph 1 requires BCs. Paragraph 2 does not apply, if you go through an FFL . . . which requires a BC, in most cases. So it’s kind of like saying that Paragraph 1 doesn’t apply, if you follow the steps outlined in Paragraph 1. As others have noted, there’s also a limit of 5 years on the CCL exemption.
"(B) the transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee residing in the same State, which takes place in such State, if-
"(i) the Attorney General certifies that State in which the transfer takes place has in effect requirements under law that are generally equivalent to the requirements of this section; and
Ok. This bugs me. That “and” right there makes me wonder if (B) is supposed to be read in conjunction with subsection (A) above. If so, that would mean that intrastate FTF transfers would be covered and the AG would have to certify that the State in which the transfer takes place has in effect laws that are “generally equivalent” to the requirements of this section.
Hmmm . . . “generally equivalent.” I really, really don’t like the use of that phrase here. First of all, what does that mean? Identical? Extremely close to identical? What are the relevant features and requirements of a law, necessary to such a degree and in such a way as to make a State law “generally equivalent?” Second, what happens if the AG does not so certify? Is there any incentive for him to do so? If not, why would he certify any State as having such laws? Third, why should he have to certify a State like that? Due to the Supremacy Clause, we already have to abide by State and Federal law. This looks like an end run that allows the fed gov’t to indirectly regulate intrastate commerce, if’n you ask me.
"(ii) the transfer was conducted in compliance with the laws of the State;
"(C) the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law; or
OK. Here are the family transfers. I do think that tranfers within the family should be exempted from BCs. I mean, you still can’t give your brother a gun if he’s got a felony conviction, and it seems reasonable that you oughta know if your brother’s a felon.
Also note that we might talk about “sales,” but the law actually refers to “transfers.” While I might personally find this a little disconcerting, in all honesty, I don’t see any changes to the definition of “transfer,” in this amendment. However, I am bothered by this:
SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; or
(2) to extend background check requirements to temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or evaluation by a prospective transferee.
Someone (kraigwy?) noted earlier that this can be interpreted to mean that I can loan my buddy something for hunting, but not for “stalker duty,” unless it involves a BC.
