"Why" can't I purchase out-of-state?


PDA






jgorniak
March 10, 2008, 09:36 PM
I know that I can't buy a handgun out of state; I'm just wondering what the reasoning is behind this restriction.

I live in SC, work in GA, and most of the convenient shops with nice selections of used wares are in GA. I know that I could have something shipped over, but that incurs a cost, plus the local FFL transfer fee.

I have CC permits for both states. If an NCIS call has to be made, wouldn't they be gathering the same information anyway?

Sorry if this is a recurring topic. Maybe my search skills are lacking...

If you enjoyed reading about ""Why" can't I purchase out-of-state?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Gator
March 10, 2008, 09:48 PM
Reasoning? You're looking for reason in Federal gun laws? :rolleyes:

rocinante
March 10, 2008, 09:54 PM
I want to know too because it doesn't make sense.

Lets say I am in Wyoming on temporary business and a new friend lets me go elk hunting with him. He could loan me a gun. I could rent a gun (I think). If I had advanced notice I could bring a gun from Georgia with me. Why couldn't I walk into a gun shop and given I pass the NCIS buy a gun in Wyoming from an FFL? I can see some logic in shipping an arm to an FFL who would verify you are who you say you are but why can't anybody buy from an FFL anywhere as long as you are a citizen.

Surely there has to be some logic even if it has gone through the usual twisted federal substitute for thinking.

txgho1911
March 10, 2008, 09:56 PM
Some states passed laws to incorporate fed law into state law. I may be wrong but I understand that the fed law expired or was changed by a later law. FOPA86?
Many states left the old law on the books. Some states residents can buy a long arm from any state that allows it by law. Others may only be able to buy within those states that border their state of residency.
You may be referring to restrictions in state law of GA or SC.

jgorniak
March 10, 2008, 09:57 PM
Yeah Gator, I get that part...

But if it's more than the .gov doing what they do because they can, I thought there might be a reason (albeit, probably a stupid one).

I guess if it's a result of the laws of individual states, it's probably too convoluted to decipher anyway.

Thanks for the ideas, though.

Car Knocker
March 10, 2008, 10:05 PM
It is legal to buy long guns from an FFL in a state other than the one you reside in, as long as it is legal according to the state laws of both states.

As for handguns, it's a violation of federal law to receive a handgun in other than your state of residence. You can purchase a handgun in another state but the actual transfer must be through an FFL in your home state.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/index.htm

I can't speak to the reasoning behind gun laws.

SDC
March 10, 2008, 10:11 PM
Probably based on the "interstate commerce" clause that so many OTHER federal laws are based on.

jephthai
March 10, 2008, 10:20 PM
I suppose the rationale would involve hand-waving around gun-running and interstate commerce. It also makes sure that at a higher level gun traffic goes through the FFL network, which generates better records.

I would also wonder if it's easier to make laws under the auspices of regulating interstate commerce at the federal level. It's harder, I would think, to advance legislation that goes all the way down to the ground level.

-Jephthai-

mekender
March 10, 2008, 10:26 PM
the reason is because uncle fed has decided that it would like to lump that process into the idea of interstate commerce... it is yet another way for the .gov to ensure that it maintains some semblance of control over the people

jgorniak
March 10, 2008, 10:28 PM
It also makes sure that at a higher level gun traffic goes through the FFL network, which generates better records.

I guess that's the part I don't get. The used shops are part of the same FFL network. The shop owners in GA and SC should both be doing the same thing to appease the feds when it comes to a sale, I would think.

Telperion
March 10, 2008, 10:34 PM
Same as all gun laws that fall short of a ban -- restrict, annoy, and threaten people in an effort to discourage them from exercising their rights. Specifically:

1. Restrict trade of handguns across state lines by throwing up as many roadblocks as possible. People must either buy new or go through the annoyance of an interstate FFL transfer (and pay dealer fees). This is enough to prevent some people from making a purchase.

2. Prevent people from bypassing state gun laws by buying in some other state. Gun control laws have historically been state-level; state laws started showing up after the civil war, Fed laws only appeared in mid 20th century. The GCA locks people into their state's restrictive laws.

Carl N. Brown
March 11, 2008, 12:00 AM
The reasoning behind the 1968 Gun Control Act is that lax gun
laws in neighboring states undercut the crime fighting effectiveness
of tougher state gun laws.

To understand the reasoning behind the 1968 Gun Control Act,
let us look at the Brady Campaign ratings (A and B for tough gun
laws and D for lax gun laws) and FBI crime ratings for these
neighboring states for 2003.

State Brady Campaign Ratings and Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US
STATE GRADE CRIME HOMICIDE
CT Connecticut A- 308.2 3
MA Massachusetts A- 469.4 2.2
RI Rhode Island B- 285.6 2.3
NH New Hampshire D- 148.8 1.4
ME Maine D- 108.9 1.2
VT Vermont D- 110.2 2.3

The lax gun laws in NH ME and VT serve to undercut the crime fighting
effectiveness of the tougher gun laws of MA, RI and CT. If residents
of MA, RI and CT could legally buy handguns out of state in NH ME and VT,
the crime rates of MA, RI and CT would probably end up like NH ME and VT.
Thank goodness for the wisdom of Thomas Dodd and the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Luckily for this comparison VT had an unusually high homicide rate
that year; usually VT is in line with NH and ME, not with RI.

nicki
March 11, 2008, 01:35 AM
The GCA of 68 was passed during times of massive civil unrest.

The civil rights act was passed in 1964, but it had to be enforced and that caused alot of problems.

We had several high profile assassinations. Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, JFK and RFK.

There were riots in the cities, opposition to the vietnam war was growing, especially in the urban areas.

The counter culture of sex, drugs and rock and roll was growing among the youth.

Although I was a child, I do remember the 60's. Unlike those who were there who don't remember because of all the drugs they did.

My parents and many of their friends were concerned about social unrest, it was on the news all the time. There was fear in the urban areas of social breakdown.

Prior to the GCA of 1968, you could purchase mail order guns with no records.

The form 4473 is effectively a federal registration form on all guns sold.

Since dealers hold the records, the records are not centralized. Of course if they find a gun, they can trace it to the dealer, then to the buyer.

The ability to buy mail order guns enabled people to bypass state gun laws.

New York city had restictive handgun controls, but did not restrict rifles until the 1960's, probably around the time Malcolm X was advocating for Blacks to get rifles and shotguns.

Crime was rising because of increasing addictions to drugs like heroin.

In short, massive public fear.

Now of course there is an interesting case gong on regarding this issue that the Second Amendment foundation is running. www.saf.org

That question is being addressed in two federal court cases right now and the "Heller case" may play a role in both cases.

Nicki

jgorniak
March 11, 2008, 02:39 AM
Maybe I'm just dense, but....

If I buy a handgun in Augusta, GA... (20 miles from my house)

or

if I buy a hangun in Charleston, SC... (200+ miles from my house)

is there anything in the processing of the sale that is different?

Isn't the same 4473 being completed?

If a phone call has to be placed, aren't they contacting the same agency?

If the whole "reason" is to frustrate someone and add to their cost, they're doing a fine job. Doesn't actually deter me, just :banghead:.

It would seem to me that, if the .gov says it's okay for me to make a purchase 200 miles away, what is the problem with making the same purchase 20 miles away? I'm still the same person, and they'll get the same background check on me where ever I go.

Guess I really need to just drop this and walk away. Thanks to everyone who tried to shine a light into this black hole.

Autolycus
March 11, 2008, 04:09 AM
There was a bill in Congress recently that would have ended this nonsense.

Librarian
March 11, 2008, 04:33 AM
nicki had it about right, but what you want to read is the legislative history of the Gun Control Act of 1968. (Public Law 90-351)

Try
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm
and
http://saf.org/LawReviews/Vizzard3.htm

You could also try to find Zimring's later article
Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968
Franklin E. Zimring
The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 133-198

Note that Zimring is an anti, but within that classification generally pretty reasonable.

See also HUDDLESTON v. UNITED STATES, 415 U.S. 814 (1974) (9th Circuit)
he legislative history, too, supports this reading of the statute. This is apparent from the aims and purposes of the Act and from the method Congress adopted to achieve those objectives. When Congress enacted the provisions under which petitioner was convicted, it was concerned with the widespread traffic in firearms and with their general availability to those whose possession thereof was contrary to the public interest. Pub. L. 90-351, 1201, 82 Stat. 1236, as amended by Pub. L. 90-618, 301 (a) (1), 82 Stat. 1236, 18 U.S.C. App. 1201. Congress determined that the ease with which firearms could be obtained contributed significantly to the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States. S. Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 108 (1968). The principal purpose of the federal gun control legislation, therefore, was to curb crime by keeping "firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetency." S. Rep. No. 1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 22 (1968).


But you can save yourself a lot of pain if you accept one observation as generally true: most laws governing guns are not based on logic or any expected positive outcome. Trying to evaluate one on those criteria usually results in frustration.

lance22
March 11, 2008, 01:33 PM
In MN, Gander Mountain and Galyans (now very appropriately called "Dicks") sometimes refuse to even talk to you if they find out you are from a neighboring state. If they can't sell you a gun, they aren't going to waste their time talking to you and they sure as hell are not going to get anything out to let you handle it.

Henry Bowman
March 11, 2008, 02:12 PM
If the whole "reason" is to frustrate someone and add to their cost, they're doing a fine job. Doesn't actually deter me, just :banghead:.Today, that is really the only effect.

It would seem to me that, if the .gov says it's okay for me to make a purchase 200 miles away, what is the problem with making the same purchase 20 miles away? I'm still the same person, and they'll get the same background check on me where ever I go.In theory, the state in which you reside is going to have the best records on you. In theory, we can determine who are "the wrong hands" for guns to be in based on one's prior record (or lack thereof). In theory, we can keep guns out of "the wrong hands." :rolleyes:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. -- Yogi Bera

hugh damright
March 11, 2008, 03:01 PM
The principal purpose of the federal gun control legislation, therefore, was to curb crime by keeping "firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetencyJust exactly what pattern of interstate gun traffic was a problem in '68? I'm trying to fit it into that era ... it seems to me like that was an era of a civil rights movement, what some call a second wave of reconstruction ... I'm thinking that the violence was in the South, and I'm wondering if the federal legislation was intended to address some specific problem such as militant blacks going up North and buying up guns and bringing them back down South. Was the GCA intended to address an interstate flow of guns from North to South?


The shop owners in GA and SC should both be doing the same thing to appease the feds when it comes to a sale.Perhaps we are in a state of transition from federalism to nationalism. Police powers, including gun control powers, were reserved to the States. With NICS, the feds have assume a general jurisdiction over gun control. So, whether you purchase in GA or SC, it makes no difference ... it kind of makes a person wonder why we even have States. And maybe, once the devolution is complete, we won't have States, and the pesky distinction between GA and SC will be a thing of the past.

coat4gun
March 11, 2008, 03:15 PM
Police powers, including gun control powers, were reserved to the States.

Police powers...true, but gun control powers never constitutionally left the hands of the people. They were unconstitutionally stolen by both the Feds and the States.

hugh damright
March 11, 2008, 04:14 PM
gun control powers never constitutionally left the hands of the peopleYou make it sound like all gun laws are "unconstitutional". I suppose every person could create his own personal theory, but I believe that it is a fact under constitutional law that the police powers reserved to the States include gun control powers. And that makes sense to me ... I really can't see a State binding itself so tightly that it could not pass legislation which regarded firearms.

And before anybody says it, "shall not be infringed" means "by Congress" ... but if the same wording appeared in a State Constitution, I would understand it to refer to a right of the general population to general arms, leaving room for many restrictions.

brighamr
March 11, 2008, 06:24 PM
shall not be infringed. It's in my federal constitution and state constitution. Yet I can't buy a gun without filling out forms, waiting for calls, paying transfer fees, hoping NICS doesn't deny because of a "double name match", etc.

Any law, restricting firearms, is unconstitutional. period.

El Tejon
March 11, 2008, 06:30 PM
hugh,

1. yes, gun laws are unconstitutional.

2. neither the federal or state government via the 14th Amendment may infringe on the right to arms.

3. state "police powers" cannot restrict fundamental rights, including the right to arms.

4. In 1968 the problem was large urban areas populated by African-Americans, not the South (the South was the problem area during Reconstruction thus the CRA of 1866 and the 14th Amendment). The SSA of 1968 was to restrict the supply of firearms to "juvenile delinquents" (the term Kennedy and Dodd used) that were allegedly enflaming urban unrest.

mekender
March 11, 2008, 06:31 PM
You make it sound like all gun laws are "unconstitutional". I suppose every person could create his own personal theory, but I believe that it is a fact under constitutional law that the police powers reserved to the States include gun control powers.

i believe they are unconstitutional... the phrase "shall not be infringed" to me means that NO ONE has the authority to deny that right... unfortunately, many judges have seen things differently

Neener Neener
March 11, 2008, 06:34 PM
Ironic, because I live in Ga and work in SC, and have a shop I like in SC. I have purchased a couple of rifles from them, but cannot buy a pistol I want because of the reason you state. Well, I suppose I could, but I am not getting a good enough deal to offset the FFL fee.

Docgmt
March 11, 2008, 08:21 PM
When it is in the Bill of Rights noting that the bill only spells out the rights you have not rights granted by the gov. No one, not even the state can restrict those rights unless it is for "very" reasonable causes. Now you could spend weeks arguing what is a reasonable cause which I do not want to do. How many states have placed restrictions on the 1st amendment? Not many because it is a right, which is only restricted to the point of not yelling fire :fire:in the crowded theater. If you are not causing panic by owning a rifle, pistol, machine gun what is a reasonable cause to restrict the right to KABA?

If you enjoyed reading about ""Why" can't I purchase out-of-state?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!