Help with Big Words-What Does Contiguous Mean?

[Mags]

From the NRA ILA "Residents of states contiguous to New Mexico may purchase firearms in New Mexico. Residents of New Mexico may purchase firearms in states contiguous to New Mexico."

Does that mean I can drive up to Colorado or Texas and purchase a gun from an FFL and take posession on the spot without shipping to my FFL?

 

[cbrgator]

I won't comment on the law, but contiguous means states that border New Mexico.

 

[deadin]

Does that mean I can drive up to Colorado or Texas and purchase a gun from an FFL and take posession on the spot without shipping to my FFL?

Yes, but only long guns. No handguns. And then only if neither State has any kind of a waiting period

 

[Bopleo]

go to dictionary.com

 

[Sunray]

"...go to dictionary.com..." Yep. dictionary.com is your friend. http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

[LickitySplit]

Yes, but only long guns.

And if applicable... if the state in which the purchaser resides has an AWB, then the sale would be prohibited by federal law.

 

[deadin]

if the state in which the purchaser resides has an AWB, then the sale would be prohibited by federal law.

Correct! I keep forgetting about AWs as I have no use for them, so they're not on my radar.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Contiguous means to have a common border. The states contiguous to NM would be TX, OK, AZ and CO. Because the borders only touch at one corner I am uncertain if UT would be contiguous.

 

[mackbob]

I believe Utah would qualify

If I am correct, the state of Utah is also considered contiguous. There is no language in that word that references the border's length or anything about that border. Ask a dealer and see if he or she will consider you a lawful purchaser. There's the best answer.

As to someone's remarks that AW's are not on their radar, I would encourage everyone to buy at least one AW. If we let the bullies in the anti-gun movement have their way and sit back and say, "Well, those are not the type of firearms I use or want, so I don't care if they ban or confiscate those!" then we have given the gun ban groups license to come back for the others you do use.

Some here may not remember, but when the AW ban was put into place in the 1990's, there followed pressure to limit and eliminate semi-autos, then large calibers, then handguns and finally even smaller caliber rifles.

When they have my AW's, they can't be far from wanting your skeet gun or your SAA collectible for the melting pot down at the scrap yard. Chicago has collected over 52000 handguns this year and they all went to melters, good and bad, cheap and expensive. AW's are just the tip of the lunatic iceberg the weak and defenseless anti-gunners are riding.

I used to work with a fellow who claimed they would never come for his shotguns since he was a bird hunter and obviously never intended to do any harm to anything but the occasional passing duck. Then he met the head of some anti-gun group at a charity event they were both attending and she got on her anti-gun babble without knowing he was an owner of firearms. She straightened him out when she announced it would be a great day when Obama was elected and the guns in America were all confiscated and scraped. Needless to say, he is no longer content to sit on the sidelines and let the nuts control the contest.

Sorry for the rant, but that just gets all over me when someone says they don't care about some class of firearms. They are ALL our firearms, whether we happen to own one or not.

 

[deadin]

I would encourage everyone to buy at least one AW. If we let the bullies in the anti-gun movement have their way and sit back and say, "Well, those are not the type of firearms I use or want, so I don't care if they ban or confiscate those!" then we have given the gun ban groups license to come back for the others you do use.

That's a pretty weak argument. I never advocated that because I personally don't care for AWs that it would be OK with me if they were banned. I've owned and shot a variety of "AW"s. They just don't ring my chimes.
Following this logic I should encourage everyone to have a Free Pistol or at least a Bullseye gun, whether or not they are interested in those disciplines.
How about a Biathlon rifle, a three position .22 target gun or even a bench rifle?
(BTW, I don't own a shotgun either.)

 

[TexasRifleman]

Does that mean I can drive up to Colorado or Texas and purchase a gun from an FFL and take posession on the spot without shipping to my FFL?

Yes that's what it means. As mentioned, this does not apply to handguns.

The reason NM and other states like Texas are changing this law is to align with Federal law.

Right now Texas law says the same.

If I flew to Alaska to hunt and needed a box of ammo, Texas law is confusing on this because if some very old wording of the law.

It's perfectly fine from a Federal standpoint.

So, states that had the old wording are simply matching their laws to the Federal wording now.

Texas just changed ours. Goes into effect Sep 1.

It's really just an administrative change at the end of the day.

 

[Mags]

Thanks for the help.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The New Mexico laws regarding out of state transactions do not PROHIBIT anything. They were written to make an allowance for contiguous states transactions in order to comply with restrictions in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Those restrictions in the Federal law were removed in 1986. So, now, NM residents may purchase a long gun from FFLs in about 45 other states where that transaction would also be legal.

The August 2004 BATFE Newsletter to FFLs explains this:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/ffl_newsltr_aug04.pdf

 

[TexasRifleman]

The New Mexico laws regarding out of state transactions do not PROHIBIT anything. They were written to make an allowance for contiguous states transactions in order to comply with restrictions in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Texas law was (well, still is til Sep 1) the same, it didn't prohibit anything.

But, since it was in there and it "allowed" contiguous state purchases I have been denied in non contiguous states because a gun shop was confused by it.

"Why have a law that permits something? If it was legal they wouldn't write a law for it" was the answer I got while trying to buy a box of ammo while in Colorado in a hunting trip.

How the store owner knew of that Texas law I didn't ask but he did in fact quote it to me correctly as he refused to sell me a box of .30-06 even though there was nothing illegal about it.

The wording was so stupid as to cause confusion.

But I guess that's pretty much the way it is with all gun laws

In fact it's the only thing in the Penal Code I have ever seen that doesn't actually prohibit anything. It's a law to tell you nothing is against the law. Stupid...

 

[NavyLCDR]

They obviously did not read the August 2004 newsletter to FFLs :banghead:

BTW, that same Texas statute also includes firearms accessories, so I guess, according to the improper interpretation, you couldn't buy slings, holsters, scopes, cases, etc. :banghead: x2

 

[Zoogster]

Correct! I keep forgetting about AWs as I have no use for them, so they're not on my radar.

"Assault weapon" is a changing term, that was defined by California law one way, then federal law another way, and now a few states and localities in different ways.
The term changes to include different types of firearms, and a current definition may not be the definition of legislation in 5-20 years.


If they declare all semi-autos were "assault weapons" or in some proposed legislation that any firearm that has ever been adopted for use by a federal agency or the military, or a firearm based on such a weapon is an "assault weapon" the definition grows. (HR 1022)

Most firearms reliable or modular firearms are based on something that at one time was a military rifle or inspired from such a design. Most common firearms have at one point been adopted by a federal LEO agency, even including revolvers or pump guns.
If legislation declares all semi-auto rifles ever adopted by a LEO agency, then all that is needed to add a rifle is the ATF or another agency official adopts it for a minor role, and it is banned.

Other legislation could declare all "sniper" platforms, or firearms similar to such platforms are "assault weapons". Bringing bolt actions into the definition.
In California any weapon, even a single shot chambered in .50 BMG is handled the same as an "assault weapon" by law.
So maybe some calibers alone begin to turn weapons into "assault weapons".
A pistol with a threaded barrel in California is an "assault weapon".

"Assault weapon" is not a real term. It is a legal term that has a different definition in different parts of the nation and the definition changes with new legislation.
It is a term that evokes emotional response. A term people think they have defined in thier minds, but changes at the whim of legislators.
So it is an effective term repeatedly used by gun banners and slowly applied to a more and more types of firearms.

 

[Zoogster]

And if applicable... if the state in which the purchaser resides has an AWB, then the sale would be prohibited by federal law.

Unless the seller is able to install or modify the features of the weapon so that it no longer is an assault weapon before the sale.
If I was to bring with me a way to legally create a "permanent" magazine "requiring a tool" to Nevada, Arizona, or Oregon and purchase an offlist (not prohibited by name) firearm and install such a device prior to the sale it would be legal.
You can purchase California legal kits to install such things for as low as $15.

So you could easily purchase such weapons in a state bordering California if the seller lets you install the device that requires no damaging alterations to the rifle prior to sale, and is as complex as unscrewing the magazine release in an AR and screwing in a new one. Then it is sale of a firearm that complies with the laws of both states.

The removal of other features if it is an "assault weapon" by feature would also make it comply with the laws of both states.