Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jgorniak, Mar 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jgorniak

    jgorniak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Over by here...
    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...
     
  2. Gator

    Gator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    2,231
    Location:
    Stuck in Crook Co., IL
    Reasoning? You're looking for reason in Federal gun laws? :rolleyes:
     
  3. rocinante

    rocinante Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,306
    Location:
    Alpharetta GA
    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.
     
  4. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    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.
     
  5. jgorniak

    jgorniak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Over by here...
    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.
     
  6. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    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.
     
  7. SDC

    SDC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,116
    Location:
    People's Republic of Canada
    Probably based on the "interstate commerce" clause that so many OTHER federal laws are based on.
     
  8. jephthai

    jephthai Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2007
    Messages:
    21
    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-
     
  9. mekender

    mekender Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    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
     
  10. jgorniak

    jgorniak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Over by here...
    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.
     
  11. Telperion

    Telperion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  12. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,916
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    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.

    Code:
    [size=2]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 [/size]
    [sarcasm]
    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.[/sarcasm]
     
  13. nicki

    nicki Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Fresno ca
    Gca 1968

    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
     
  14. jgorniak

    jgorniak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Over by here...
    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.
     
  15. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    There was a bill in Congress recently that would have ended this nonsense.
     
  16. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,470
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    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)
    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.
     
  17. lance22

    lance22 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    626
    Location:
    Minn Uh So Tah
    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.
     
  18. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Today, that is really the only effect.

    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
     
  19. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    Just 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?


    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.
     
  20. coat4gun

    coat4gun Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    SE, PA
    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.
     
  21. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    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. 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.
     
  22. brighamr

    brighamr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,179
    Location:
    somewhere between utah and canada
    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.
     
  23. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    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.
     
  24. mekender

    mekender Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    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
     
  25. Neener Neener

    Neener Neener Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    99
    Location:
    Rincon, Ga
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page