Details- Sponsor - Gingrey
- Proposed - March 17, 2005
- Congressional Record Link - HR1384
- Amends - None.
- Amendments - None.
- Vote - None yet.
- Results - No change in law.
StatusMarch 17, 2005 - Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. April 4, 2005 - Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. May 3, 2006 - Judiciary Committee hearing on H.R.1384. May 11, 2006 - Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held. May 18, 2006 - Passed back to the full Judiciary Committee without amendment. As of this date, H.R.1384 has 45 cosponsors. June 21, 2006 - This bill now has 79 cosponsors. July 26, 2006 - Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled. No work done.
SynopsisFrom the NRA: HR1384 removes some legal restrictions related to firearms transactions between FFL licensees and between FFL licensees and nonlicensees with regard to state boundaries. The following is a bill summary provided by the office of Congresswoman Musgrave: Expected Benefits
1) Taking Advantage of Modern Technology. Currently, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) may sell rifles or shotguns to residents of another state, provided that the sale complies with the laws of both states. (Federally licensed firearms dealers are provided with a BATFE publication containing those laws and are presumed to have knowledge of them.) Originally intended to allow states to enforce their own background check or permit requirements while allowing sales between states with minor differences in laws, this provision now blocks many sales to law-abiding citizens.
This proposal would allow an FFL to sell and deliver any firearm over-the-counter to an out-of-State nonlicensee at the seller's permanent licensed premises, provided that the laws of both States are complied with. Today, all firearms sales are subject to federal background check requirements, either through NICS, through a state instant check system acting as a NICS “point of contact,” or through a state permit system. These systems are much better able to block unlawful sales than the rudimentary background checks envisioned in 1968.
Current law only allows interstate sales of long guns; the proposed language would allow sales of handguns as well, subject to the same requirements for legality under state law, background checks, record keeping, etc. Currently, handguns must be shipped by the licensee to another licensee in the purchaser's State of residence, then transferred by the other licensee to the purchaser. The proposed language would eliminate the need for involving a licensee in the purchaser's State. By eliminating that additional, unnecessary transfer between dealers, the bill would speed gun traces by shortening the paper trail involved.
2) Removing Outdated Restrictions on Licensed Dealers. Under the proposed language, FFLs would be able to transfer any firearm that they could transfer at their licensed premises, at any gun show in the nation--as long as the transfer to the nonlicensed person is permitted under the laws of the State in which the transfer is actually conducted (where the gun show is located), and the laws of the State in which the transferee resides.
For dealers this has implications as well. For example, an Arizona dealer travels to Las Vegas to be an exhibitor at a gun show. If he wishes to sell to a Nevada resident, he may do so if the Nevada resident is eligible to purchase, and if the Arizona dealer can, under Nevada law, sell a gun in Nevada. The same would be true if the customer were a Utah resident, except that both Nevada and Utah law must now permit the sale. In order to make direct gun sales and transfers in Nevada, the Arizona dealer may have to become a “Nevada” dealer. This may require registration as a dealer with the Nevada and Las Vegas authorities, a business license, sales tax registration and other licensing, if Nevada permits such an arrangement. The process may be worth it to the Arizona dealer, as it would be to many dealers, who travel to the Las Vegas and other out-of-State shows several times a year.
3) Reducing Gun Theft and Loss During Shipping. In addition to statutory limits on retail sales, BATFE has a longstanding interpretation of the Gun Control Act that forbids licensed dealers from transferring firearms to other licensed dealers, face to face, away from their licensed premises. Even though the individuals conducting the transactions are licensed dealers who have already had a thorough background check, under the current interpretation, dealers are forced to return to their business premises and ship firearms to each other by common carrier, with the attendant risk of loss or theft.
Under this bill, dealers could transfer any firearm face to face “off premises” to another dealer anywhere in the nation. “Off premises” means anywhere in the United States, not just at a gun show. For the Arizona dealer in the above example, this may prove to be an attractive alternative to becoming a Nevada dealer. Since the “curio or relic” restriction on face-to-face dealer transfers is lifted in this amendment, the Arizona dealer can have a regular arrangement with a Nevada dealer at the show. When the Arizona dealer wants to make a sale, he can transfer the item into the Nevada dealer’s inventory and bound book, and let the Nevada dealer transfer it to the customer.
Finally, it must be remembered that all business with nonlicensees could only take place at the dealer’s licensed premises or at a “temporary” location. Gun shows are the only temporary locations permitted currently. It is beyond the scope of this amendment to change the definition of gun shows, except to remove the limitation that a dealer can only do business at an in-state gun show.
AnalysisInterstate transactions between FFL licensees and nonlicensees was first prohibited by GCA68. At that point in time, communications capabilities were nowhere near what they are now. The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 opened up nationwide purchase of long arms. We have NICS implemented at the national level and local information feeding into it. If the restrictions were ever justified, they no longer are as national background checks are our normal way of doing business. If this bill were to pass, states such as Maryland would instantly want to criminalize importation of firearms bought in other states by their citizens. We would need to be prepared.
Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |