SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

Since when does one have to buy firearms only in ones home state? I bought a shotgun and a pistol (legally) in Maine while being a resident of Rhode Island though that was 10 years or so ago. Have the laws changed since then?

If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

[August]

Originally Posted by seafarer

If you buy a handgun from out of state, Federal Law requires that it be shipped across state lines to a local FFL dealer who does the background checks and actually handles the final transaction to you. Without a local FFL willing and able to handle the transaction, it is illegal for someone to purchase a handgun out of their state and transport it across state lines to get it home.

(P.S. I don't own any long guns, and know that the rules are different for them, so don't know if the above applies)

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I.

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers). Federal Law mandates that the way such sales are supposed to be done is you pay for the handgun at the out of state dealer, but he/she must ship it directly to another FFL dealer in your state of residence, where you will then go, have your NICS background check done (and meet all local and state requirements) and then finally receive your handgun. The local FFL dealer will of course charge some nominal fee (it's usually not very much) for handling the transaction for you.

[seafarer]

Originally Posted by August

So you're saying my handgun was purchased illegally?

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I.

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers).

But, 10 years ago I wasn't even living in the US, so maybe it was different then?

[August]

Originally Posted by seafarer

I don't know the dates of various portions of the code but the section is USC title 18, part I.

So if you, as a resident of one state, went to another state, bought a handgun and transported it yourself back to your home state, yes, that is illegal. In fact, it would have been illegal for the dealer in the out of state shop to have sold it to you in the first place (he/she is supposed to check state residency of all purchasers). Federal Law mandates that the way such sales are supposed to be done is you pay for the handgun at the out of state dealer, but he/she must ship it directly to another FFL dealer in your state of residence, where you will then go, have your NICS background check done (and meet all local and state requirements) and then finally receive your handgun. The local FFL dealer will of course charge some nominal fee (it's usually not very much) for handling the transaction for you.

Thank you. Apparently i did not purchase my handgun illegally:

Title 18 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 2, 2006.

I bought mine in the mid 1990s.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe

I apologize, the correct term was "common use," not "ordinary use." There is room for interpretation as to what is "common" and what is not, but Justice Scalia has all but declared that the M-16 is not in common use. So the few people that pay the draconian taxes and own them in states that allow them too is apparently not enough to make any of those uses "common" enough for the weapon to be protected.

Quite the contrary. The M-16 has millions in use - not even thousands - millions! And i bet there are are least 100K in civi hands out there - fully automatic!

And if you read the 2nd A, you will see that it specifically calls out what guns are in military use, which means we should have access to M-16's if we want.

Anyway on another subject, I figured you Brits would get a kick out of this:

During World War II, many NRA members sent their privately owned firearms to the people of England to help defend against the Nazi onslaught. This effort was necessary because the British populace had been disarmed by Draconian gun control laws.

-S

PS. i find this interesting too:

A survey of prison inmates indicated that only 0.7% had obtained their firearms from gun shows. ("Firearm Use by Offenders," Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2000)

[Molon Labe]

I hope you're right. But J. Scalia's opinion pointed out the M-16 in particular as something that might be banned under the standard he articulared.