|Armed and Gregarious|
Unfortunately Mr. Wareham is wrong, and if he really has a FFL he should know that.
May a licensee sell a firearm to a nonlicensee who is a resident of another State?
Generally, a firearm may not lawfully be sold by a licensee to a nonlicensee who resides in a State other than the State in which the seller’s licensed premises is located. However, the sale may be made if the firearm is shipped to a licensee whose business is in the purchaser’s State of residence and the purchaser takes delivery of the firearm from the licensee in his or her State of residence. In addition, a licensee may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person who is not a resident of the State where the licensee’s business premises is located in an over–the–counter transaction, provided the transaction complies with State law in the State where the licensee is located and in the State where the purchaser resides.
[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.99(a)]
. . .It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver— . . .
. . . any firearm to any person who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the licensee’s place of business is located, except that this paragraph (A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States), and (B) shall not apply to the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes; . . .
Every FFL is made aware of this when going through the inspection process to get their license, and during any follow up inspections.
However, that federal statute only applies to firearms, as defined in the US Code.
Is there anything that makes it illegal for a CO resident to own a Ruger AR-556? Because the information regarding Kelley's firearms disability was not in NICS, if the Ruger AR-556 is legal for a CO resident to purchase and possess, under CO law, then I don't see how the a Texas FFL would be in violation of 18USC922(b)(3). However, maybe I'm missing something with regard to the transaction, or CO state law, with regard to the Ruger AR-556.
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
Quite honestly, having never purchased a long gun in person while out of state, I had forgotten about this provision in the law and hadn't considered it in my analysis of this story, so thanks for pointing it out!
There are some pertinent questions remaining regarding the facts not in evidence, at least not in the article I linked to.
I am particularly interested to know how the killer's state of residence was determined. Did the killer lie on the 4473? Did the killer recently move to Texas but failed to change his legal state of residence? Did the Academy Sports clerk who sold the gun check the killer's valid ID?
Regarding your question, NO, there is nothing in CO law that would prohibit any resident legally permitted to own any gun from buying/selling/owning/possessing a Ruger AR-556, or any such similar gun.
Five years ago, a CO law was passed that prohibited the manufacturing/sale/ or transfer of possession (temporary or permanent) of magazines > 15 rnd capacity for semi-auto center-fire guns. (a couple cities have passed local laws limiting mag capacity to 10 rnds.) Magazines > 15 rnds owned prior to enactment of the law were "grandfathered".
As with many gun laws, this law is so poorly conceived and so poorly worded that it fails to address practical considerations or even practical enforcement. One example, since the law grandfathers > 15 rnd mags owned at the time the law went into effect, what if an out-of-state resident visits CO or perhaps comes to participate in training or a competition and has mags that were owned prior to law enactment. Or, what if an out-of-state resident owned banned mags prior to law enactment and wants to move to CO.
In my very-not-a-legal-expert opinion the plaintiffs in this case have adopted the strategy of tossing several arguments out and seeing if any stick. IF the killer's domestic abuse and Bad Conduct discharge had been submitted and entered into the background check system then that would have prevented him from buying a gun. However, as you rightly point out, Academy can hardly be faulted for this failure.
So, I think they are trying to hang their hat on the argument that the clerk couldn't legally sell the standard capacity mag to the killer.
Next stop, CO Supreme Court.
[Not that it has any bearing on the article, but the actual article link has a picture of Magpul workers packaging standard capacity mags.]
Colorado Court of Appeals upholds state’s ban on large-capacity magazines
By: Marianne Goodland
Chief legislative reporter
Oct 18, 2018
The Colorado Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion issued Thursday, upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines of 15 rounds or more.
The lawsuit dates back to the contentious 2013 legislative session in which Democrats, who controlled both the House and Senate, passed a trio of gun-control laws, including one that banned ownership of an ammunition magazine with 15 rounds or more.
The case was brought by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Several other groups also signed on with the plaintiffs, including the Colorado Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association; Sheriffs Chad Day of Yuma County, Shannon K. Byerly of Custer County, Steve Reams of Weld County and Sam Zordel of Prowers County; and the Independence Institute.
The appeals court concluded that the logic for passing a ban on large-capacity magazines was based on a “legitimate governmental interest in public health and safety.” In their opinion, the justices pointed out that there have been 27 mass shootings in Colorado that used large-capacity magazines between 1999 and 2016. That contrasts with 11 mass shootings involving large-capacity magazines in the period between 1967 and 1968, the opinion noted.
Colorado’s ability to regulate guns centers around a 1994 case, Robertson v. City of Denver. In that case, the Colorado Supreme Court decided “the state may regulate the exercise of [the right to bear arms] under its inherent police power so long as the exercise of that power is reasonable.”
The legislature’s intent in passing the 2013 law was a “legitimate governmental purposes of reducing deaths from mass shootings,” the opinion stated. And while the plaintiffs argued that the 2013 law hasn’t made a dent in overall gun violence or deaths from guns, the appeals court said that “legislation need not solve all gun problems to be constitutional. … We conclude that the statutes burden only a person’s opportunity to use [a large-capacity magazine], not a person’s right to bear arms in self-defense.”
RMGO’s appeal came after the Denver District Court ruled against the original case. The lower court found that the plaintiffs’ claim that the statutes make “almost all magazines and semiautomatic weapons illegal” turned on an unreasonable reading of the statutory definition of a large-capacity magazine.
The RMGO appeal of the District Court’s ruling centered on two arguments: that magazine ban should “be subject to a heightened standard of review” and that the statute was unconstitutional because it would ban “an overwhelming majority of magazines.”
The appeals court disagreed with both assertions, stating even if they considered the statutory law “ambiguous, the legislative purpose is to reduce the number of people who are killed or shot in mass shootings, not to ban all gun magazines,” the opinion stated. Further, the statute does not prevent Coloradans from exercising their constitutional right of self-defense, the opinion indicated.
Curiously, the plaintiffs didn’t assert that the 2013 law violated their 2nd Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, only their rights under the state constitution. According to attorney Christopher Jackson, there’s a big difference. Colorado’s version of the 2nd Amendment includes language not found in the U.S. Constitution. It states that a person has a right to “keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned.”
The case can’t be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Jackson. But the plaintiffs can, and he believes will, appeal to the state Supreme Court, and seek for a standard of review different than the one created by the Robertson case.
And he’s right on that. Dudley Brown, executive director of RMGO, told Colorado Politics the group will appeal Thursday’s ruling, which he said was not unexpected. “From day one we knew this was a long haul through the courts, made more difficult by a Republican Attorney General who clearly wants to keep this magazine ban on Colorado’s books,” Brown said.
This alone is reason to take this to the REAL Supreme court.
NIKE- The Swoosh with a Douche
I thought you all might find this interesting. As you all know in 2013, the Democrat controlled Colorado legislature and governor imposed a host of gun-control laws on Colorado, with the goal of saving lives and reducing crime. With 5 years of post-law data out, we can now see what the long term effect the 2013 laws had on crime, and violence in Colorado.
In 2011, after hitting an over-50 year low in 2010, the murder rate in Colorado started to rise at about the same rate it had been declining for the past 30 years. The gun-control laws implemented in 2013 have done nothing to change or abate that rise.
All the violent crime rates in Colorado (murder, assault, forcible rape, and robbery) have been rising since or before 2013. The 2013 gun-control laws have done nothing to slow or reverse any of them. In short, the laws are ineffectual and aren't working.
Loyalty Above All Else, Except Honor
|Spread the Disease|
I’m. So. Shocked.
-- Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past me I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. --
Not that this should come as a surprise ...
[there are public comments in the linked article for those interested]
Rep-Elect Tom Sullivan, Whose Son Died In Aurora, Will Co-Sponsor Red Flag Gun Bill
BY MICHELLE P. FULCHER | MICHELLE.FULCHER@CPR.ORG
DEC 5, 2018
Freshman lawmaker Tom Sullivan, whose son died in the Aurora theater shooting, will be the lead house sponsor of a red flag gun bill in the upcoming legislative session.
Red flag measures allow judges to issue temporary orders to confiscate guns owned by people who are deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. Family, friends or members of law enforcement could make a request to a judge.
"It saves lives. And that’s what this is all about, saving lives," Sullivan said.
Sullivan's election to the state House was part of a blue wave in Colorado. Now he's leading a renewed effort for the legislation.
A previous red flag bill died in the Republican-controlled state senate last session.
Democrats reclaimed control of the governor's office and both legislative houses in the November election. They've since said a new red flag bill is near the top of their agenda. Sullivan, who lives in Centennial, represents several of Denver's southern suburbs.
A top Democratic lawmaker, House Majority leader Alec Garnett of Denver, will co-sponsor the new bill. Garnett spearheaded the 2018 legislation.
Sullivan said he doesn't believe a red flag law would have stopped the shooting that killed his son and 11 others, although some people were aware of the shooter's mental problems. Mass shootings are rare, he said, so the bill is more likely to prevent suicides.
Firearms were involved in half of all suicides in Colorado in 2o17, according to the Colorado Health Institute. And in 2016, the majority of all firearm deaths were suicides, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
"That’s what is happening. The extreme things like what happened to us ... those are the extraordinary type things," Sullivan said. "What happens is people’s easy access to a firearm when they’re in the throes of a mental problem."
The last red flag gun bill in Colorado lived a short, contentious life. Opponents argued the legislation could be misused by people with an ax to grind against a gun owner, or violate Second Amendment rights.
Sullivan wants to talk through differences across the aisle with the help of experts. But he isn't backing down from the bill, nor is he worried about claims from Republicans that Democrats may overreach with the power of a political trifecta.
"This is what we’re going to do, and this is not an overreach," Sullivan said. "We were elected to go in there and govern, and that’s what we’re going to do."
Sullivan's commitment to the red flag bill stems in part from his belief that enacting the legislation will serve as a thank you to the community that supported his family after his son's death.
"It’s not about me. It’s about the community that I live in," he said.
Alex's funeral drew an overflow crowd, he said. When he stepped up to give his son's eulogy, he took a moment and looked at those in the sanctuary. He saw the governor, the mayor, the chief of police, shooting survivors, Alex’s friends, and first responders who were at the theater.
"I thought to myself, ‘I don’t know how, and I don’t know when, but I will find a way to thank each and everyone of these people who are here this day, who have been supportive of my family, who have shown us the empathy and compassion for us to be able to get through this,' " Sullivan said.
"And I think this is how I can do it."
The Boulder so-called "assault weapons" ban is in place and requires that those with grand-fathered firearms go through the "certification" process with a deadline of 12-27-18.
[There are public comments in the linked article for those interested]
Massive Noncompliance to Boulder, Colorado, Assault Weapons Ban
Thursday, 06 December 2018
Written by Bob Adelmann
In May, in a fit of righteous do-goodism, the Boulder, Colorado, city council unanimously banned the sale or possession of so-called assault weapons along with high-capacity magazines and “bump stocks.” As a sop to those among the city’s 100,000 residents who already owned firearms, current possession of such items was grandfathered in. All that was needed was that, by December 27, a firearm owned prior to passage of the law would need to be “certified” by the local police department. A fee would be charged per weapon, and a background check run on the owner.
If the owner cleared the background check, and his check cleared the bank, he would then be issued two “certificates of ownership” showing the particulars of the firearm and the date it was issued: one to be kept with the firearm, the other to be kept somewhere safe, just in case the first one was lost or misplaced.
The city council promised that there would be no records kept, and no registration as a precursor to future confiscation. Compliance, for all practical purposes, would be left up to the gun-owning citizens themselves.
Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr said that anyone found with a “non-certified” firearm in his possession after December 27 would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and (not or) 90 days in jail. The now-illegal firearm would be confiscated and destroyed.
Carr questioned just how many citizens in the enclave known as “the Peoples’ Republic of Boulder” would comply with the demand that their grandfathered firearms be certified: “This is a very divisive issue where people have strong feelings. The folks who oppose these kinds of bans … some of them suggest they’re not going to cooperate. I can’t predict what people are going to do, but I respect their feelings.”
One of those who “suggested” he wouldn’t be complying is Jon Caldera, a resident of Boulder, president of the free-market think-tank the Independence Institute, and a well-known activist in the freedom fight in Denver and Boulder. His letter of defiance was published by the Denver Post in May: “My home town of Boulder is about to define me as a criminal if I do not disarm or move. Let this column serve as a public notice: I will not comply.”
After writing of his history as a citizen of the once “red” but now “blue” Colorado, and his disappointment with the typical liberal response to gun violence by criminalizing the innocent, he reiterated his defiance: “Let it be known, like those who refused to go to the back of the bus, I will not surrender or destroy my guns, nor will I place my name on a government watch list.”
If national averages of gun ownership are applied to the citizens of Boulder, then there are one or more firearms per citizen, most of them owned before the ban. Roughly speaking, that means there are approximately 150,000 firearms that need to be “certified” by December 27.
As of December 1, the Boulder Police Department had certified 85 of them.
An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at email@example.com.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 ... 12 13 14 15|