Gun Shop vs Gun Rights

[Magoo541]

I worked at a gun shop's anniversary event over the weekend and an issue came up that caused some friction between the shop and our organization-http://www.oregonfirearms.org/

Our organization states that if your gun shop does not release a firearm after 3 days of Form 4473 you need to find a new gun shop.  This is based off of Federal law and our belief that a right delayed is a right denied (MLK Jr.).  The gun shop in question has a 30 day policy, which puts them at odds with our position-hence the friction.  Discussing their decision with one of the owners another shop was referred to that released firearms after 3 days and had an ATF anal exam.  I asked if there were any fines assessed and he didn't know (which led me to question how much he really knew).  He went on to say that they like their ATF agents and the agents were former Spec Ops and "you don't really want to piss off Spec Ops (ATF) guys".

I let my boss know and he sent an email something like:

Why do you think you would piss off ATF and lose your business?  Federal law specifically protects you.  How does ATF even enter into this?  This is a local police issue.

I know dealers, including my club, that do transfers and have never had a problem.  The law is the law.   You can do everything they want and still piss off ATF, but that does not change the law.

Why do you think transferring after 30 days without an approval is ok but not  after 3 days?  HB 4147*** would have said you could never transfer, and then they made it 10 to 15 days.

If that had passed when would you have agreed to do a transfer?

***HB 4147 is a bill we are trying to defeat this session here in Oregon and we are almost there!

I know that within our community some are in it to make a living and not much else.  At the other end of the spectrum are those that will turn down business to States that infringe on citizens rights.  This shop has supported us from the beginning of their business (3 years) but at what point, and to what degree, should we expect those in the industry to tow the line?

:rant off:

[vincewarde]

I think there are two things that play into this issue:

1) What the law should be.  IMHO there has to be some point at which - after never receiving word from NICS, the sale should be able to proceed.  If that doesn't exist, then they could simply stop processing background checks and end all sales.  Is three days a bit short?  Probably - however they will likely run up against any deadline that is set.

2) The ability and moral responsibility of gun sellers to refuse to sell a firearm to someone they suspect of being prohibited and/or dangerous.  If someone walks in who is obviously profoundly mentally ill, I don't care if they can pass a NICS check - I want them to refuse the sale and call the cops.  This person needs help and calling the cops might get them that help - and maybe, just maybe prevent something horrible from happening.

Just my 2 cents worth......

[Magoo541]

I think there are two things that play into this issue:

1) What the law should be.  IMHO there has to be some point at which - after never receiving word from NICS, the sale should be able to proceed.  If that doesn't exist, then they could simply stop processing background checks and end all sales.  Is three days a bit short?  Probably - however they will likely run up against any deadline that is set.

IMHO there should be no background checks, that is what "shall not be infringed" means.

2) The ability and moral responsibility of gun sellers to refuse to sell a firearm to someone they suspect of being prohibited and/or dangerous.  If someone walks in who is obviously profoundly mentally ill, I don't care if they can pass a NICS check - I want them to refuse the sale and call the cops.  This person needs help and calling the cops might get them that help - and maybe, just maybe prevent something horrible from happening.

Just my 2 cents worth......

Gun sellers can deny any one at any time for any reason under the law, which is not infringing on anyone's rights (the way it ought to be).  The issue here is if you won't release a firearm to a customer after 3 days then why would you do it after 30 days?  The law protects you either way.

As for preventing anything bad from happening preemptively, that is a fairy tale.  We have a duty to our communities to ensure they are safe, beyond just hiring a bunch of guys, giving them a little training and a badge. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and will acquire or make any weapon they need regardless of the law.

[TAB]

I have said it for years, guns should be cash and carry

[Jim Kennedy-ar154me]

I have said it for years, guns should be cash and carry

Pre 1968

[Sponsor]

[fatbaldguy]

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store.  Just sayin.

[Big Frank]

IMHO there should be no background checks, that is what "shall not be infringed" means.

Gun sellers can deny any one at any time for any reason under the law, which is not infringing on anyone's rights (the way it ought to be).  The issue here is if you won't release a firearm to a customer after 3 days then why would you do it after 30 days?  The law protects you either way.

As for preventing anything bad from happening preemptively, that is a fairy tale.  We have a duty to our communities to ensure they are safe, beyond just hiring a bunch of guys, giving them a little training and a badge. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and will acquire or make any weapon they need regardless of the law.

I think it was in Houston that a group of about 10 tore the doors off a gun store with a truck and chain and made off with something like 40 guns. I just saw the video today. You can't stop criminals from engaging in criminal behavior. It's in their nature.

[PegLeg45]

I think it was in Houston that a group of about 10 tore the doors off a gun store with a truck and chain and made off with something like 40 guns. I just saw the video today. You can't stop criminals from engaging in criminal behavior. It's in their nature.

Only one effective way to do that....and the libtards are trying as hard as they can to remove that ability from law-abiding citizens.

[MikeBjerum]

Federal law states that you can complete the transaction if the approval is not received within 72 hours!

Sorry, but I don't shop at Sarah Brady's Gun Shop!

[vincewarde]

IMHO there should be no background checks, that is what "shall not be infringed" means.

No constitutional right is absolute.  Not every gun law - in the opinion of SCOTUS (and that's what counts) - constitutes an infringement.

As applied to the subject of background checks, given that Heller makes it clear that felons and severely mentally ill persons may be forbidden to own and possess firearms.  Given this fact, at least some background checks are, therefore likely constitutional.  (This does not mean they are effective, just that under Heller they are likely constitutional.)

However, this does not mean that background checks could not constitute an infringement upon our 2nd Amendment rights.  Waiting periods have already been ruled unconstitutional.  A background check system that is not effectively instant the vast majority of the time and/or has no time limit is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Of course, if we lose the upcoming election or the RINOs cave and confirm an Obama appointment, then Heller will likely be over turned and we will have to do our best to pass an amendment to restore our 2nd Amendment rights.