Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Group (CCRKBA) Demands Interstate Sale of Handguns

So we can ban the right of American citizens to exercise a Constitutional right just because it's too difficult for a gun dealer to manage the myriad of laws currently?

Here's a simple scenario that anybody should be able to accept as a reason to shoot the current system down:

Somebody from Alaska goes to North Dakota oil fields to work a 6 month construction gig. While there, a psycho co-worker starts harassing him and threatening his life. Is it Constitutional to refuse to allow him to buy a handgun for self defense unless he flies back to Alaska to get it from an FFL in his state of residency?

Should the laws for Alaska even apply? What if he's going to purchase the handgun in North Dakota and then sell it before he leaves?

Similarly, a cousin of mine left California in a motorhome to travel the US. Why is it illegal to allow him to purchase a firearm that is legal in every state he is going to pass through simply because his state of residency is California? He can easily sell it before going back into California (real scenario here which was only able to done via a "truck stop sale" - making him a felon if he'd been caught).

The current system is far too restrictive and creates problems on far too many fronts to be legitimate. It has to be redone.

A good argument for finding all such laws unconstitutional, and thus nullified.

Nothing good can come out of any blue state. Only fools and idiots would live in a blue state I read it here many times. CCRKBA and SAF are or at least were run out of the same building. Nothing good can come out of this just like nothing good came out of Heller and McDonald, both fought by SAF. There has to be a liberal plot behind it somewhere.

Anyone who thinks this has any chance of passing during the current administration needs to come look at this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn.

I would think one would only need to follow the laws of ones own state, whether buying or selling.
Ultimately I would think it is the buyers responsibility to know and follow the law which is what private sales of firearms is now.


http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry/FAQ-firearms

It's a court case, not a congressional bill. So.. depends on the lawyers. Hopefully Gura will get involved.

It's a court matter, not legislative.

GMTA.

Oh I agree, just pointing out what I see as the barrier.

If that group can work out a viable way to ensure that the state laws are followed, then I think their case is a shoe in.

Simply crying it's a violation of my second Amendment rights just isn't enough.

My PERSONAL feeling on the matter...If I'm legal to buy a gun, I ought to be able to buy one anywhere, and the responsibility ought to be MINE for following the law.

But unfortunately the court won't be asking for my personal feelings on the matter.

It depends on who hears the case, the administration may or may not have any say in the matter.

So why didn't the Founding Fathers and the George Washington administration set up the ATF and the myriad "gun laws" that we have to contend with now?? Why didn't they pass a Lautenberg-styled amendment that prohibited convicted domestic-abusers (was there such a thing back then?) from owning firearms?? Why weren't new firearm sales cleared with Ye Olde Database-on-Parchment???

The only "law" concerning buying firearms back then was 'bring enough cash'. That works for me and I ignore all the modern BS (at my own peril, for the naysayers on here!).

Well we don't live in that world, so we have to fight to get our rights back.