Uh no, legally (federal law, a few states restrict private transfers) you can buy as many guns as you can afford and give them as gifts to as many people as you want without involving an FFL. This is explained in the examples for question 11.a on the 4473. Why would you want to involve an FFL when you aren't legally required to?
Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party
- Thread starter peyton
- Start date
Uh no, legally (federal law, a few states restrict private transfers) you can buy as many guns as you can afford and give them as gifts to as many people as you want without involving an FFL. This is explained in the examples for question 11.a on the 4473. Why would you want to involve an FFL when you aren't legally required to?
So if I live in IL and want to give my brother in MA a Model 60, no FFL is needed? Just mail it to him? Deliver it in person?
jtpur
Member
Sorry so many of you are missing the point.
1. I can buy any legal product and give it away; or sell it for a profit.
2. I can buy a car in Florida and sell it to you in Georgia.
3. I can buy a gun for you from a private citizen no background check or forms to fill out. I can even sell it to the next guy and if I don't make living at it Im Not violating any law.
4. I have and you have a Constitutional Right to buy a gun, own a gun and otherwise bear that gun.
Kagan says the purpose of the law is to track gun purchases. Only people buying a from a FFL can get the gun tracked. Well not really but it could end the tracking.
5. finally how did this one purchase come to the attention of the Federal Government? Ladies and gents this is the scary point you miss. The other point you miss is your allegiance to a law that in effect infringes on your right of privacy, your right to keep and bear arms and your ability to not be visited by the Agents of the Federal Government. These laws did not exist in 1776. They should not exist now!!!!
1. I can buy any legal product and give it away; or sell it for a profit.
2. I can buy a car in Florida and sell it to you in Georgia.
3. I can buy a gun for you from a private citizen no background check or forms to fill out. I can even sell it to the next guy and if I don't make living at it Im Not violating any law.
4. I have and you have a Constitutional Right to buy a gun, own a gun and otherwise bear that gun.
Kagan says the purpose of the law is to track gun purchases. Only people buying a from a FFL can get the gun tracked. Well not really but it could end the tracking.
5. finally how did this one purchase come to the attention of the Federal Government? Ladies and gents this is the scary point you miss. The other point you miss is your allegiance to a law that in effect infringes on your right of privacy, your right to keep and bear arms and your ability to not be visited by the Agents of the Federal Government. These laws did not exist in 1776. They should not exist now!!!!
gordon21
Member
For those of you that did not take the time to read the entire file, let me steer you to Page labeled 21 (#23 of the file) where the paragraph starts "In addition to" and then goes on to discuss the role of a government agency (BATFE) interpreting law. Read for the next page and a half.
The majority opinion is essentially that the justices say: We don't care what the BATFE says a law means, the decision to decide that is up to the COURTS (the 9 of us).
BATFE interpretations don't mean squat. We willfully ignore their readings and rulings on the issue both before and after 1995. Frankly, we don't give a damn what a government agency says a law is supposed to mean.
WHOA!!!! The court just said that what the BATFE says its rules/laws mean isn't the final word???? Isn't the BATFE charged with the duty to interpret and apply the law??? If so, they just got their nuts ripped off.
Please go read that page and a half and tell me if I am reading that right or not.
The majority opinion is essentially that the justices say: We don't care what the BATFE says a law means, the decision to decide that is up to the COURTS (the 9 of us).
BATFE interpretations don't mean squat. We willfully ignore their readings and rulings on the issue both before and after 1995. Frankly, we don't give a damn what a government agency says a law is supposed to mean.
WHOA!!!! The court just said that what the BATFE says its rules/laws mean isn't the final word???? Isn't the BATFE charged with the duty to interpret and apply the law??? If so, they just got their nuts ripped off.
Please go read that page and a half and tell me if I am reading that right or not.
Similar threads
