Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

[gilligan]

Just signed up for TFC.

[baldeagle]

Just signed up for TFC.

Thank you. Now we only need 99,800 more.

[baldeagle]

This is interesting. An attorney has written a letter to Senator Cruz outlining the meaning of recent Supreme Court decisions. Among other things, he wrote this:

Federal law has long defined what constitutes “commercial sale” of arms. A person is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (and become subject to many conditions and qualifications when selling arms) if the person is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. This means:

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(D). Of course a person who is “engaged in the business,” but who does not have a FFL, is guilty of a federal felony every time he sells a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§922(a), 924.

Currently, the federal NICS law matches the constitutional standard set forth in Heller. NICS applies to all sales by persons who are “engaged in the business” (FFLs) and does not apply to transfers by persons who are not “engaged in the business.”

So it would appear that people who regularly set up booths and sell guns at gun shows would be in violation of federal law. It would also appear that requiring them to do background checks would be constitutional. It would not, however, be constitutional to require an individual who happened to sell a gun at a gun show to perform a background check.

[Jeff Barriault]

This is interesting. An attorney has written a letter to Senator Cruz outlining the meaning of recent Supreme Court decisions. Among other things, he wrote this:

Federal law has long defined what constitutes “commercial sale” of arms. A person is required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (and become subject to many conditions and qualifications when selling arms) if the person is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. This means:

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

18 U.S.C. §921(a)(21)(D). Of course a person who is “engaged in the business,” but who does not have a FFL, is guilty of a federal felony every time he sells a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§922(a), 924.

Currently, the federal NICS law matches the constitutional standard set forth in Heller. NICS applies to all sales by persons who are “engaged in the business” (FFLs) and does not apply to transfers by persons who are not “engaged in the business.”

So it would appear that people who regularly set up booths and sell guns at gun shows would be in violation of federal law. It would also appear that requiring them to do background checks would be constitutional. It would not, however, be constitutional to require an individual who happened to sell a gun at a gun show to perform a background check.

Well that all depends on weather or not you think the Supreme Court's twisted interpretation of the commerce clause is constitutional. Can the feds regulate the sale of intrastate (within the state) firearms? They get away with it now, but HB627 directly challenges the federal government's authority in that area.