H.R. 1384: Firearm Commerce Modernization Act
The bill is here. What it does:
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to update certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions.
Specifically:
1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INTERSTATE FIREARMS
2 TRANSACTIONS.
3 (a) FIREARMS DISPOSITIONS.–Section 922(b)(3) of
4 title 18, United States Code, is amended–
5 (1) by striking “rifle or shotgun” and inserting
6 “firearm”; and
7 (2) in subparagraph (A)–
8 (A) by striking “located,” and inserting
9 “located or temporarily located,”; and
10 (B) by striking “both such States” and in-
11 serting “the State in which the transfer is con-
12 ducted and the State of residence of the trans-
13 feree”.
14 (b) DEALER LOCATION.–Section 923(j) of such title
15 is amended–
16 (1) in the first sentence by striking “, and such
17 location is in the State which is specified on the li-
18 cense”;
19 (2) by striking “ `curios or relics’ ”; and
20 (3) by adding at the end the following: “A li-
21 censee may conduct firearms transfers and business
22 in compliance with applicable State and local law
23 with any person not a licensee at any location at
24 which the licensee may conduct business under this
25 chapter.”.
In other words, it replaces shotguns and rifles with firearms, which would mean you could purchase handguns out of state. And firearms dealers, it seems, would be able to ship firearms to individuals instead of just to other FFL holders.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
I suspect if this passes it will reduce the number of FFL’s / “Gun Dealers” considerably. It may end up being of mixed value, sure it will be easier and cheaper to purchase guns in the short term, in the long term it “could” make it much easier to crack down on the remaining dealers and restrict supply through “Common Sense Gun laws”.
“It is not paranoid if they are actually out to get you.”
March 17th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
DOA.
Its a nice sentiment, and I’d be thrilled to see it re-introduced in January when they come back in, but right now I’d say it has little chance of seeing the light of day in the 109th Congress.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
First, I agree that it has little chance of passage.
But, I think it does provide value. Those interested in how our Representatives really think may get an inkling by looking at the list of cosponsors. Of course, that could be just smoke if they know the bill has no chance.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
I’m not sure if this would actually change much. If I were buying an out of state firearm in PA, I’d still need to ship it to an FFL because I need someone to do the state-required transfer before I take possession of it.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
It was safe to endorse the “Contract with America” too. Although they used it to help gain control of congress, they knew the sitting president would veto just about everything anyway. The promise was to bring said items to a floor vote, and they did.
But now with those Poly-tick-ans that spell their names with an “R” have congress and the executive branch, you don’t really hear that much about said contract. The best part, at least from them critters’ points-of-view, is that the “D” Poly-tick-ans ain’t gonna bring that contract back up again either.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I doubt it would change much. Weren’t you able to buy guns from the Sears and Roebuck catalogs as late as the 1960s? And I don’t ever remember reading about a shortage of gun dealers back then.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
I have to disagree with you about the last bit.
Nothing has gotten rid of the 4473 and signing thereof, nor has anything gotten rid of 922(a)(2) about shipping firearms interstate to non-licensees. C&R transfers are still transfers between licensees, the only thing covered in that sentence.
So no mailing of firearms like before 68 GCA. This is a good baby step though.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Beer, could be. I took it to mean that handguns, rifles and shotguns would be the same. And that licensees could do interstate commerce with non-licensees.
March 18th, 2006 at 12:34 am
Thats the problem, they still wouldnt be able to. They would be able to travel interstate and do business with non-licenscees face to face in any firearms they could legally sell.
Right now the ATF can go after dealers who go to out of state gun shows and sell guns there. They also get in trouble if they sell handguns to out of state residents.
See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_hern.txt for an example of an FFL being prosecuted for selling guns at an out of state gun show and transferring them through a local dealer at the show.
There is no restriction on FFLs sending stuff to each other other than recording the disposition in the bound book.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
[…] Gun Law News points to a true american Hero. A shame he was un armed by law. Harold might be alive today, if he had a gun himself. Say Uncle points to some interesting legeslation. […]