I don’t know if this is true, but I have a theory about the in-state rule.
In 1968, when the law was passed, NCIC was in its infancy. It was always time-consumung and often practically impossible to get criminal records from two or three states away, and some states had not yet computerized their records. (And immigration records were not computerized till the 1980s.) Therefore, the only way to insure that firearms would not inadvertently be sold to a prohibited person was to force the buyer to buy in his home state, where records would presumably be available and retrievable.
Of course, this idea had holes in it (felons move out of state, too), and now, of course, nationwide NICS checks are instantaneous. So this part of the law is outdated.
November 20th, 2018 at 7:16 pm
To The Supreme Court.
November 21st, 2018 at 4:50 pm
I don’t know if this is true, but I have a theory about the in-state rule.
In 1968, when the law was passed, NCIC was in its infancy. It was always time-consumung and often practically impossible to get criminal records from two or three states away, and some states had not yet computerized their records. (And immigration records were not computerized till the 1980s.) Therefore, the only way to insure that firearms would not inadvertently be sold to a prohibited person was to force the buyer to buy in his home state, where records would presumably be available and retrievable.
Of course, this idea had holes in it (felons move out of state, too), and now, of course, nationwide NICS checks are instantaneous. So this part of the law is outdated.
November 23rd, 2018 at 6:12 pm
Go Rick!!