2021 NH SB141

[Qwikdraw45]

Source please? The May 2020 Form 4473 which is the one currently in use has no such requirement in Section C - Question 26.a. of the instructions:

Question 26.a. Identification: Before a licensee may sell or deliver a firearm to a the person, the licensee must establish the identity, place of residence, and age of the transferee/buyer. The transferee/buyer must provide a valid government-issued photo identification document to the transferor/seller that contains the transferee’s/ buyer’s name, residence address, and date of birth. A driver’s license or an identification card issued by a State is acceptable. Social Security cards are not acceptable because no address, date of birth, or photograph is shown on the cards. Identification documents such as a driver’s license or identification card issued with binary, non-binary, or no sex designation may be used as an identification document. A combination of government-issued documents may be provided. See instructions for question 26.b. Supplemental Documentation.

If the transferee/buyer is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty acquiring a firearm in the State where his/her permanent duty station is located, but he/she has a driver’s license from another State, the transferor/seller must list the transferee’s military identification card in response to question 26.a., in addition to PCS orders as indicated in 26.c

Or is it just more dealer ignorance or making up their own rules to prevent a sale to someone they're nervous about?

I have seen several places that mention this. Runnings of Claremont had a sign mentioning that the ATF was now requiring it. My D/L is "Real ID" so it has a complete full middle name. They suggested to someone to use a vehicle registration for a supplemental document, but NH only puts a middle initial on them. Sounds like it's just one of those "regulatory changes" that the alphabet agencies get away with.

 

[FisherTech]

Source please? The May 2020 Form 4473 which is the one currently in use has no such requirement in Section C - Question 26.a. of the instructions:

Question 26.a. Identification: Before a licensee may sell or deliver a firearm to a the person, the licensee must establish the identity, place of residence, and age of the transferee/buyer. The transferee/buyer must provide a valid government-issued photo identification document to the transferor/seller that contains the transferee’s/ buyer’s name, residence address, and date of birth. A driver’s license or an identification card issued by a State is acceptable. Social Security cards are not acceptable because no address, date of birth, or photograph is shown on the cards. Identification documents such as a driver’s license or identification card issued with binary, non-binary, or no sex designation may be used as an identification document. A combination of government-issued documents may be provided. See instructions for question 26.b. Supplemental Documentation.

If the transferee/buyer is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty acquiring a firearm in the State where his/her permanent duty station is located, but he/she has a driver’s license from another State, the transferor/seller must list the transferee’s military identification card in response to question 26.a., in addition to PCS orders as indicated in 26.c

Or is it just more dealer ignorance or making up their own rules to prevent a sale to someone they're nervous about?

The Electronic 4473 form would not accept just the middle initial. So who runs the electronic 4473 form?

 

[42!]

What? Seriously. Read the bill you so asked me to provide.

I did, and the GL will still be the bitch to the Feds

 

[strangenh]

I did, and the GL will still be the bitch to the Feds

Stop. The bill provides that in the face of a federal line delay without response, one cannot proceed until 10 days have passed. Now, a 10 day delay is unusual, unless EO/staffing decisions create that as a common occurrence. Which of course they will once that's passed.

Meanwhile, state lines still run as usual, under the control of the states. Which we've shown we can kick when needed. Please don't start up the whining about the database. That's not where the delay occurs.

Please don't tell me you think it was a good idea to get rid of the state line when there was a bill in to create a de facto waiting period only for federally-run checks, that you admit you didn't even know about despite arguing to the contrary in this very thread for months?

 

[Qwikdraw45]

Stop. The bill provides that in the face of a federal line delay without response, one cannot proceed until 10 days have passed. Now, a 10 day delay is unusual, unless EO/staffing decisions create that as a common occurrence. Which of course they will once that's passed.

Meanwhile, state lines still run as usual, under the control of the states. Which we've shown we can kick when needed. Please don't start up the whining about the database. That's not where the delay occurs.

Please don't tell me you think it was a good idea to get rid of the state line when there was a bill in to create a de facto waiting period only for federally-run checks, that you admit you didn't even know about despite arguing to the contrary in this very thread for months?

State lines are run by the states - through the Feds. It's misinformation like that that helped to kill SB141.

 

[strangenh]

State lines are run by the states - through the Feds. It's misinformation like that that helped to kill SB141.

No, they do not call the feds. They use the database. The database does not throw the delay. The reviewer does.

 

[KBCraig]

So many posts, arguing about which boots to lick.

 

[42!]

Stop. The bill provides that in the face of a federal line delay without response, one cannot proceed until 10 days have passed. Now, a 10 day delay is unusual, unless EO/staffing decisions create that as a common occurrence. Which of course they will once that's passed.

Up to 10 days is not cannot proceed until 10 days.
The bill provides for up to 10 days for a response, at which point you can file for some kind of appeal. It totally sucks but it does not say you do nothing until 10 days. Just like the current law allows up to 3 days but is usually instant.
Compare this to the current state GL, which has no default or time limit.

And I want to be sure I understand you. You are saying if the Fed passed a law that imposed a waiting period, the GL would/could ignore it and there would be no consequence (the Fed shuts down the POC)? Am I getting this right?

 

[42!]

No, they do not call the feds. They use the database. The database does not throw the delay. The reviewer does.

You are right, they don't "call" the Fed, it's all done electronically. As for the results they get from the Fed, they described it as a Proceed, Deny, Delay. But that's just them directly to me, their staff counsel, so I have to assume it was accurate. They also clearly stated that a Deny from the Fed system would have to be appealed through "the Federal process" and not by their office, so no advantage their.
The GL doesn't avoid the Fed check, it doesn't offer any advantages, it will not protect you from the Fed. It's just another layer of Gov that costs the consumer time and money. All other things being equal, and they are, less Gov is better.

 

[drgrant]

Lol you guys are arguing about a dead issue at this point. The gun line sucks but there is essentially zero chance another attempt will fly politically unless sununu and like the three or four republicant gun line fornicators club is purged.

Why not save the purse fight for when the bridge can be crossed? it’s basically washed out now.

 

[strangenh]

Up to 10 days is not cannot proceed until 10 days.
The bill provides for up to 10 days for a response, at which point you can file for some kind of appeal. It totally sucks but it does not say you do nothing until 10 days. Just like the current law allows up to 3 days but is usually instant.
Compare this to the current state GL, which has no default or time limit.

And I want to be sure I understand you. You are saying if the Fed passed a law that imposed a waiting period, the GL would/could ignore it and there would be no consequence (the Fed shuts down the POC)? Am I getting this right?

It's like you're trying hard to not understand. Extending the 3-day permission to proceed if no response (which applies to the state GL, too) to 10 days is step 1. The second step is the feds reducing staffing or saying they will always take X days "to be sure." The state functions independently of that.

The US House passed the bill to make that 3 day proceed into 10 days - while our own kill-the-gun-line bill was in play in NH - fortunately, this time, that fed bill stopped in the Senate.

I think either you misunderstood your source or he didn't relate the point well. As has been cited in this very thread, states issue a "proceed" when the fed line would not. That is patently out of line with your assertion the fed line issues the state line the "Proceed, Deny, Delay."

ETA - like @drgrant says, the point is presently moot. Without that federal bill in play at exactly the same time, I think almost every R would have been for getting rid of the state POC. I know I would have been. But not with that fed bill looming over us. It just all screamed "trap." Like I said throughout this thread, it was a complicated issue at the time.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

So many posts, arguing about which boots to lick.

Right? This is the one annoying thing I have encountered since settling here.

 

[Blackmore]

I have seen several places that mention this. Runnings of Claremont had a sign mentioning that the ATF was now requiring it. My D/L is "Real ID" so it has a complete full middle name. They suggested to someone to use a vehicle registration for a supplemental document, but NH only puts a middle initial on them. Sounds like it's just one of those "regulatory changes" that the alphabet agencies get away with.

I did a handgun transfer last week. Fully spelled out my middle name on the paper form as I've had to do for decades. No problem using my NH-DL with just a middle initial as ID.

My passport and passport card both have my middle name in full. Per Section C - Question 26.b. Supplemental Documentation, either would qualify in conjuction with my NH-DL to satisfy this new "requirement". If this is indeed some sort of administrative rule sneaked in under the radar, consider this:

Only 37% of the US population holds a valid passport and that's certainly the most common ID that spells out your middle name. If true, this looks like a cynical way to jam up nearly 2/3 of the population who otherwise - barring other disqualifiers - are perfectly entitled to buy a firearm.

 

[FisherTech]

Well it has been over 48 hours since I completed the form for the revolver, and no reply yet from Runnings in Hinsdale as to what Concord has to say.