If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Talking only fed law here: In the sale, the onus is on the seller. In the receipt interstate, the onus is on the buyer. Basically, 18USC922 on private sales looks to direct the actions of whoever is in possession. The goal is to prevent the interstate transfer of firearms without an FFL involved.
Note that as a buyer, if you conspired with or tried to talk a NH resident into selling to you in violation of the fed law, you could still get brought up on charges of soliciting the commission of a felony, and other accessory-type charges, conspiracy, etc.
The buyer would be a felon in possession, so, no, the buyer most certainly has done something wrong.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that the seller would allow the transaction to continue because they didn't know the buyer was a convicted felon, and had no way of finding out.
Yeah, it's a little like saying there is a speeding "loophole" on the highway if you don't actually get CAUGHT speeding...
Bingo.Yeah, it's a little like saying there is a speeding "loophole" on the highway if you don't actually get CAUGHT speeding...
And would a simple "Hey man, how much were you looking for for that nice rifle over there?" count as conspiring or trying to talk the NH resident into breaking the law?
So exactly what is the loophole? That he can break the law successfully?
I'm not sure why some people think a face-to-face transaction at a gun show is any different than a face-to-face transaction conducted at the local PD or at Dunkin Donuts (well, Starbucks, I guess) or at your own home... If it WERE a loophole, would that make it a F2F loophole and not a gun show loophole?
The kid is loopy.
This is the response I plan on submitting to the Collegian to the ridiculousness. There is a lot more I wanted to include, but couldn't due to size limitations. We are restricted to 550 words and I have 548.
"I am writing this editorial in response to Daniel Entrikin’s article “How a student bought a gun without a license”. I would like to start by saying that I agree with Mr. Entrikin’s opinion that something has to be done to reduce the number of gun crimes committed in this country. However, I believe Mr. Entrikin has vastly inflated the number of Americans who die each year from gun violence. In his article, Mr. Entrikin cited the Department of Justice’s statistics that showed 11,346 gun-related deaths in 2005. What Mr. Entrikin failed to cite was the Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics that attribute 55% of those gun-related deaths in 2005 to suicide.
Mr. Entrikin stated that “the same sale that is illegal at a gun store is completed easily and legally at a gun show.” This was in reference to the hypothetical situation of an “escaped mental patient” who could go to a gun show and “legally” buy a gun. The claim was that since private sellers are not required to conduct background checks on the buyers, the escaped mental patient could buy the gun legally. What I find interesting about this claim is that Mr. Entrikin himself stated earlier that “Persons convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental institution are among those that cannot legally own guns.” If persons involuntarily committed to a mental institution cannot legally own guns, then how can they legally buy a gun from a private seller? They can’t. By even attempting to buy a gun the mental patient is committing a crime and the transaction cannot legally take place. Mr. Entrikin goes on to say that “The laws are often broken by private sellers…” If laws are being broken by private sellers, how are more laws going to change the behavior of those same sellers? We already have laws on the books that prohibit felons and mental patients from so much as holding a gun, so what we need is more enforcement rather than more laws. If private sellers are transferring guns to out of state buyers or mental patients, laws are being broken. There is no “legal loophole” here.
With regards to Mr. Entrikin’s escapade to New Hampshire in an attempt to purchase a rifle at a gun show, I have to say that the only thing he proved was that if laws are broken then anyone can buy a gun. A federal felony was committed by the man/woman who sold Mr. Entrikin his rifle, and I am shocked that Mr. Entrikin would knowingly assist in the commission of a felony. Federal law prohibits the private sale or transfer of any type of gun between the residents of two different states. It also prohibits anyone from bringing a gun privately purchased across state lines back into their home state. It is for this reason that there is no legal “loophole” allowing Massachusetts residents to travel to New Hampshire to buy guns. In light of these clearly stated federal laws, I do not see how Mr. Entrikin’s claim that “easy access to guns is but a short drive away” is valid. If several federal and state laws were to be broken then I agree it is possible, but there is no legal way for it to happen."
Any suggestions?
Well-written. The only suggestion that I would offer is to incorporate NamedPipes speeding analogy to illustrate the point that breaking the law is not a "loophole".
Please keep us updated on this thread as to what transpires.
He did commit a crime. You can not do a ftf across state lines. Period. Him not bringing it into mass has nothing to do with it.
A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee’s premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
At the very least he falls under the section of illegal possession in ma as he doesn't have a fid or ltc.
Those regulations you cited do not say anything about PURCHASING firearms in another state. They only say that no person may ftf transfer a firearm to someone who does not live in that state and that no person may transport firearms purchased out of state ftf back into their home state. The person in question here did not bring the gun back into MA, so he did not violate the transportation law. He also did not sell or transfer a gun to a resident of another state (although the person who sold him the gun did) so there is no crime there.
Arguably, he turned the gun into a NH cop, and there is no exception made for LEOs in those statutes. Technically, by handing the cop the gun he knowingly transferred the gun to a resident of another state. I'm sure he will never be charged for turning a gun in to a cop even though that cop is a NH resident since that would be completely asinine.
EDIT: Since the gun was never brought into MA, he did not violate possession laws in MA either.
Tis I! The masked man himself. Coincidentally, I asked about this very gun show on this forum.
I liked the letter to the editor. I encourage you to send it. I could maybe talk to Collegian staff about printing it. You bring up some valid points. I'd re-iterate my point about the over-21 Virginia man with a .38 on my campus. If he is charged with a felony, he can still buy the same handgun at a show in his home state. A criminal background check would stop the sale. His knowledge that he is a prohibited person will not stop the sale. To allow that sale to take place is wrong. His possession of the firearm after the fact would be illegal, but I'd rather not cross my fingers he's arrested in another traffic stop.
Enjoying the discussion I've prompted. Admittedly, the legal language relevant to much of this is pretty murky. Check out the 'known persons' clause on private NH sellers.
Cheers,
Daniel Entrikin
Tis I! The masked man himself. Coincidentally, I asked about this very gun show on this forum.
I liked the letter to the editor. I encourage you to send it. I could maybe talk to Collegian staff about printing it. You bring up some valid points. I'd re-iterate my point about the over-21 Virginia man with a .38 on my campus. If he is charged with a felony, he can still buy the same handgun at a show in his home state. A criminal background check would stop the sale. His knowledge that he is a prohibited person will not stop the sale. To allow that sale to take place is wrong. His possession of the firearm after the fact would be illegal, but I'd rather not cross my fingers he's arrested in another traffic stop.
Enjoying the discussion I've prompted. Admittedly, the legal language relevant to much of this is pretty murky. Check out the 'known persons' clause on private NH sellers.
Cheers,
Daniel Entrikin
it says you can only acquire a handgun from a licensee (FFL) in your home state, [STRIKE]so he did break the law[/STRIKE].
You CANNOT buy or acquire a gun of any sort from a person in another state without using an FFL (or having a C+R for C+R stuff).
Tis I! The masked man himself. Coincidentally, I asked about this very gun show on this forum.
I liked the letter to the editor. I encourage you to send it. I could maybe talk to Collegian staff about printing it. You bring up some valid points. I'd re-iterate my point about the over-21 Virginia man with a .38 on my campus. If he is charged with a felony, he can still buy the same handgun at a show in his home state. A criminal background check would stop the sale. His knowledge that he is a prohibited person will not stop the sale. To allow that sale to take place is wrong. His possession of the firearm after the fact would be illegal, but I'd rather not cross my fingers he's arrested in another traffic stop.
Enjoying the discussion I've prompted. Admittedly, the legal language relevant to much of this is pretty murky. Check out the 'known persons' clause on private NH sellers.
Cheers,
Daniel Entrikin
Can you provide a cite? The SELLER is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5), but I can't find a federal statute that puts the PURCHASER in violation.
a seller doesn't acquire, a buyer does.A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State