Vermont Learns Police Can’t Conduct NICS Checks…AFTER Passing Bill

[rwl1955]

This is what happens when anti's write anti-gun legislation. Stupid is, stupid does.

 

[Garys]

This is what happens when Leftist politicians write ANY legislation. Obamacare was a fustercluck from the beginning, full of bad math and magical thinking. And evil intent since most of the enforcement of it was left to the IRS.

This is what happens when anti's write anti-gun legislation. Stupid is, stupid does.

 

[exo]

Not actually the case. When facilitating an in-person private party transfer where the seller is not leaving the gun in the possession of the FFL, the FFL does not have to log the gun into their bound book before performing the NICS check on the recipient. If the NICS check is denied, the FFL still has to retain the 4473 (with Question 32 checked to indicate that the NICS check was for a private party transfer), but they do not have to put an entry into their bound book, and the person who came in with the gun can leave with it. This is one of the rare cases where an FFL will have a 4473 that doesn't correspond to an entry in their bound book.

See ATF Procedure 2013-1 if you want all the gory details.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[soloman02]

Currently absolutely nothing, because NH doesnt have a stupid law that tries to facilitate UBC via NICS.

-Mike

Don't worry, the dems in NH have already filed the bill and have a big enough majority to pass it with zero gop support. Only hope is Sununu stands tall and writes veto on the bill.

Not actually the case. When facilitating an in-person private party transfer where the seller is not leaving the gun in the possession of the FFL, the FFL does not have to log the gun into their bound book before performing the NICS check on the recipient. If the NICS check is denied, the FFL still has to retain the 4473 (with Question 32 checked to indicate that the NICS check was for a private party transfer), but they do not have to put an entry into their bound book, and the person who came in with the gun can leave with it. This is one of the rare cases where an FFL will have a 4473 that doesn't correspond to an entry in their bound book.

See ATF Procedure 2013-1 if you want all the gory details.

I discovered this recently but didn't know how to find the gory details. Looks like it has been superseded with new guidance in 2017 (which looks like it is the most up to date):

ATF Procedure 2017-1 - Facilitating Non-FFL Transfers of Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Direct link to PDF: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...ilitating-non-ffl-transfers-firearms/download

I am unsure what changes the ATF made to the procedure.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Don't worry, the dems in NH have already filed the bill and have a big enough majority to pass it with zero gop support. Only hope is Sununu stands tall and writes veto on the bill.

What is the dominant means of communication up there now? If it's still teevee, why aren't we running ads daily saying, "This is what YOUR a**h***s - the ones YOU f***ers elected - are doing!" ??

 

[42!]

What is the dominant means of communication up there now? If it's still teevee, why aren't we running ads daily saying, "This is what YOUR a**h***s - the ones YOU f***ers elected - are doing!" ??

I imagine it's a lot like what I see here in NH. The "it can't happen here" crowd is huge and when you try to tell them what's coming, because you lived it in MA, they dismiss you as paranoid. And this is why it will spread beyond VT and NH.

 

[T-Unit]

I don't see what the issue is here. If the person is a resident of VT and has no record in VT, then the sale should commence. Any non-resident buying from a private seller is subject to the NICS and 4473 form conducted at an FFL. The only thing I can see is someone moving to VT (who the hell moves TO Vermont?) who's never lived there before would have no record with the State authorities. In that case, on the state background check paperwork, ask what tate they were living and have Vermont state police call the other states state police for information on the buyer.

I know, I know, too much work for the pork chops to make a phone call to another department out of state. That's a long distance call, big $.

 

[42!]

I don't see what the issue is here. If the person is a resident of VT and has no record in VT, then the sale should commence. Any non-resident buying from a private seller is subject to the NICS and 4473 form conducted at an FFL. The only thing I can see is someone moving to VT (who the hell moves TO Vermont?) who's never lived there before would have no record with the State authorities. In that case, on the state background check paperwork, ask what tate they were living and have Vermont state police call the other states state police for information on the buyer.

I know, I know, too much work for the pork chops to make a phone call to another department out of state. That's a long distance call, big $.

So they have to get the life history of a 75 year old who has lived in a dozen states and served in the military. Then call every state and the mil to verify he's ok....but he leaves out that bar fight in a state he never lived when he was traveling. That would probably take 4 to 4.5 hours of someone's time, assuming all the states and Mil feel like cooperating.

I'm not supporting the check, just pointing out that the only way to do it is NICS.

 

[T-Unit]

So they have to get the life history of a 75 year old who has lived in a dozen states and served in the military. Then call every state and the mil to verify he's ok....but he leaves out that bar fight in a state he never lived when he was traveling. That would probably take 4 to 4.5 hours of someone's time, assuming all the states and Mil feel like cooperating.

I'm not supporting the check, just pointing out that the only way to do it is NICS.

It's a drain on resources, no doubt, but if it can't be done then the commander of Vermont state police should notify the legislature and governor that the law cannot be enforced. Further, he should explain that since the law cannot be enforced and thus there is no legal way for a private transfer to be done in compliance with the law that it's impossible to arrest people who don't comply with said law because it is an infringement of the 2nd amendment.

 

[LittleCalm]

how does CA's UBC work? hasn't it been in place for a long time?

 

[exo]

Stop using the language of the enemy. “Universal background check” means “ban on private sales”.

 

[namedpipes]

Hahah, dont worry they will fix that.

That's EASY.

All the chiefs simply apply to become FFLs.

 

[namedpipes]

So they have to get the life history of a 75 year old who has lived in a dozen states and served in the military. Then call every state and the mil to verify he's ok....but he leaves out that bar fight in a state he never lived when he was traveling. That would probably take 4 to 4.5 hours of someone's time, assuming all the states and Mil feel like cooperating.

I'm not supporting the check, just pointing out that the only way to do it is NICS.

Laws are supposed to punish, not prevent.

Forget background checks.

If a person misbehaves badly enough to be arrested, THEN is the time to look into their background and apply corrective actions.

 

[EJFudd]

I wouldn’t count on anyone presently in power in VT doing similar. The governor is a traitor, and a majority of the legislature are originally from states where gun control isn’t a hobby, but a passion.

For a very long time, gun control was the “third rail” of Vermont politics... touch it and you’ll get zapped. The most recent election results would strongly suggest that this is no longer true. The traitorous governor won his primary with about 2/3rds of the vote. Plenty of pro-freedom candidates didn’t get elected, or didn’t succeed in primary challenges.

Vermont was always the exception to the rule in loony moonbat politics... the one leftist moonbatty state that had no use for oppressive and unconstitutional "gun control"... but all that has changed now. They have simply fallen in line with all the other loony moonbat states. It was never a question of "if" it would happen someday. It was only a matter of "when"... and, unfortunately, "when" is now.

 

[42!]

Laws are suppised to punish, not prevent.

Forget background checks.

If a person misbehaves badly enough to be arrested convicted, THEN is the time to look into their background and apply corrective actions.

FIFY

 

[namedpipes]

FIFY

And autocorrect is SUPPISED to fix my typos, not make them more worser...

 

[soloman02]

What is the dominant means of communication up there now? If it's still teevee, why aren't we running ads daily saying, "This is what YOUR a**h***s - the ones YOU f***ers elected - are doing!" ??

Depends on the demographic. Boomers still watch TV. Gen X watches some TV, but most millennials (especially the younger ones and Gen Z) browse FB/Twitter/Instagram and watch ad free using things like Amazon Prime or Netflix.

 

[Coyote33]

Don't worry, the dems in NH have already filed the bill and have a big enough majority to pass it with zero gop support. Only hope is Sununu stands tall and writes veto on the bill. ...

I hope you are checking on this. Your "only hope" is under a lot of pressure. Has anyone actually ASKED Sununu if he would veto this? ERPO is the in thing lately.

I imagine it's a lot like what I see here in NH. The "it can't happen here" crowd is huge and when you try to tell them what's coming, because you lived it in MA, they dismiss you as paranoid. And this is why it will spread beyond VT and NH.

See above.

I don't see what the issue is here. If the person is a resident of VT and has no record in VT, then the sale should commence. Any non-resident buying from a private seller is subject to the NICS and 4473 form conducted at an FFL. The only thing I can see is someone moving to VT (who the hell moves TO Vermont?) who's never lived there before would have no record with the State authorities....

Vermont is THE MOST MOVED TO STATE right now. See my post here:
Should I move to RI or NH from MA (because of gun laws)

 

[Coyote33]

Depends on the demographic. Boomers still watch TV. Gen X watches some TV, but most millennials (especially the younger ones and Gen Z) browse FB/Twitter/Instagram and watch ad free using things like Amazon Prime or Netflix.

This is a HUGE opportunity to win back mind share and voters.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Colorado tried to do the same thing and the AG nullified the law because the feds would not allow the system to be used that way.

-Mike

^Actually, that's Nevada you're thinking of.

This is what happens when you try to turn a soundbite ("Universal Background Checks") into a law without doing your homework. Bottom line is tha tthe Vermont is virtually unenforceable.

 

[firestorm]

^Actually, that's Nevada you're thinking of.

This is what happens when you try to turn a soundbite ("Universal Background Checks") into a law without doing your homework. Bottom line is tha tthe Vermont is virtually unenforceable.

Is it unenforceable or is it just a de facto ban on private sales? I don't know how it is written but if it bans sales without a background check, and the check is impossible, then they just arrest anyone who makes a sale they know of under the law regardless of the fact that the check is impossible. Didn't the 9th circuit rule recently that just because compliance is impossible it is no reason to invalidate the law?

 

[AHM]

... (who the hell moves TO Vermont?) ...

At least one poor SOB has posted in this 659-reply thread:

RIP Vermont: update the restrictions passed the House​

(Disclaimer: TL;DR).

Vermont is THE MOST MOVED TO STATE right now.

This is a HUGE opportunity to win back mind share and voters.

Nothing but potential.

(The only potential I see for true rollback
is a SCOTUS win against state-level regulatory schemes
that make Heller and McDonald look mild by comparison.
And that's a long game).
=====
Booked a long weekend at Killington to hang with BiL's family.
Was that wrong; should I not have done that?

 

[exo]

Is it unenforceable or is it just a de facto ban on private sales? I don't know how it is written but if it bans sales without a background check, and the check is impossible, then they just arrest anyone who makes a sale they know of under the law regardless of the fact that the check is impossible. Didn't the 9th circuit rule recently that just because compliance is impossible it is no reason to invalidate the law?

The check isn’t impossible; it just can’t be done by the police like the legiscritters said it could. Has to be done at an FFL.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Requiring that all firearm transfers be subject to a NICS background check in unenforceable because there's virtually no means for prosecutors to prove that the background check didn't happen. There is absolutely no way to make this idea enforceable without also creating an actual gun registration scheme that makes it illegal to possess any firearm that wasn't actually registered to a person. Thats logistically and politically unworkable.

On the other hand, 'universal background check' is a great soundbite. Conceptually, it sounds very logical and reasonable. But like most things, the devil is in the details.

 

[namedpipes]

The check isn’t impossible; it just can’t be done by the police like the legiscritters said it could. Has to be done at an FFL.

Which means the FFL will charge a fee which essentially raises the economic bar to owning a firearm which in turn is discrimination against the poor.

 

[VTHunter]

Requiring that all firearm transfers be subject to a NICS background check in unenforceable because there's virtually no means for prosecutors to prove that the background check didn't happen. There is absolutely no way to make this idea enforceable without also creating an actual gun registration scheme that makes it illegal to possess any firearm that wasn't actually registered to a person. Thats logistically and politically unworkable.

On the other hand, 'universal background check' is a great soundbite. Conceptually, it sounds very logical and reasonable. But like most things, the devil is in the details.

This! Vermont has no licensing scheme, no 'approved firearms roster', and no registration. To say that they have gone to the back of the list is a little far-fetched. Many gun owners in other states would love to have this.

How will anyone know whether a gun was sold and when, unless one of the parties chirps?
The three key parts to the misguided VT provisions are in court.

- Restricting the purchase of firearms to >21 is likely unconstitutional (State/Fed).
- Enforcing capacity limits and prohibiting stnd cap mags from transfer is virtually impossible. Most folks loaded up before the ban. Prohibiting them from transfer or re-sale is also likely unconstitutional.
- Requiring FFL transfer / UBC looks good on the books, but there is no practical way to enforce. This is also being challenged as unconstitutional.​

As mentioned before, VT is somewhat of an anomaly. There is a large moonbat/socialist contingent, especially in the Burlington area. However, the populace still generally holds a strong 2A sentiment. This is a cultural thing and did not change because these laws were passed. Remember, most smaller towns do not have a local police force. There isn't much appetite for enforcement by the state police, who are understaffed as is. They have better things to do.

 

[xtry51]

This! Vermont has no licensing scheme, no 'approved firearms roster', and no registration. To say that they have gone to the back of the list is a little far-fetched. Many gun owners in other states would love to have this.

How will anyone know whether a gun was sold and when, unless one of the parties chirps?
The three key parts to the misguided VT provisions are in court.

- Restricting the purchase of firearms to >21 is likely unconstitutional (State/Fed).
- Enforcing capacity limits and prohibiting stnd cap mags from transfer is virtually impossible. Most folks loaded up before the ban. Prohibiting them from transfer or re-sale is also likely unconstitutional.
- Requiring FFL transfer / UBC looks good on the books, but there is no practical way to enforce. This is also being challenged as unconstitutional.​

As mentioned before, VT is somewhat of an anomaly. There is a large moonbat/socialist contingent, especially in the Burlington area. However, the populace still generally holds a strong 2A sentiment. This is a cultural thing and did not change because these laws were passed. Remember, most smaller towns do not have a local police force. There isn't much appetite for enforcement by the state police, who are understaffed as is. They have better things to do.

These laws are not about restiecting the freedom of people now. They're about slowly conditioning people to accept them as normal. You point out people "loaded up" on magazines. Great. Now what about the kid who is 5 now and grows up thinking all 10+ mags are bad beacause they are against the law?

 

[AHM]

Vermont is THE MOST MOVED TO STATE right now.

Spoiler: What emmigration to Free States looks like from the PRM

Spoiler: What immigration from the PRM looks like in Free States

 

[Coyote33]

Yeah, but it makes the grass get greener!

 

[exo]

Which means the FFL will charge a fee which essentially raises the economic bar to owning a firearm which in turn is discrimination against the poor.

Yep, no argument from me there. The economic bar to becoming a legal gun owner in MA is much higher (training course, license app, and in some cities/towns membership in a club is also a requirement imposed by the CoP), but so far none of the pols give an actual shit about the poor.

These laws are not about restiecting the freedom of people now. They're about slowly conditioning people to accept them as normal. You point out people "loaded up" on magazines. Great. Now what about the kid who is 5 now and grows up thinking all 10+ mags are bad beacause they are against the law?

This.