Posted on 07/30/2019 9:31:36 AM PDT by L.A.Justice
I don't think that he has to "apologize"...
I don’t get it.
Buyer was Calif resident, buys Nevada gun ONLINE and picks it up in Nevada..?
That doesn’t make sense.
You can order an out-of-state firearm but you must use a Calif. dealer as an intermediary and I think you must pick it up at the biz address of that California dealer.
At least that’s the system I once knew.
I agree.... that said you never know how something like this might affect a person when they feel connected to something so evil. Can’t blame him for feeling the need to apologize.
Interesting. Therefore, would he then have had to show proof of a Nevada residency before legally acquiring the firearm in that state?
This place did nothing wrong.
Cali just passed a long gun law where we serfs cannot buy out of state but there’s no federal law that prohibits buying one, only state laws if any.
Yes, you gotta show Nevada ID to pick it up in Nevada.
If you’re from Calif perusing guns in a Nevada shop —which happens A LOT— and they learn you’re from California, they usually lose interest in you right away.
Now let’s say you like a certain gun, there in the Nevada shop, and it’s know the gun IS California legal:
The shop will ask you if you know a preferred transfer dealer living near your California location. The shop calls the dealer you described and they ask what their transfer fee is. Then they confirm with the California shop that the weapon IS in fact legal in California (though usually they know ahead of time), and then you pay.
Without a Nevada ID, you leave the shop, drive back to your Calif address, wait 2 weeks or whatever, then you drive to your Calif transfer dealer to pick up you gun.
And that guy realllly checks your ID to make sure that you ARE the buyer.
I’m thinking this Iranian guy had a Nevada ID, or something, and maybe a Nevada billing address..?
Or maybe the system has changed since my last purchase —I don’t get the scenarior they have described.
You have to pick it up from a licensed dealer - the dealer cannot ship it directly to you. In this case, the shooter picked up the gun in person from the dealer in Nevada, which is perfectly legal, as long as all of the paperwork and background checks are completed.
Well, if he was physically present at the gun store in AZ I don’t see the problem.
Nope. It’s like Ryder apologizing for renting a truck to Timothy McVeigh.
At least that’s the system I once knew.
The system today is that you are correct for a handgun, but you can purchase and receive a long gun from an FFL in any state, as long as the firearm is legal in your home state. The purchaser had to fill out a form 4473 and provide identification at the time of purchase, so there is no way the FFL didn't know the purchaser was from out of state.
It is on the FFL to ensure that your home state laws are obeyed, and in this case the FFL clearly failed to do so, since the AK platform, with detachable magazine, is illegal in California.
The FFL is going to end up apologizing to the BAFTE and perhaps a judge in the near future, and his license is in jeopardy.
“All handguns must be transferred from an FFL dealer to the customer in the state of the customer’s residence
Long guns can be purchased and transferred to a resident of any state in any state provided that the transfer is legal in both the purchaser’s state and the state in which the transfer is taking place”
https://www.cabelas.com/assets/product_files/pdf/federal_state_firearms_regs_online.pdf
“Federal law also usually bars transfer of a firearm by an FFL to a resident of another state, unless the recipient is a Federally-licensed dealer or collector of curio or relic firearms. In some states, an FFL dealer may transfer a rifle or shotgun to a resident of another state if the prospective buyer’s state does not object, but California bars such transactions.”
https://gunlaw.com/out-of-state-gun-shows
“As of January 1, 2015, a law in California supplants the federal law. It, too, prohibits California residents from buying guns out of state and simply driving home with them (or shipping them home). Now, the seller must ship to a licensed California dealer, who will treat the event like any in-state transaction, involving the waiting period, background check, and safety certificate. (Cal. Penal Code §§ 26840, 27540, 27545, and 27585.)”
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/what-legal-way-bring-a-firearm-california.htm
Sounds like the gun shop violated the law. Illegal sale.
Next time apply appropriate ESP and exercise prior restraint.
FFS what idiots we have running gun shops!
Sounds like things have changed since I last bought a gun... Ignore my previous comment, sounds like others have much more current info than I do.
“Nevada gun shop apologizes...” is false and bait. Nothing in the CBS article demonstrates the claim in the headline and first paragraph that the gun shop owner apologized.
Always question media claims.
Never assume they report accuarately.
Do not take their bait.
“In England, company that sold attacker a bench grinder and pawn shop that sold the set of silverware containing the butter knife the attacker ground down to a sharp point to stab the victim - apologized and promised to be more careful in the future regarding to whom they will sell a bench grinder or butter knife.”
i.e. this is stupid.
This is news to me. I was in AZ a couple of years ago and the dealer knew I was from Cali and said he would sell me any AR on his wall.
a new law perhaps? This would be at the federal level to enforce.
I think its only legal if he had a Nevada address. There has been no information provided to show if he was somehow a Nevada resident.
Ah! Ok, so this Calif resident bought online a gay, Calif-legal AK from a Nevada dealer. Then he waited the 10 days or 2 weeks (whatever it is, now), then he drove to the Nevada shop and picked it up.
My reading is this Calif guy could just as well have found the same gay AK at a Calif shop, he just didn't want to visit multiple shops in-person to locate the AK that struck his fancy.
So I don't understand how this purchase is somehow outrageous. All I can think of is that dishonest journalists and government people want readers to get outraged over the notion that the scary INTERNET was involved in a legal commercial transaction.
They must want people to think "ordering gun over the internet" is super shady, somehow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.