Skip to main content

The case is called Payne v. ATF. The Briefs were just filed with SCOTUS. In this instance ATF is short for the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms". Payne is a named Plaintiff recruited by the National Rifle Association (NRA). NRA wants to do away with a federal law that restricts purchase by persons in the age range of 18 and 21 of pistols/handguns (and, no, I don't need some massive lecture from RKBA about how "this pistol only does X amount of damage, while some other real handgun has been definitively recorded as being in an entirely different range").

NRA is clearly at it again.

It's now another chance for DKOS RKBA to break ranks.

The case is going to SCOTUS only because the "restrictions" that NRA wants abolished were upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit. The Fifth runs neck and neck with The Eleventh as "The Most Right Wing Court in The Modern United States". And The Fifth just pissed on The NRA.

So, what say you DKOS RKBA?

Originally posted to oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:41 PM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and notRKBA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (19+ / 0-)

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:41:04 PM PDT

  •  Not enough carnage, heartache and (10+ / 0-)

    mourning for the NRA.
    Or is that the death merchants need to beef up the bottom line? More profit at the expense of young lives.
    Who will lead the mass exodus from the NRA?

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:47:27 PM PDT

  •  The SCOTUS has not yet accepted the case (3+ / 0-)

    and may not.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:54:57 PM PDT

  •  Young black people, too? n/t (6+ / 0-)

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:57:19 PM PDT

  •  Some links to your claims (11+ / 0-)

    would be much appreciated. Otherwise there is nothing here to comment on, or to "break ranks" from (and no, I'm not in RKBA here, I just support the 2nd).

    •  Sorry, I learned to do my own research back (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution, Miggles

      when it was not easy, and we were also taught that every person had the responsibility to learn the same.

      If I'm lieing, call me a liar, and we can start the fight at that time.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kentucky Kid - here is a link to a Huff Post story (10+ / 0-)

      that has some links to some additional information. The NRAs petition and the Court of Appeals decision is also available online.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:24:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I checked out your link, and some of (12+ / 0-)

        the links that were in that article - an interesting case for sure......

        It's ok for an 18-21 year old to buy a handgun from an individual, or have it given to them as an gift, yet they can't purchase from an licensed gun shop - how messed up is that?

        Maybe they were in error in the one article I checked out where they said that 18-21 year olds could not purchase ammo, even though they could purchase rifles or shotguns. That really makes no sense at all (if true).

        The main "reasoning" given for the current law is that young adults 18-21 years old are too immature to be trusted with handguns......If so, how do we then reconcile the fact that we send these same 18-21 year olds to war?

        Thanks again for the linkage - much appreciated

        •  Hey, dude, you lost in the Fifth Circuit. YOU LOST (0+ / 0-)

          IN THE FUCKING FIFTH CIRCUIT!

          Please get a clue, or stay away!

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:08:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Your argument seems predicated on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, 88kathy

          the idea that it makes sense to send 18-year-olds off to war.  I don't agree with them, but I suspect the argument from the ones trying to reconcile it would be "over there they can kill 'those people' and it'll be for freedom.  If they do it here, well then they're just thugs with no discipline or training shooting up the place."

          Killing is killing if ya ask me, but that's the argument you'll probably hear.

          I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

          by mojo11 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There are many differing purposes to killing.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon

            some good, some bad.  But that's a subject for another diary.

            I don't think anyone claimed that sending 18-year-olds to war "makes sense" (although there are several societal/psychological reasons that it does); the point being made is that anyone old enough to go to war for their country deserves to enjoy the complete panopoly of Constitutional Rights.

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:22:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately expansion of handguns to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kasoru, oldpotsmuggler

              18-21 will likely increase the number of justified killings by police, on the thin ground of, "I thought he was reaching for a gun."

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:47:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunately... (4+ / 0-)

                Most police shootings are ruled justified (for local criminal prosecutions) just by them claiming the victim was 'reaching' for 'something'. It seems like they don't need a reason to shoot anymore.

                •  I'm convinced some future era will be (2+ / 0-)

                  studying this sickening trend as one of our policy failures.

                  There are such clear racial disparities, and what seems to me obvious flaws in training and supervision.

                  We need "civilian" oversight, in the form of community review boards, that can help people hold the city or county government accountable for their police budget and for how they use those resources.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Currently available stats don't seem to support... (0+ / 0-)

                that prediction.

                Even if they did, there's a very simple way to avoid such:

                1.  Train the Citizenry, in public schools, what their Constitutional Rights are, and how to exercise them safely and responsibly.

                2.  Train the Police on what our Constitutional Rights are, and how to not violate them with the excuse of "I just want to go home every night".

                We should be doing this regardless of any other proposed laws.  

                Note that item 1 will also address item 2 after a few years....

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 06:45:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, we should certainly (0+ / 0-)

                  1.  Train the Citizenry, in public schools, gunowners what their Constitutional Rights [and responsibilities] are, and how to [evaluate whether they] exercise them safely and responsibly.

                  2.  Train [Demand that] the Police on what our Constitutional Rights are, and how to not violate them with the excuse of "I just want to go home every night"[enforce existing law and prosecute negligent gun owners at least as eagerly as they shoot unarmed people.]

                  Successful No. 2 will enhance the effectiveness of No. 1 within a few years...

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 05, 2013 at 11:04:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Can't be President till you are 35, Can't be (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpotsmuggler, LilithGardener

              Senator till you are 30, Can't be Representative till you are 25 years old.

              The youngest person to ever serve as a governor in the United States was Stevens T. Mason. . . Mason was re-elected in November 1837, then age 26
              In most states the minimum age of the governor is 30, though in some it is 25, 21, or 18. Oklahoma is the only state with an older age, 31.

              give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

              by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 01:40:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That argument also fails to acknowlede that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy, oldpotsmuggler

            those who are selected for the responsibility of going off to war are screened.

            Imperfectly screened, yes, but they are screened for intelligence, psychological health, and violent history.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:37:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  actually,18-21yo's are only restricted from (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          purchasing pistol ammunition....rifle and shotgun is fine....

          The big problem arises when it's used in both like 38 or 45acp or even worse 9mm and 40 as those are mainly pistol rounds....

          I have seen some sales denied and some made as long as when asked, the youngster says it's for a rifle....still sometimes they are denied as it is basically designed for pistols even though there are carbines available in that caliber.

          Personally, imo, if you are old enough to be drafted, you are old enough to buy a pistol or any firearm you choose from a .22 to a 50bmg

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 08:12:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  NRA: The only thing that stops a bad minor (5+ / 0-)

    with a gun is a good minor with a gun.

    Anyone still thinking that wanting to own a gun is normal? Wanting to own a gun is an immediate indicator that you should be the last person to have one.

    by pollbuster on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:38:17 PM PDT

  •  Old enough to be drafted..... (9+ / 0-)

    = old enough for Every.  Single.  Fucking.  Constitutional.  Right.

    Periodenddot.

    Your hate-mail will be graded.

    by PavePusher on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 11:17:06 PM PDT

    •  1970 called - you're way to old for the draft. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, Miggles

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 01:23:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since I've already served 22.7 years... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, theatre goon

        enlisting when I was.... none of your business, your comment is irrelevent.

        And I was registered for the Selective Service (i.e. "The Draft") at 18, as per U.S. law, even though "The Draft" was not then currently in effect.

        Your hate-mail will be graded.

        by PavePusher on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 05:22:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Carrying a deadly weapon in a highly regulated (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, LilithGardener

          military unit is not street carry.

          The graph of 18-24 year old homicides could point to the lack of drafting that age group and that age group going on a unregulated rampage.

          It was a joke. People don't get drafted any more. I was surprised we got through these 2 wars w/o it. But we did.

          So the last person to get drafted is what 60 now?  You are probably pushing 50 but then you look good for your age so it's not a problem for me. (a joke, again)

          give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

          by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:33:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I'm sure most of those homocides... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, KVoimakas

            were committed by lawful carriers.

            But yeah, I do look damn good for the miles.  8>)

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:09:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually if you look at the actual shootings (0+ / 0-)

              broken out by age, I'm starting to think there are constitutional ground for very strict restrictions on men owning guns up through about age 40.

              A legitimate argument could be made based up on the long standing facts of men getting shot by someone they know (ususally another man) and of men in that age shooting a woman they know, and of men in that age range failing to secure their firearm and having child or teen in their household shoot someone else.

              Women could legitimately be exempted from such age based restrictions because there is little evidence to support any nothion that women uses guns aggressively or store them carefully.

              Lawful responsible gun owners would have no problem passing a background check, demonstrating proficiency and securing their arms.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:14:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah, gender AND age discrimination. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, theatre goon

                Oy vey.....

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:01:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know, it can get ugly very fast (0+ / 0-)

                  when someone tries to use gun shot risk as a basis for rational gun safety law.

                  Please don't mistake my intent, I'm not suggesting that gender based gun licensing makes any sense on a moral or ethical basis. Or even on a practical basis.

                  But the legal foundation for constitutional regulations that limit RKBA rests on whether a law has a direct or substantial nexus with the risk of violence, and to the legitimate duty of the state to secure public safety for all the residents.

                  I don't mind that tax dollars support and activity that mostly men wan.

                  But what it does do is mean that everyone can be subject to licensure even though the vast majority of gun injury risk derives from men. Women are much more likely to be the person who gets shot.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:31:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Tell that to the Fifth Circuit, After you win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles

      there then you can bring it back over here.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:40:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here in wikipedia 18-24 year old, from 1976 to (0+ / 0-)

      2004 consistently have the highest homicide rate for any age group.

      The ending of the draft makes it look like maybe they should still be being drafted as it still hasn't gotten back to those low levels.

      However it is trending down 2004 so maybe we don't need the draft to lower homicide for this age group.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:10:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  During my army career I was bothered by this (9+ / 0-)

    A 19 year old paratrooper could own a personal sidearm but he couldn't buy one at a store.  He could be deployed to a war zone and he couldn't buy a sidearm??  A 20 year old corporal could lead a team in combat, return stateside and not be qualified to buy a sidearm in a store?  

    I was acquainted with a 2nd Lt that graduated from high school at 17.  He graduated from college at 20 by taking extra courses and going to summer school, then went to OCS, but he could not walk into a store and buy a sidearm, nor could he (legally) drink a beer.  It makes no sense.

    •  It also makes not sense that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, 88kathy, oldpotsmuggler, Miggles

      supposedly responsible  lawful gun owners can leave their guns where children and teens can easily get them, and then far too many of those shootings are classified as accidents.

      It also makes not sense that parents can give their children guns as a present, even very young children, but not go to jail when their child uses that gun to shoot someone.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:13:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You were well regulated as a paratrooper. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, Miggles

      Alcohol and fire arms do not mix. Why would drinking and owning a deadly weapon even be in the same sentence?

      The 2nd Lt was well regulated when he was carrying a deadly weapon.

      give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

      by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 01:21:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No Child Left Unarmed (6+ / 0-)

    Just a suggestion to the GOP for their 2014 campaign.

  •  RkBA says 18-21 should have hand guns. (6+ / 0-)

    Now there's a surprise.

    •  We probably shouldn't let them vote either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      And for all the same reasons.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:26:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's worth debating the possibility of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, oldpotsmuggler

        a young adult permit, along the lines of what we have in NY.

        As you know the relative utility/relative risk of gun ownership varies widely. There is a strong age dependent risk of violence that peaks about age 24, IIRC.

        Courts are recognizing the legitimate right of state and local governments to balance the individual expression of the RKBA with the duty to maintain public safety and order. And courts are giving wide latitude for them to strike a balance based on local risks of violence.

        The comparison to other civil rights is hard to sustain. There are many, restrictions on voting, and on free speech.

        No one has any freedom to carry their vote into another precinct. No has any right to throw a block party at midnight. No one has any right to stand up in church and spew a profanity laced critique of their local politicians.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:29:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Have gun, Will Govern. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpotsmuggler

        Makes sense.

        give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

        by 88kathy on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 01:11:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  More suicides is what this will mean. nt (6+ / 0-)
  •  All the children (5+ / 0-)

    That  have had parts of   their head blowed  off , by the gun of so called responsible gun owner , who left the gun insight ,so a child can find it and pull the trigger ,the NRA do not want these parent prosecuted for  leaving a gun for a child to find

  •  When you believe (as in faith) that more guns (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, 88kathy, oldpotsmuggler, Miggles

    is always better, no one will convince you otherwise.  Sadly many more will be shot if this goes through.

    Not wise enough to drink, but wise enough to be a "responsible" gun owner?

    If anything, the minimum age for drinking should go down and the minimum age for owning firearms should go up.

    •  The drinking age is well established (4+ / 0-)

      because it intersects with inexperienced drivers on the road.

      It's my opinions that a lot of teen violence, and teen drinking/rape/etc. happens because teens have very few safe places to socialize.

      I'd be open about considering a drinking license. IOW, young people could legally buy, and consume alcohol in public, as long as they had no criminal history (including juve), and it could be limited. E.g. Bars could have those breathalyzer devices and be required to screen the intoxication level before selling to someone under 21.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:53:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plenty of other countries have drinking ages (0+ / 0-)

        well under 21, so I'm not convinced that the higher drinking age in the US (highest in the world apart from fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia) is really having any effect at all.

        •  But the vast majority of those place have ways (0+ / 0-)

          for young people to get around without driving a car.

          I can attest from a siblings time as an exchange student, foreign campuses have just as much drunken mayhem on campus as we have. But most of the kids don't have cars, where here they do.

          Alcohol is a huge factor in violent crime, and in particular with gun violence.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:27:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I would welcome a diary where the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, oldpotsmuggler

    Appeals Court decisions are linked and quoted, so that we can discuss the arguments being made both for/against expansion of RKBA for young adults.

    OPS, are you planning to quote any of the ideas?

    The supremes have already declined to review at least 60 petitions for expansion of RKBA, and I'm curious about which arguments weren't sufficiently persuasive.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:44:53 AM PDT

  •  Federal Law - Bkgrnd Checks - Who is prohibited? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, 88kathy, oldpotsmuggler

    For those who want to refresh their memory about who FFLs are prohibited to sell to, here's your cliff notes, from the ATF, with minor formatting for readability by me.

    Federal Law - Bkgrnd Checks - Who is prohibited?

    If you never owned a gun, and want to understand what this legislation is about, you may be surprised to know the list of persons prohibited from buying guns goes quite a bit beyond "felon" and "mentally ill."

    For those who never thought about it until recently, this is the ATF quick guide to current federal law prohibiting sale or transfer from a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer to any potential buyer.  

    Under current law private party sales are exempt in two ways. The seller is not obligated to ask whether the potential buyer would pass a background check, and the potential buyer does not have to complete form 4473.

    The legislation for universal background checks would extend the prohibitions below to all firearm transfers, including sales and gifts to friends and family members.
    Federal Firearms Licensee Quick Reference and Best Practices Guide
    (A few excerpts)

    http://www.atf.gov/...

    Prohibited Transfers

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited from possessing or receiving a  firearm. Do not sell or otherwise transfer a firearm and do not contact NICS if you have reason to believe that a person seeking to obtain a firearm is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

    Note: If a person answers “No” to Item 11.a or 12 of Form 4473, or answers “Yes” to one or more questions in Items 11.b through 11.l of Form 4473, that person has given you reason to believe he or she is prohibited and the transaction must be stopped.

    You MAY NOT sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition to any of the following prohibited persons or in the following circumstances:

    1. Straw Purchaser: A “straw purchaser” is a person who is not the “actual buyer” of the firearm; that is, a person who obtains a firearm for another person. Straw purchases are a primary source of firearms used in crime. If you suspect that a transaction is a straw purchase or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the potential sale—such as one person picking out the firearm, handling the firearm, and providing the payment for the firearm while another person completes the Form 4473—you should not sell the firearm. Similarly, if one person attempts to purchase a firearm, NICS denies or delays the attempted purchase, and another person with him or her attempts to buy the same firearm, you must not complete this sale.

    2.  Person Under Indictment: A person “under indictment” includes any person who has been charged by indictment or information in any court with a crime for which he or she may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

    3.  Person Convicted of a Crime Punishable by Imprisonment for a Term Exceeding 1 Year: This prohibited person category includes any person who has been convicted of a felony or other crime for which the person could have been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year—EVEN if the court actually placed the person on probation or sentenced the person to a term of imprisonment for 1 year or less.

    4.  Fugitive from Justice: A fugitive from justice is a person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime (felony or misdemeanor) or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

    5.  Unlawful Drug User or Drug Addict: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully uses—or is addicted to—marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotic drugs, or other controlled substances. Alcohol is NOT considered a controlled substance.

    6.  Adjudicated Mental Defective or Person Involuntarily Committed to a Mental Institution: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been adjudicated by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, a danger to himself or herself or to others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or to manage his/or her own affairs. This category also includes any person who has been subject to a finding of insanity in a criminal case, including a finding that he or she is incompetent to stand trial. Also included is any person who has EVER been formally committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This category does NOT include a person committed to a mental institution solely for observation or a person who was voluntarily admitted to a mental institution.

    7.  Person Dishonorably Discharged from the Military: A person is considered dishonorably discharged only if he or she was separated from the Armed Forces of the United States as a result of a dishonorable discharge or a dismissal adjudged by a general court-martial. This prohibition does NOT include persons with a bad conduct discharge or any other less than honorable discharge.

    8. Person Subject to a Restraining Order: This prohibited person category includes any person who is currently subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner, child of the person, or child of the intimate partner OR engaging in other conduct that would place the intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the intimate partner or child. The court order must meet the specific requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) to be prohibiting.

    9. Person Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence: This prohibited person category includes any person who has EVER been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence regardless of the title of the offense. The offense must meet the definition of “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Note: Unlike other prohibited person categories, law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use are NOT exempt from this prohibited person category.

    10. Person who has Renounced U.S. Citizenship: A person has renounced his or her United States citizenship if he or she takes formal steps to renounce her/his citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or before an officer designated by the Attorney General during a time of war.

    11. Aliens Illegally or Unlawfully in the United States: This prohibited person category includes any person who unlawfully entered the United States or who illegally remains in the United States after his or her authorized period of stay has expired.

    11a. Nonimmigrant Aliens: A nonimmigrant alien is an alien who is lawfully in the United States on a temporary basis for purposes of travel, business, study, etc. The term does NOT include a permanent resident alien (someone who possesses a “green card.”) A nonimmigrant alien may only purchase or receive a firearm if he or she: (a) was admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes or presents a valid hunting license or permit issued by a State; (b) qualifies as a foreign diplomat, official, or law enforcement officer as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 922(y)(2); or (c) has received a waiver of the prohibition from the Attorney General.

    12. Sale of a Firearm or Ammunition to a Person Under Age 18: You may not sell or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years old.

    13. Sale of a Handgun or Handgun Ammunition to a Person Under Age 21: You may not sell or deliver a firearm other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition other than rifle or shotgun ammunition—to a person who you know or have reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years old. A firearm frame or receiver is not a rifle or shotgun and may not be sold to a person under 21 years old.

    14. Sale in Violation of State Law or Published Ordinance: You may not sell or deliver a firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession would be in violation of a State law or published ordinance.

    We recommend that you refer to the most recent edition of ATF’s State Laws and Published Ordinances–Firearms.
    Age Restrictions

    As noted above, under Federal law, the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition from an FFL is 18. If the firearm is other than a rifle or a shotgun—or ammunition for other than a rifle or a shotgun—the minimum age is 21 [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1)]. However:

    1. You may sell ammunition that is interchangeable between rifles and handguns to a buyer who is at least 18 years of age if you are satisfied that he or she will use the ammunition in a rifle.

    2. Regardless of less restrictive State and local age requirements for firearms and ammunition purchases, you must adhere to the above Federal mininum age
    provisions.

    Transfers Between Licensees

    Generally, FFLs may transfer firearms to other FFLs, including interstate transfers, without completing Form 4473 for these transactions. In these instances, the following procedures must be followed:

    1. Transactions between licensees must be recorded in the bound book (Acquisition and Disposition or A&D) records of both licensees.

    2. The FFL who is buying the firearm must furnish a certified copy of their license to the selling FFL prior to the transfer of any firearm. This certified copy may be emailed or faxed.

    For more background, see also Background Check 101 - What is a Straw Buyer?
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:56:17 AM PDT

  •  Thousands of laws have been challenged (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, oldpotsmuggler, TheFern

    I'm not a constitutional scholar and am trying to understand some of the legal arguments.

    Here's my layman's summary:

    Outright bans on guns in common use - likely unconstitutional on 2A grounds.

    Permanent prohibition of gun ownership - persons showing no elevated risk of violence are likely to have their RKBA restored, on 2A grounds.

    Public carry - courts are giving states wide latitude in how they define sensitive places, how they regulate who can carry in public, what requirements must be met to carry on your person, or in a vehicle, and for what purpose.

    In April the challenge to New York's hand gun permit made to SCOTUS, and they declined to review the law.

    It is one of the most restrictive in the country,  requiring a background check, a mental health review, and convincing a county official that you have a specific need to carry a handgun concealed.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:10:52 AM PDT

  •  What is RKBA? (0+ / 0-)

    And are you the Old Pot Smuggler I followed on Huff Pst in its good years?  

  •  6,956 Death or more since Newtown n/a (0+ / 0-)

    A German in America - often confused but still trying to understand and happy to share the European point of view with a smile to everybody who is willing to listen

    by agermanfullofhope on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 07:14:32 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site