The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 28, 2009, 05:59 PM   #1
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,091
One gun a month schemes

New Jersey is the latest to sign into law a one gun a month scheme. Although we may have bigger fish to fry, shall issue, etc., is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Lo...ning-of-rights
After literally years of effort, the powerful anti-gun forces in New Jersey politics have finally succeeded in passing a "one handgun per month" bill, which now heads to Governor Corzine's desk for his inevitable signature.
A measure sponsored by Senators Sandra Bolden Cunningham and Teresa Ruiz, which would prohibit the sale and purchase of more than one handgun per person, within a 30-day period was approved today by the full Senate by a vote of 21 to 15.
Unless I'm missing a state or two somewhere, that makes New Jersey the fourth to pass this kind of law (or fifth, if you count South Carolina, which repealed its version of the law in 2004, after finding it to be ineffective at reducing violent crime). The others that still have such a law are California (no surprise there, with it's Brady Campaign Number One Tyranny Rating), Maryland (again, no surprise, with Maryland ranking almost as "high" as California), and Virginia. The fact that Virginia is one of only three (soon to be four) states with such a law is probably a surprise to some. Virginia, after all, is blamed for having "lax gun laws" that contribute toward it being part of the so-called "Iron Pipeline" of guns that end up illegally in places like New York City.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 06:09 PM   #2
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
I don't care for the law in VA but it can be avoided by paying the CCW tax. Silly law.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old June 28, 2009, 06:12 PM   #3
CortJestir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Southern CT
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
is this an infringment
Yes. :barf: Even the state of CT doesn't have this restriction, even though we do have an AWB. I'll never understand these laws.
__________________
"They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about..."
- Lord Hugh Percy, on the events of April 19, 1775
Do you know what you're about? Find out at an Appleseed near you.
CortJestir is offline  
Old June 29, 2009, 06:51 AM   #4
JagFarlane
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2008
Posts: 282
VA legislature has also tried sending up several bills in recent past to try and repeal that law in various forms.
__________________
Too many to list...enjoy em all!
JagFarlane is offline  
Old June 29, 2009, 12:09 PM   #5
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,584
Quote:
Although we may have bigger fish to fry, shall issue, etc., is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?
Yes and no respectively. In fact, even if the court were to swing to the left, I still don't think this would withstand SCOTUS scrutiny. Reasons:

1) It's just about impossible to argue that this would have any measurable effect on crime because all anyone needs to commit most gun crimes is one gun.

2) This would have little effect on the overall number of guns in circulation because few people buy more than one gun a month anyway.

3) Law-abiding collectors and hunters are likely to have their activities curtailed by this law.

4) Criminals are highly unlikely to have their activities curtailed by this law because I'd surmise that very few crooks try to buy more than one handgun per month through legal channels. If the guns were bought under the table, only the stupidest and most bumbling criminal would be snared by the law because establishing purchase dates would be almost impossible.

5) People buying multiple guns for the purposes of starting an illegal under-the-table gun business are already breaking multiple existing federal laws that are highly unlikely to go away in the forseeable future.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old June 29, 2009, 03:58 PM   #6
Hunley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2009
Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 241
I fail to see the reasoning behind these laws. What if you happen on the "One" gun you can't live without and need to complete your collection, but you bought one 4 weeks earlier?

There was also some web clip with R. Lee Ermey talking about the nonsensical nature of these laws. He was talking about how in California the limit was one new handgun a month, but there were no limits on the purchasing of used. You could buy four at the time if you wanted and everything cleared.
__________________
"The best caliber and round for self defense are the ones in the gun closest to you" - My Grandfather
Hunley is offline  
Old June 29, 2009, 05:23 PM   #7
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
I fail to see the reasoning behind these laws.
That's because there isn't any, but since when does the passage of laws require logic and reason?
csmsss is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:09 AM   #8
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
There was also some web clip with R. Lee Ermey talking about the nonsensical nature of these laws. He was talking about how in California the limit was one new handgun a month, but there were no limits on the purchasing of used. You could buy four at the time if you wanted
Don't think that's quite right. I believe that if you hold a Class 03 C&R FFL and if you also have a CA Certificate of Eligibility, you are exempt from the one-a-month rule, whether for new or used. Otherwise, the one-a-month rule applies both to new and used handguns.
Ricky B is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:45 AM   #9
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
The clueless often argue that it is about preventing weapons trafficking across state lines.

But isn't that what all the laws and regulations prohibiting non ffl interstate transfers was supposed to prevent. It's already a felony to traffic weapons across state lines if you are committing two felonies (straw purchase and trafficking you're not going to care about a third one.

Since the criminals ignored those laws let's pass some more.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 02:26 AM   #10
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
First, an answer to the OP's questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
is this an infringment, and could it withstand the scrutiny of the present SCOTUS panel?
Yes, it is an infringement, but only if either the 3rd Circuit Court, which includes NJ, PA & DE, renders a decision incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the states via the 14th Amendment. As it stands now, the 2nd Amendment is enforceable only against the Federal Gov't and the states in the 9th Circuit (CA, OR, WA, ID, MT, AZ, NV, AK, HI) thanks to their incorporation via Nordyke.

If Scotus settles the incorporation issue, this should be a slam dunk to be overturned as prior restraint. Rights can be exercised "at will" by citizens -- you may speak, worship, assemble, and print literature as often as you wish and in broad manner of ways. Imagine your right to worship limited to once per month. Or your right to assemble peaceably. Your ability to exercise your RKBA is no different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky B.
Don't think that's quite right. I believe that if you hold a Class 03 C&R FFL and if you also have a CA Certificate of Eligibility, you are exempt from the one-a-month rule, whether for new or used. Otherwise, the one-a-month rule applies both to new and used handguns.
That's not right either.
In California, you are limited to buying only one new gun per month. You can buy as many used guns (usually sold on consignment in shops) as you want. You can buy one new and six used ones in a month - not a problem.

For what it's worth dept...
The advertised purpose of one-gun-a-month laws is to reduce the number of "gun traffickers" (aka gun runners) who purchase multiple guns in less-restrictive State-A, then drive to anti-gun State-B to illegally sell them at a profit.

The problem is that when multiple guns are purchased, how do we know if it's Dirk Dirtbag buying four or five identical Hi-Point 9mm pistols to resell in another city this weekend -- or -- Disaster Dave buying those same Hi-Points to put into his "bug-out" bags for himself, his wife and teenage kids?
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 03:02 AM   #11
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
And why do we need another law for dirk dirtbag to violate?

He's already committing two felonies.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 10:45 AM   #12
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
In California, you are limited to buying only one new gun per month.
Interesting. Must be because guns lose so much effectiveness once they are used.

Got a citation to the law that specifies new only or a link?
Ricky B is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 01:48 PM   #13
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,124
As a resident of New Jersey (alas) I note that politicians use the "get tough on guns" smokescreen to divert attention away from more serious problems. Corzine is facing a tough reelection fight, he has to rally his base.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 03:47 PM   #14
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Ricky B,

From Cal-DOJ's website.

Quote:
Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
While no limitation exists for the number of handguns that you may own,you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Handgun transactions related to law enforcement, private party transfers, returns to owners, and certain other specific circumstances are exempt from the one-handgun-per-30-day limit.
(PC section 12072(a)(9))
The 1/month limitation applies only to guns bought from an FFL dealer as a new gun. Since CA requires private sales to be processed through an FFL, these are deemed "private party transfers" regardless if you and I meet to make the sale or if the sale is a consignment sale through the FFL.

For more information, see the text of 12072 here.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 03:53 PM   #15
Adrian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2007
Location: Free of California!
Posts: 257
BillCA is not 100% correct - you can buy multiple new longguns in a month, but handguns are limited to one per 30 days, out of (non-consignment) dealer inventory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by California Penal Code 12072
(9) (A) No person shall make an application to purchase more than
one pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed
upon the person within any 30-day period.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any of the following:
(i) Any law enforcement agency.
(ii) Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties.

(iii) Any state or local correctional facility.
(iv) Any private security company licensed to do business in
California.
<etcetcetc>
(viii) Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms
dealer pursuant to Section 12082.
Section 12082 deals with private-party transfers.
__________________
NRA Life Member since January 2009
Matt.25:40

Last edited by Adrian; June 30, 2009 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Ninja'd for formatting...
Adrian is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 04:04 PM   #16
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,091
If only new guns are restricted by the law, then its only purpose would seem to be to slow the flow of firearms into the hands of people not disqualified from owning them. That would seem to be a prima facia infringement, would it not?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 06:47 PM   #17
Composer_1777
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: New Orleans, La
Posts: 242
This doesn't seem to bad, limiting firearm purchasing to once a month might actually increase availability of firearms and reduce the cost. In a broad spectrum, you'd have more of a chance to buy a firearm that otherwise might have been purchased.

I am glad lawmakers are not the brightest bunch otherwise they would have figured out how to eleminate firearms by now.

Just cut ammo supply, thats not guaranteed in the constitution, you can bear all the arms you want but cut the ammo the gun is worthless.
Composer_1777 is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 07:12 PM   #18
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
This doesn't seem to bad, limiting firearm purchasing to once a month might actually increase availability of firearms and reduce the cost. In a broad spectrum, you'd have more of a chance to buy a firearm that otherwise might have been purchased.
How exactly would that work? Since very few people buy more than one gun a month now, in fact most won't buy more than one per year, it would have almost zero effect on supply and demand.

Quote:
I am glad lawmakers are not the brightest bunch otherwise they would have figured out how to eleminate firearms by now.
It's not their dubious intelligence that prevents firearms elimination, it's the constitution.

Quote:
Just cut ammo supply, thats not guaranteed in the constitution, you can bear all the arms you want but cut the ammo the gun is worthless.
In the same way that government can't require you to keep your firearm locked in such a way as to prevent it's immediate use, denying ammo would be denying the right to keep and bear for self defense or any other lawful purpose. Heller vs DC said that policy option is off the table.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 07:25 PM   #19
Composer_1777
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 30, 2009
Location: New Orleans, La
Posts: 242
how do you quote on this? hmm.

Cool, didn't know about that court ruling.
Composer_1777 is offline  
Old June 30, 2009, 08:31 PM   #20
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
BillCA, do you agree that used guns sold out of the dealer's inventory (i.e., not on consignment) are subject to the one-a-month rule?
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 1, 2009, 12:27 AM   #21
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Adrian -- you are correct... it's handguns. That's what I get for being a lazy typist. Thanks.

Re: Ammo bans: Not constitutional. Nor would be separate taxes specifically on ammo or components, even if it is the same rate as the sales tax.

SCOTUS ruled that a similar scheme -- a tax on newsprint paper that was the same rate as state sales tax -- violated the 1st Amendment. The justices indicated that a separate tax being equal now could later be changed to a higher rate with the effect taxing newspapers out of existence. Special taxes aimed at activities that are protected rights won't stand. Thus, you could not pass a separate tax to collect taxes for
- Buying a Bible, Torah, Quran, etc.
- Printer's ink used in publishing
- Each visit to a church or taxing the church by headcount.
- Crossing some state or local political boundary.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 1, 2009, 12:40 AM   #22
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
BillCA, do you agree that used guns sold out of the dealer's inventory (i.e., not on consignment) are subject to the one-a-month rule?
Essentially true. Provided that the handgun in question is still on the state's "approved handgun" roster at the time of sale.

In California, a dealer may purchase any handgun from a private party who desires to liquidate the gun. Only handguns that are currently on the California "approved" roster may be resold within California by the FFL dealer.

Handguns which are not on the list, nor C&R handguns must be sold to an out-of-state buyer (pursuant to all federal and state laws of the states involved, of course).

For instance, if you take your S&W Model 19-3 to an FFL and sell it to him, he will give you about 25-35% of it's value because he will have to find an out-of-state buyer, probably another FFL. In order to gain some profit, each FFL has to buy it below current value. On the other hand, you can "contract" with your FFL to sell the gun on consignment as your agent. You pay him a (%) fee which includes handling the paperwork. You will garner substantially more money than by selling it to the FFL.

If the handgun is a recently made gun (e.g. S&W M&P 9mm) that is still on the "approved" list, the dealer can give you 50% to 60% of it's value because it doesn't have to be sold twice before reaching the retail buyer.

In California, dealers are cautioned to sell their private gun collections "on consignment" instead of transferring them to inventory. This avoids complications with CA-DOJ and BATF authorities.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old July 1, 2009, 07:21 AM   #23
skydiver3346
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,222
One gun a month?

OMG, I might go into withdrawals if that was the case down here in Florida....
skydiver3346 is offline  
Old July 7, 2009, 09:58 PM   #24
Dewhitewolf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2007
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 229
The Supreme Court, as well as the other federal courts, are only empowered to hear cases of actual controversy, not hypothetical situations. That means that an individual would have to file a legal claim that his rights were infringed by a limit of one handgun per month, then find a federal or constitutional infringement based on it.

The Supreme Court in the Heller case allowed for reasonable restrictions. It is highly doubtful that the Supreme Court will find a one gun per month law to be unreasonable at all, let alone so unreasonable as to nullify the law.
__________________
I'm not afraid of the guy who wants many guns; I'm afraid of the guy who wants just one.
Dewhitewolf is offline  
Old July 8, 2009, 12:06 PM   #25
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,659
I don't purchase nearly one a month, but if I was subjected to that restriction I would start buying one every month
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12593 seconds with 7 queries