Virginia Delegate files bill to repeal one handgun a month rationing scheme

[oneshooter]

Virginia State Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R - Prince William & Fauquier Counties), a retired US Army Colonel who sits on the influential Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee, has pre-filed House Bill 49 ahead of the 2010 Virginia General Assembly session. HB 49 would repeal Virginia's one handgun a month purchase rationing scheme. Only 3 other states ration handgun purchases: California, Maryland, and New Jersey (South Carolina repealed their gun rationing law several years ago).

Governor-elect Bob McDonnell (R) voted for the one handgun a month law in 1993 as a state Delegate from Virginia Beach. But McDonnell explained during his campaign for Governor that he now supports repeal of gun rationing because improved nationwide instant background checks make gun rationing obsolete.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Virginia-Delegate-files-bill-to-repeal-one-handgun-a-month-rationing-scheme


Not much to say. It is up to RKBA supporters in Va. to decide this one.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Endangered Specie]

1. I wasn't even aware Virginia had such a law...

interesting how the anti-gunners blame Virginia for supplying DC/NY/NJ and all other restrictive northern cities and states for supplying criminals with guns, yet this, supposedly 'anti-gun-trafficking' law has been in place for 16 years

[westerebus]

3. It's a form of birth control in Virginia.

As in, you buy one more gun this month and your sleeping with that dam dog......LOL

[rfranklin]

4. There are other states that supply guns to New York area criminals...

Florida among them. But they sure ain't coming from gun shops in NJ.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

6. LOL...yea..this from a follower of Sara Brady (R), Micheal Bloomberg (R), Paul Helmke (R) nt

[SteveM]

42. Good one. Quick on the draw, you are (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

15. 21 of 38 DEMOCRATIC state Attorney Generals are pro-gun.

That's a majority of Democratic State AGs. Lots and lots of Democrats are pro-gun, and the ratio is increasing in our favor.

[Tim01]

5. I actually don't have a problem with the 1 gun/month law.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it does fall under the much over used heading of common sense. I've heard the gun trafficking has picked up in surrounding states since the 1 gun/month law in Va. If that is true then it is evidence the law is having an impact on illegal guns.

It shouldn't be a big trick to get a permit as a dealer or something if a person wants to buy more than one handgun per month. I'll bet the number of people who buy that many is very very small.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. I have twice bought two guns at the same time.

In a typical year, I don't buy any guns. Count me as one who thinks the law is stupid.

[Tim01]

18. I don't understand what you are saying.

The law doesn't effect you, so you think it is stupid.
The law does prevent other people from buying a dozen handguns and selling them to criminals at a profit. It really is just that simple without the one gun/month law. Go down to the gun store. Spend 3K on handguns, sell them to a guy from New York for 2-3 times what you paid for them, by nightfall. Of course this guy will get caught for something eventually. And some other criminal who hasn't got caught yet, will take his place for a year or whatever.
With the 1 gun/month law, the potential gun runner has to go all over the countryside buying guns from private individuals. Most criminals are just too lazy for all that.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. I think it is a stupid law for VA to have for Virginia.

That it doesn't effect me is something I am glad of. I can still think it is a bad law. It is one that I would be against if some Texas legislator proposed it. Fortunately, such legislators are rare in Texas.

I don't think that straw purchasers are that much of a problem as they have to leave a trail behind them, so the guns can be traced to them. Criminals would have an easier time buying guns on the street. No paper trail to follow.

[Katya Mullethov]

33. It would behoove us to buy one gun a month

At first glance , I thought the thread was "repeal one gun law per month" heh ? WTF? ........oh

[Tim01]

24. double tap-ignore nt

[Euromutt]

27. But why does it have to specifically be "one handgun a month"?

I'll acknowledge the Virginia "one handgun a month" statute does appear to have driven traffickers to states further south to recruit straw purchasers, so there is some beneficial effect, but what I don't understand is why this type of law always needs to be couched as "one gun a month," instead of say, "12 handguns/year" or "6 handguns in a six-month period." I don't see myself buying a dozen handguns in any given year, but I can imagine perusing a gun show, finding two or three sweet deals, and wanting to pick them all up (though that's unlikely to happen more than once every few years). Six guns every months should limit straw purchasing without preventing the law-abiding gun owner from picking up a few guns at once.

[pipoman]

35. Perhaps the biggest loosers in these schemes

are collectors who have been buying NIB collectible guns. For instance, pre-1986 P&R Smith & Wesson revolvers, Colt revolvers, and others have become very, very collectible over the past decade. Now when that collector decides to liquidate, say at an auction, the only people who can participate are dealers, which minimizes the potential appreciation that collector stands to realize..c&r license will not cover a circa 1985 3" model 29 Smith.

[virginia mountainman]

7. I expect LOTS of good things..

For those interested in gun rights in VA, we won in a landslide... It was obvious even before the state election where held that we won, in both parties, most of the candidates where PRO GUN..

We now have veto proof margins....

[Tim01]

8. So, what do you make of this bill?

You and I can discuss this like rational adults. I stated my opinion a couple of posts up.

[virginia mountainman]

9. It is BS....

I like to peruse gun shows, gun shops, pawn shops, I am a collector of historical firearms... I can, and regularly do, go for YEARS without purchasing anything..(have not purchased ANY firearm for a year at the current time)

But...If I see two handguns, that I want, that would fill a slot in my collection, in the space of a month, to add to my collection, I should be able too, WITHOUT needing to get a permission slip from the sheriff.

Traffickers, will get their guns, one way or the other... One gun a month is just another "chip" out of our wall. Most of their guns are got illegally anyway.

The assumption made by one hand gun a month laws, is that ANYONE who buys more than one, IS a trafficer...that is unacceptable.

[Tim01]

10. We'll have to just agree to dissagree on this one.

If I bought 1 gun a month I would have WAY more guns than I have now.

I think many criminals are just plain lazy. If they can't go down to the store and pick up a handful of handguns to sell to their criminal friends, they just won't do it. Too much of a hassle. I can live with that.

[PavePusher]

11. It's not about buying one gun every single month.

But I think you know that.

I may go for some time, as VM, without buying a firearm. Then I may find two or three I wish to purchase in a short time span. Why should I have to wait?

To be fair, this law should cover exercise of all Civil Rights. After all, why does anyone need more than one book or newspaper every month? Who needs to be presented with a search warrant more than once? How many times per month do you need to be able to refuse to quarter troops? How often does anyone really need to practice their religion? Should I only need to fight excess bail once a month?

I know, we can make up flip answers to all those rethorical questions all day long. But the point is still there, and seldom addressed: Where in the Constitution does it say that Rights are only good once per month? And, under such a philosophy, why do we not apply such a restriction to all Rights equally?

[Tim01]

13. I also don't believe violent felons should be able to buy guns.

But there are plenty of people who think felons should have all of their rights restored once they have finished their prison sentence. I think it is reasonable to keep dangerous people from having guns. I also think the one gun/month law has an actual impact on criminal activity, and very little impact on average people.
I had to get a permit to carry a handgun. I can live with that. It makes it criminal for a gangster to put a pistol in his pants and go to a house party. I can live with that.

I would be against one gun/month if I thought it didn't work. It doesn't work against all criminals. But it works against a lot of them. That is exactly why they are going to other states to buy handguns.Because the law does work.

[eqfan592]

30. But it DOESN'T work.

Because they CAN go to other states, or if those were to adopt it they would go to other suppliers outside of the nation (just like drugs). This sort of thing is very similar to an outright ban in the logic used behind it, and it's equally as ineffective in having any appreciable impact on the actual violent crime rate (which in the end is the only true measure of the effectiveness of any such legislation). Honestly, it stinks of the sort of "feel good" legislation that's been hurting Democrats for the decade and a half.

This sort of law can be a major pain in the ass for honest people, but is a minor inconvenience(at BEST) for criminals.

[Tim01]

43. I don't agree that everybody should be allowed to have guns.

If you believe that all criminals have access to all guns they want, then you must believe there is no need to restrict any guns to anybody.
I don't agree, and I'm not going to.

I guess you could say that all gun laws are useless because a felon could always get a rat tail file and a piece of steel and make himself a gun. But the truth is that almost none would.
Criminals are going farther away to get guns because the supply in Va is not good enough.

[eqfan592]

45. Please point to where I ever said that I thought everybody should be allowed to have guns?

I never made any such argument, nor have I ever in any post at any time. Nor did I ever argue that all gun laws are useless for any given reason. But there is such a thing as "reasonable restrictions." When a restriction does more good than harm, then it might be reasonable to move forward with it. When it, however, does more harm than good, or is just in general a wash, then it should be examined.

I'm all in favor of what we have in place now, with background checks being performed and with multiple purchases being flagged. I'm even OK with investigators looking into multiple purchases if they feel there is reason for suspicion, but this "one gun a month" is ridiculous. It does not appear to have had any affect on the crime rate, and instead of aiding law enforcement in apprehending straw purchases, it's simply moving them around a bit.

[Tim01]

47. Then I think you are really inconsistent in your reasons.

Background checks.
Do background checks prevent criminals from getting guns? Sometimes. Do criminals find other ways to get guns? Yes.
How many non-criminals do back ground checks effect? LOTS, maybe even most.
It is often over 12 hours for a non-criminal to clear a background check in my area. I often have to make 2 trips to a different city if I buy a gun that is not local. I'm probably going to apply for a special pre-approved number from the state police and pay $75.00 to get that number because the background check is such a huge pain in the ass for me to legally buy a gun.

1 gun/month
Does 1 gun/month prevent criminals from getting guns? Sometimes. Do criminals find other ways to get guns? Yes.
How many non-criminals does 1 gun/month effect? I've never met a single person who complained about it.

Background checks.
Criminals buy guns from private individuals to get around the background check,or have their girlfriend buy it for them. Some criminals find it to be too much of a hassle and too threatening to intentionally go around the law to get a handgun.

1 gun/month
Criminals go to other states to buy guns in volume to sell to other criminals, to get around 1 gun/month. Some criminals find it too much of a hassle and too threatening to drive 7 hours and cross state lines with a trunk full of guns.

I can't see how you want to end one gun/month and want to keep background checks. Background checks don't keep criminals from getting guns. They just get them someplace else.

[PavePusher]

49. Background checks actually stop a criminal at the point of initial sale...

(except for straw purchases) and rarely obstruct legal buyers for more than a day or two.

One-gun-a-month does almost nothing to obstruct criminals, but restricts every legal buyer to an average 30 day wait period.

I would not be so willing to trade away my Civil Rights so lightly.

And again, why not apply such a restriction to every other Civil Right? Oh, right, because then we'd probably actually have a civil war....

[Tim01]

50. "stop a criminal at the point of initial sale" Only at a gun store.

A criminal can grab the valley trader or local paper, and buy all the guns he wants from private sellers. Or for more convenience he can go to a gun show where there is a high density of private sellers and buy lots of guns all at the same time. Back ground checks DO NOT prevent criminals from buying guns.
Back ground checks to exactly what one gun/month does. Except that background checks cause a big hassle for lots and lots and lots of non- criminals.
I recently drove 1 hour to Charlottesville to buy a gun and had to drive back the next day because I didn't clear until the next day. There were 3 other people who had to come back the next day. 1 gun/month didn't effect any of us.

Background checks do not prevent criminals from getting guns. They do cause a pain in the ass for the rest of us.

[PavePusher]

51. By "initial point of sale", I meant the first retail purchase at a gun store.

Sorry if that wasn't as clear as it should have been.

"1 gun/month didn't effect any of us."
Umm, because you didn't want to buy more than one gun. And if you had wanted to, you'd be SOL. What part of "I am a legal purchaser, and I want to buy these two guns today" is so difficult to understand? Just because it doesn't impede your life, doesn't mean it impedes no-ones life.

One more time, the only ones this law obstructs are legal gun purchasers... so what's the point?

Also, I don't recall if the OGAM law affects private sales or not. Either way, no obstruction to criminals, so again, what is the point?

[eqfan592]

52. Thanks, Pave.

As for my being "inconsistent" let's take a look at this quote.

"I can't see how you want to end one gun/month and want to keep background checks. Background checks don't keep criminals from getting guns. They just get them someplace else."

First of all, as Pave pointed out, background checks DO stop criminals from getting guns LEGALLY from an FFL dealer. But that being aside, what exactly is stopping criminals from getting them "someplace else" under one gun a month? Nothing, as has been pointed out several times now.

The problem is NOT the number of firearms that are purchased legally from an FFL. It seems to be more an issue of private sellers not having access to the background check system in some fashion.

[Tim01]

54. You are still pointing out the similarities between background checks and onegun/month.

What is keeping criminals from going around background checks? Nothing.
What is keeping criminals from going around one gun/ month? Nothing.

Background checks keep criminals from buying guns from legally buying from a FFL.
One gun/ month prevents strawmen from legally buying in volume from a FFL.


You think it is worthwhile to make it a hassle for a criminal to buy a handgun.
And I think it is worthwhile to make it a hassle for a strawman to buy 100 handguns to sell to criminals.

[eqfan592]

55. *sigh*

One creates a hassle for legal purchasers and "bulk strawman" purchasers alike (with limited effectiveness), the other creates a hassle almost entirely for illegal buyers.

Neither are, by them selves, effective at solving the REAL problems behind violence, ultimate. But one is more effective at preventing legal transfers from FFL's to criminals, which is background checks.

Ultimately what I'm trying to make you understand is that you can make it a hassle for a strawman to buy 100 handguns to sell to criminals without what equates to a hard limit on firearms purchases for non-strawman purchasers. You can do this through reporting and investigation of large quantity sales. This increases the likelihood of actually catching strawman purchasers instead of simply moving them from one state to another, and does little to inconvenience the vast majority of people who are interesting in purchasing more the on firearm a month.

The program, as it stands, unnecessarily treats criminals and the law abiding alike, and that should (and will likely) change.

[burrfoot]

39. I kind of agree with you on this,

assuming that it is actually having an effect on straw purchases. Criminals can still go to other states to get their guns, but even just making it more difficult seems to make the policy worthwhile to me.

I can also see the other side of the issue, though- I can easily imagine myself picking up two new handguns at the same time for any number for reasons.

What if the law was designed so that CCW (or whatever the state equivalent is) holders could by more than one, but the general public was limited to one per month? It would be an inconvenience for non-CCW holders who want more than one at a time, but then anyone buying multiples would have been background checked and approved, which might dissuade many straw purchasers.


:shrug:

[PavePusher]

41. But you are still converting a Right to a privilige.

Not with my Constitution, thank you very much.

[Tim01]

44. I'm pretty sure CCW holders can buy as many as they want, no restriction.nt

[PavePusher]

46. Has crime anywhere gone down due to this law?

Where is the proof of such?

And, respectfully, you completely avoided the items I brought up.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Thats fine!

I have no problem with differences of opinion. Heck, I support some truly sensible (not BS) gun control as well.

My wife and I have an understanding on my gun collecting...I don't buy many, but sometimes, I need to be able to "jump" when opportunity knocks

About three years ago, I bought about 6 firearms, in the space of just a couple of months, from different sources. ALL, where scorchingly good deals.. The kind you regret later if you don't buy.

I was excited up until I hit number 4....Five and six, caused "wife stress".....

I was able to explain, and show her the true value of the guns in question, using "Gun Broker" and some books I had on hand, than she was all for it..

In a way, my guns, have become an investment. And a damn lucrative one.


But boy, for a period of time, it seems like everywhere I went, I found something rare, historically significant, and CHEAP....

I bought one rifle for $50, that was worth about $600.....

[westerebus]

20. Did your wife leave the room yet?

:evilgrin:

[virginia mountainman]

21. LOL I did need to stash a Mosin Nagant M-44, under the couch for a few weeks..

As the dust settled....LOL!!!!!

Hey, give me a break!! I took it off the street and I bought it for $40 "out the door"..

LOL!!!! After a few weeks, I worked it "into the collection"...

[westerebus]

28. I'd call that a win-win. LOL. n/t

[taurus145]

56. Go out with a double rifle case - empty

Come back home with the same case. This time it's not empty. Go to the safe and put your rifle('s) or handgun('s) or shotgun('s) back in.

That method only catches up with you when you have to buy another safe. It surely kicked me in the bahoogies. On the up side, I only had one disagreement instead of 30 or so.

Damn. I hope my wife doesn't read this!

[virginia mountainman]

57. LOL I am right at that point now..

"Their is no more space in the inn"

If you know what I mean...

[taurus145]

58. Put the ass out to pasture

'cause yours is about to be on the line.

Been there. Done that.

Good luck!

[Katya Mullethov]

34. BUT !

Are you flipping any of them to finance this ? Horse traders are the true alchemists , turning shit into gold . I am currently working on selling some hit and miss flywheel engines to finance another revolving rifle and the mark up is absolutely astronomical .

[jefflrrp]

22. although I will view with caution

the rest of our newly elected governor's policies, I'd certainly like to see him/the general assembly push for rescinding the ban on ccw-permit holders in restaurants (that also happen to serve alcohol). Its an asinine, feel-good ban that did nothing. CCW-permit holders should allowed to be armed in restaurants as long as they do not consume alcohol.

I know for a fact that if the ban was ended, I would be my group of friends' DD for all time. I'd just drink at parties and at home (sans firearm, of course).

[virginia mountainman]

25. Your correct...

As I said, Gun Owners winning this past state election in Virginia, was practically assured from the beginning..

As for "our new governor" I have always said, even a broken clock, is correct twice a day.

[aikoaiko]

14. Question to the forum: if you purchase 2 or more guns isn't there additional ....

...paperwork completed that gets submitted to the BATFE? Or is that just another gun related myth....?

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Each gun requires one Form 4473 per gun.

No special paperwork for more than one gun. I think that dealers are required to report suspicious sales. Two or three guns at once aren't suspicious, but if you buy a lot of guns at once, then they might have to give a call to the BATFE. I would think that straw purchasers would buy their guns at different stores. There is no shortage in most states of gun stores.

[X_Digger]

23. Yah, for handguns..it's called an umm.. 'Type V Demand Letter' from the ATF

There's an additional form if you purchase more than a single handgun from an FFL in a 5 day period.

*eta: Not an additional form for you, but for the FFL.

*eta2: The autority comes from 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A) - "Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such form, as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe."

[aikoaiko]

29. Is that extra information sent to the BATFE?

I know the regular 4473 doesn't get sent anywhere (except by request), but heard somewhere that when you bought 2 or more guns that information was sent to the BATFE. It wasn't merely stored away in the FFL's files.

[Euromutt]

31. To the National Tracing Center, to be precise

We're talking about the AFT form 3310.4 "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers" (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-4.pdf). One copy goes to the NTC, another to the state or local law enforcement functionary designated by the state in question, and another copy has to be appended to the forms 4473 for the sales in question.

[X_Digger]

36. Bloomie's MAIG wants the same thing for long guns..

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/MAIG-Blueprint-Gun-Control.pdf

[aikoaiko]

40. It seems to me that this addresses the issue of multiple gun purchases already

If this info is already reported than the BATFE can act if they are suspicious.

[oneshooter]

37. "I know the regular 4473 doesn't get sent anywhere (except by request), "

The form 4473 does NOT leave the dealers place of business. If BATFE wants to see it then they must go to the dealers place of business to see it. If they want a COPY of it, then they can either use the dealers copy machine,if there is one, or they can provide one at their own expense. The paper can not legally leave the dealers place of business!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[aikoaiko]

38. Thanks for helping me be more specific!

A copy of the 4473 can be sent to BATFE.

[Euromutt]

32. It's ATF Form 3310.4 "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers"

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-3310-4.pdf

[proteus_lives]

26. Good.

I hope he's successful.

[gorfle]

48. "instant background checks make gun rationing obsolete."

"instant background checks make gun rationing obsolete."

Precisely so. If I can pass a background check that says I'm legally OK to own a firearm, then what purpose does rationing serve?

Personally, I'm amazed that there are people out there who can afford to buy more than one firearm a month, but whatever.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. Instant background checks also makes the "no out of state handgun sales" obsolete.

With everything being "point and click" these days that doesn't make any sense. If I go outside my state and want to buy a handgun I can't. The background check done is the exact same one no matter what FFL's shop I'm in no matter what state. It doesn't make sense.

[pipoman]

59. In addition to federal compliance

ffls must be state compliant too. A cali resident cannot legally buy/possess the same guns that a Nevada resident may. The out of state requirement to run the gun through a ffl in one's own state isn't going away any time soon, imo.