Where are my Gun Owners?

[Humperdink]

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/7112 ... z3L74wsud4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ammo shortage easing.

[Shyster]

Looks like CNBC and a bunch of other media outlets jumped the gun. The Remington settlement is not a recall, and they are under no legal compulsion to replace every trigger. They have agreed, however, to replace the triggers for those models of rifles upon request of the owner. The settlement does not involve an admission of liability or any concession that Remington triggers are defective or unsafe.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... ever-made/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DelPen]

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/7112 ... z3L74wsud4

Ammo shortage easing.

Still can't find any .22lr

[mac5155]

You have to know where to look. I ordered a 500 and 333 round box on cabela's last week for $25.99 and $16.99 respectively. roughly 5 cents a round, shipped.

[mac5155]

Wow. In a settlement filed today in a class-action lawsuit, Remington has agreed to replace the triggers for the Model 700 and all other rifles using that same trigger design, including the Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102236497" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This recall covers all models of the above rifles made since 1962. We're talking about something along the lines of 7.85 million rifles.

Heh, a friend of mine... he has 6 Remington guns that were under this recall.

[tifosi77]

Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

[Shyster]

Newtown victims' families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack

"This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible," Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "It's negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public."

This suit will almost certainly (and rightfully) be dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The plaintiffs are trying to drive a truck through a keyhole. The PLCAA generally prevents firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers from being held liable "for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended." There are a number of limited exceptions to the immunity, one of which is for "negligent entrustment," which the law defines as:

the term “negligent entrustment” means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

The complaint essentially argues that "assault rifles" are so inherently dangerous and deadly that no member of the public can be trusted to use them in a way that does not create an unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others. Thus, selling even one of them to anyone not a member of the military or police is negligent entrustment. This is analogous to an argument that because Bugatti Veyrons are so fast and powerful that only professional race-car drivers can be trusted to own and operate them safely, selling a Veyron to anyone who is not a professional race-car driver is an act of negligent entrustment.

[mac5155]

Speaking of assault rifles, any update on whether I can (legally) shoot a coyote with one yet?

[tifosi77]

This is analogous to an argument that because Bugatti Veyrons are so fast and powerful that only professional race-car drivers can be trusted to own and operate them safely, selling a Veyron to anyone who is not a professional race-car driver is an act of negligent entrustment.

After spending ten minutes on wreckedexotics.com, I could be persuaded on that point.

[DelPen]

Speaking of assault rifles, any update on whether I can (legally) shoot a coyote with one yet?

North Carolina

[DelPen]

There are a number of limited exceptions to the immunity, one of which is for "negligent entrustment," which the law defines as:

the term “negligent entrustment” means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

I would guess the negligent entrustment becomes null and void when the person who bought the gun is murdered and said gun is then stolen to use in further crime.

[Shyster]

I would guess the negligent entrustment becomes null and void when the person who bought the gun is murdered and said gun is then stolen to use in further crime.

That's why the complaint has to argue that it was negligent simply to sell that sort of rifle to the public. I've read the complaint, and it studiously avoids the fact that Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole the gun in question.

[mac5155]

Speaking of assault rifles, any update on whether I can (legally) shoot a coyote with one yet?

North Carolina

I wish. PA.

[Shyster]

Speaking of assault rifles, any update on whether I can (legally) shoot a coyote with one yet?

The bills that would have legalized the use of semi-autos in Pennsylvania all died in committee. And fat chance Tom Wolf would sign a bill like that, so the idea is probably dead for at least the next four years.

[Shyster]

The Sixth Circuit today became the first federal appeals court to apply the strict-scrutiny standard of review to a 2A case. Tyler was involuntarily committed to a mental institution in 1986 during a bad divorce; he was suicidal. He's been fine ever since and has no criminal record. Under federal law, anyone involuntarily committed is forever barred from owning firearms unless he or she is granted relief from that disability.

There are two mechanisms to apply for relief from this bar—one under state law and one under federal law. But the federal program (run by the BATF) has been defunded by Congresss since 1992, and while the federal government offers grant money to states to implement state-level programs, the state where Tyler lives (Michigan) hasn't yet implemented such a program. So Tyler literally has nowhere to go to apply for relief and show that he is not dangerous and should be allowed to own firearms again. The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that it's unconstitutional to bar Tyler from owning guns while at the same time denying him access (though a denial of funding) to any program where he can apply for relief from that bar.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/18/app ... od=WSJBlog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DelPen]

That's actually good news, if someone got smart and defunded the ATF process for say obtaining tax stamps for supressors one could argue they can be bought without getting approval that we could never get because it's not possible.

[Shyster]

We could have a big change in the way handguns are purchased. A federal district judge in Texas just ruled that the federal ban on the interstate purchase of handguns is unconstitutional, and he has ordered the Attorney General and the BATF to stop enforcing that ban.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/02/ban.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this decision holds up, then it would remove the requirement that in order to buy a handgun from a FFL in another state, that FFL must first ship the handgun to a FFL in your own state, who then transfers it to you. For example, I could go to Cabela's in Wheeling, buy a handgun, pass the check there, and then simply walk out with it rather than having to go through Cabela's shipping that gun to a FFL in PA first before I can take possession.

[dodint]

Could I have stuff I bought on Gunbroker shipped to my house?

[Shyster]

Could I have stuff I bought on Gunbroker shipped to my house?

I don't believe so, because you must still appear in person at an FFL in order to fill out the forms, show ID, go through the NICS check, etc.

[dodint]

All of my new handgun purchases were done online, but I don't know what was done by which FFL. I had a great FFL in NC who would charge by a flat rate for the transaction/session of $25. The other one in town wanted $35 per gun. F them.

[mac5155]

We could have a big change in the way handguns are purchased. A federal district judge in Texas just ruled that the federal ban on the interstate purchase of handguns is unconstitutional, and he has ordered the Attorney General and the BATF to stop enforcing that ban.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/02/ban.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this decision holds up, then it would remove the requirement that in order to buy a handgun from a FFL in another state, that FFL must first ship the handgun to a FFL in your own state, who then transfers it to you. For example, I could go to Cabela's in Wheeling, buy a handgun, pass the check there, and then simply walk out with it rather than having to go through Cabela's shipping that gun to a FFL in PA first before I can take possession.

I always wondered why no one would buy handguns at Cabelas when I went. I've bought a rifle and a shotgun from them, but never tried a handgun, and always heard about that. It makes perfect sense now. themoreyouknow.jpg

[Shyster]

I always wondered why no one would buy handguns at Cabelas when I went. I've bought a rifle and a shotgun from them, but never tried a handgun, and always heard about that. It makes perfect sense now. themoreyouknow.jpg

Yup. This scheme dates back to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and part of the district court's ruling is based on the fact that the advancement of technology (namely, computerized instant-check systems) means that the prohibition on sales across state lines is no longer a "narrowly tailored" requirement. It's also patently arbitrary to permit the interstate purchase of rifles and shotguns but prohibit handguns. It makes no sense to me that I can buy and walk out of Cabela's with a 12-gauge shotgun, but I can't do the same with a .22 plinking pistol.

[tifosi77]

We could have a big change in the way handguns are purchased. A federal district judge in Texas just ruled that the federal ban on the interstate purchase of handguns is unconstitutional, and he has ordered the Attorney General and the BATF to stop enforcing that ban.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/02/ban.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this decision holds up, then it would remove the requirement that in order to buy a handgun from a FFL in another state, that FFL must first ship the handgun to a FFL in your own state, who then transfers it to you. For example, I could go to Cabela's in Wheeling, buy a handgun, pass the check there, and then simply walk out with it rather than having to go through Cabela's shipping that gun to a FFL in PA first before I can take possession.

What, if any, would be the applicability of this ruling to something like the CA roster of approved handguns?

[Shyster]

What, if any, would be the applicability of this ruling to something like the CA roster of approved handguns?

Probably not any. States still have the authority to control what guns people bring into the state, so California could just bar anyone from coming into the state with a gun that's not on the approved list.

Also, I'm not sure whether this decision applies nationwide or it applies only to the 5th Circuit, which covers Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

[DelPen]

Yup, you still need to follow your state's unconsitituional laws that are still on the books, if you go to Nevada to buy and bring back I'm assuming you need to register it just like moving into the state brand new?

This is great for me though, I live just a few hundred yards from the NC border, there are gun shows several times a year in Charlotte but I never wanted to go through the hassle of buying a handgun then having it shipped to a SC shop especially now that my favorite shop closed. This will certainly increase business and get more inventory at the shows.

This is also good if I want to do a private sale with one of friends who lives in NC, right now it's illegal which is absurd as long as we both do our due dilligence which for me requires them to either have known me for several years or they have a current concealed license which means their record is clean.