Pelosi’s “Background Check” Bill Eliminates C&R Transfers

Are you a type 3 FFL, Collector of Curios and Relics? John Richardson has some preliminary language. By my reading, transfers have to go through a dealer, importer, or manufacturer. So if you have a C&R, you could buy from Century or a dealer at a gun show, but you couldn’t buy from another C&R license holder. This renders the C&R considerably less useful, since you’re most likely to find good pickings in the hands of other collectors.

I’m beyond believing they just don’t know how to write legislation. I don’t know, maybe they don’t, and don’t really care who they impact. I’m sure if you asked Bloomberg he’d happily eliminate C&Rs entirely. So why would he care if his lawyers who wrote this shit are clueless?

If they were willing to work with us, they’d already have some kind of background check bill. But background checks are not their goal here. Sneaking other shit into the bills is their goal. De facto registration, even if not de jure, is the goal. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: this has jack shit to do with background checks.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Harry Reid Proposes New Background Check Bill
  2. Nevada Background Check Initiative Can’t Be Implemented
  3. Further Proof the Background Check Issue is a Red Herring

24 thoughts on “Pelosi’s “Background Check” Bill Eliminates C&R Transfers”

  1. I’ve said it before – with some adjustments for the modern era (and elimination of the tracking-the-firearm requirements), something like NJ’s FPID Card system as an add-on to NICS at FFLs, along with enforcement of “known or should have known” about illegal transfers, would be a better and less intrusive method of achieving useful UBC.

    I want to know the guy I’m selling to ain’t prohibited. Nobody else but he and me need to know what I’m selling.

    1. I think Illinois has what you describe in conjunction with their FOID Card System.

      1. It’s an elegant solution to pre-NICS BG checks if you don’t actively hate firearms purchasers.

        Especially if, as in NJ’s case, the card is lifetime.

        (Remember, though, NJ’s FPID is longarms only, and Murphy got them to outlaw private sales this year entirely, DESPITE the FPID and P2P system meaning that every sale included a background check component!)

    2. Before the instant check system in PA you had to mail a paper to the state police to do a background check for pistol purchases and the sale was held for 3 days to allow for it. But having a CCL from PA was considered proof that your background was clean and you could get a pistol on the spot even tho most FFLs didn’t do it, I did because I actually read the laws.
      I ask to see a CCL before a private sale for the same reason today, it’s proof of passing a background check.

    3. I don’t think that system would be good.

      I think the best system is that you run a background check on yourself, and then get a number. The seller looks that number up and confirms it is clean.

      That system can also be used by employers on employees, and for other reasons, eliminating the concerns that only gun owners would have it.

      1. “I think the best system is that you run a background check on yourself, and then get a number. The seller looks that number up and confirms it is clean.”

        That’s basically what this is. The card contains the number, is all. (For a variety of reasons it’d probably have to be a photo ID, but it’s not strictly necessary.)

        The NJ FPID isa file number, a name and address, and for some stupid reason, a thumbprint. Because people in the field check thumbprints…

        I don’t want non-gun-relevant stuff involved. That’s asking for trouble.

        1. No, I propose something different.

          The number would be a temporary number. Maybe it lasts a day or a week. It wouldn’t be a permanent number tied to you.

          I don’t want any sort of card or availability to track. Because then they can start building an easily searchable database of gun owners.

          And I definitely want non-gun-revelent stuff involved. Otherwise, its asking for trouble due to ability to track.

          1. There’s not really any way, in this day in age, to hide your gun ownership. If they want to make a list of gun owners, they can do that easily. Maybe they’ll miss some people, but probably not many. What I care about is them knowing what I own.

          2. That horse is out the barn and running free. They can retain the request for the ID number as easily as a “permanent” one. Hell, aren’t they allegedly retaining NICS requests, in technical violation of the law?

  3. Before we do *anything* with C&R, I’d like to have a few questions asked.

    (1) How many criminals get their guns from C&R licensees?

    (2) How often are C&R weapons used in crimes?

    (3) Has there been a rash of gang drive-by shootings with C&R guns? In particular, with revolvers, lever actions, or gyrojets? Maybe a rash of school shootings with such guns?

    (4) Why should we believe that curbing C&R is being done in good faith, if crime using such guns is virtually non-existent?

    This is what annoys me most about such an attempt to alter the law: if *anything* should be left alone, it should be C&R. This is clearly an attempt to limit peaceable citizens, with having zero effect on crime.

    1. Because you need to target the people dedicated to the cause first, and throw up road blocks to prevent new people from taking up the hobby. The way you do that is to go after the things they value and destroy them. This isn’t about crime.

      1. I’m with Sigivald, below. They neither know nor care about C&R. This just tightens the grip in general.

        1. I think it’s actually probably a bit of both. The writers and sponsors of the law probably have never heard of C&R, but if we were to bring up our concerns with the interference with C&R, they’ll rub their hands in glee, and say, “Yay, we’re going to get all those *weird* guns off the streets too!”

  4. I suspect Pelosi et al. literally have no idea what a CRFL is and literally don’t care.

    Even a lot of Gun People don’t really know anything about C&Rs; you have to be serious, and serious about a particular kind of niche, to really know/care.

    I totally believe this is an unintended side effect, not a sneaky bonus gotcha they even knew about.

    (I also believe they won’t change anything to save CRFLs – but equally their bill ain’t goin’ anywhere anyway.

    Pure posturing.)

  5. I consider it to be a good thing that they refuse to work with us. If they did, some people would undoubtedly be taken in and it might lead to something actually passing. However, they have no intention of actually honoring any deal they would make. This should be abundantly clear to everyone now but people continue to fall for the scam.

      1. I worked through the list of exempted weapons in last years bill and noted that they think that a Remington Nylon 66 is a centerfire rifle.

      2. If they were taughgt how to write a better law, they’d get more support.

        So, yeah.

        (Hell, if NJ’s FPID actually was issued as the law says it should be, there’d be a lot less complaints about it.)

  6. I see the GOP is responding with National Carry Reciprocity. Again. In other words, Lucy is shining her football so she can play Charlie for the fool again.

    I’m more insulted by the GOP thinking we’re too stupid to catch on (the 45th time?), rather than upset at anything Pelosi does.

    The GOP clearly does not like us but talks sweet when it’s looking for an electoral booty call. The next morning it’s all about ghosting out, before breakfast.

    Nancy is at least an honest broker. It’s refreshing in a way to have someone honestly and vehemently hate you, out in the open.

    1. To some degree, though, the Democrats are playing the same game. Do they honestly expect that their anti-gun bills are going to get passed? Yet they are nonetheless proposing them — to offer their own football to their own Charlies….

    2. NCR as mooted last year was within 2-7 votes (depends on how many Senators actually vote Aye if they’re not guaranteed it’d fail to meet cloture) of passage in the Senate, and did pass the House. I wrote a post on it at the time noting we had a likely 58 Aye votes based on the 2013 vote and a conservative prediction for the Senators not present in 2013.

      It was scheduled to be voted when the incident in Broward County happened, which put paid to that.

      It’s not a hopeless stunt; it’s a game of political inches.

      (And it was an EXTREMELY good bill, would have devastated and effectively made, among other things, NJ’s magazine size limit and AWB for pistols ineffective if you had any permit, even a non-resident one)

Comments are closed.