An untold number of Colorado flood victims have secured their firearms with friends and family, without going through a background check, in an effort to mitigate any losses that they may incur if looters descended upon their damaged homes. Sadly for these flood victims, they are in violation of the new Colorado law that requires background checks for the transfer of firearms and now subject to arrest and prosecution for a class I misdemeanor. If convicted they would also be prohibited from possessing a firearm for two years.
This is yet another example of how poorly written this background check law was.
Jeanne Nicholson are you listening??? The people of your district elected you, not the Metro-centric democrats from whom you were taking your marching orders.
If one wanted to follow the law in this case they could have simply brought their weapons to the sheriff and I assume that he or she would keep them secure given the situation...
I am not saying I agree with the law, but the solution seems clear. It seems obvious if the law says no transfer without background checks, that some random family member is not qualified without the check.
But who is really going to know about it in the end....
Even more importantly, you cannot live in your house without a check, or 20 of them....even if you are currently homeless....
Not so fast. Doesn't dominion have to be surrendered before a weapon is considered "transferred" and a background check is necessary? Or am I thinking of standard capacity magazines with regards to dominion.
Laws are so poorly written and vague that it's hard to keep them straight . . .
on that note wrote: If one wanted to follow the law in this case they could have simply brought their weapons to the sheriff and I assume that he or she would keep them secure given the situation...
I am not saying I agree with the law, but the solution seems clear. It seems obvious if the law says no transfer without background checks, that some random family member is not qualified without the check.
But who is really going to know about it in the end....
Even more importantly, you cannot live in your house without a check, or 20 of them....even if you are currently homeless....
Not sure if serious...I am sure sheriff's departments want to take the responsibility of storing thousands of county firearms. Would they even have the room? And based on audits of the ATF, it doesn't look like law enforcement is very good at holding onto what firearms they are actually registered.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
That people asked their neighbors to store their arms for them doesn't mean that there has been a transfer of that arm. Who owns the arm has not been altered, so why would a background check be necessary? The so-called purpose of the law was to ensure that a background check was done with each and every sale of an arm, even when that sale occurred between private individuals. It was never the intent of the law to stop me from allowing a neighbor to borrow one of my guns to go hunting, or to let them take it to the range to shoot it to see if they liked the caliber before purchasing it or another similar weapon from another source.
Heck - with the binding instructions from the executive regarding standard capacity magazines, as long as I don't alter the dominion, I can even lend out my standard capacity magazines that were grandfathered in. Continuous possession has been understood to mean legal, not physical, with regards to the magazines, so why would the law regarding the arms themselves not also be understood in this context? Wouldn't that mean that the same language had two entirely different meanings within the law? And doesn't that lead to confusion which renders it impossible for those subject to the law to know whether they are in compliance or in violation of the law, thus rendering it void?
Transfers between family members are not subject to the background check. Second, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee as long as you are staying in their residence. Third, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee for up to 72 hours, which should give you time to either find safe storage or have a background check conducted or move it to another transferee.
Ignorance of the law does not excuse the commission of a crime.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Transfers between family members are not subject to the background check. Second, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee as long as you are staying in their residence. Third, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee for up to 72 hours, which should give you time to either find safe storage or have a background check conducted or move it to another transferee.
Ignorance of the law does not excuse the commission of a crime.
Something the Dog Said wrote: Transfers between family members are not subject to the background check. Second, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee as long as you are staying in their residence. Third, the law allows for temporary transfer to an unlicensed transferee for up to 72 hours, which should give you time to either find safe storage or have a background check conducted or move it to another transferee.
Ignorance of the law does not excuse the commission of a crime.
But an ignorant law is a crime.
Really? What crime would that be? Can you provide the link to the criminal statute?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Would they even have the room? And based on audits of the ATF, it doesn't look like law enforcement is very good at holding onto what firearms they are actually registered.
