Reeves disappoints: SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty.

From the VCDL Legislative website, I just found this most disappointing bill from Bryce Reeves:

SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty.

Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty. Requires firearm dealers to go through a process administered by the Department of State Police to determine whether a firearm that is being transferred to the dealer by a person other than a dealer, importer, or manufacturer can be lawfully transferred. The bill has an effective date of January 1, 2015.

Here's the VCDL analysis:

This bill creates an unfunded requirement that dealers have the state police run a stolen check on all guns that are being sold, transferred, or traded to the dealer by a person who is not a dealer. This would be largely a waste of time, effort, and money, as the vast majority of guns that are sold, transferred, or traded to dealers are not stolen. It could also delay the transaction by over a day if the state police are slow in responding. Giving the dealer an option to have a suspicious gun checked for stolen would be completely acceptable. Forcing the dealer to do the stolen check on all such guns is simply not reasonable.

Here is Bryce Reeves' Facebook page... he needs to know this bill is not acceptable:

https://www.facebook.com/brycereeves

TFred

Took a look at the bill... this really is a dumb idea.

B. Any person, not a dealer, selling, transferring, or trading a firearm to a dealer shall present a valid photo identification issued by a state or federal governmental agency and shall consent in writing, on a form to be provided by the Department, to have the dealer obtain a verification check to determine if the firearm has been reported to a law-enforcement agency as lost or stolen. Such form shall include only the written consent; the name, address, birth date, gender, race, and verifiable government identification number on the photo identification presented by the person selling, transferring, or trading the firearm; and, the serial number, caliber, make, and ,if available, model of the firearm.

Clearly a Fourth Amendment violation, since "selling a gun to a dealer" cannot be probable cause to run a stolen records search on a firearm.

If this passes, look for the supply of used guns in Virginia to diminish, why would anyone want to submit to such a search?

TFred

Email sent to Senator Reeves.

Here is his email address if anyone else wants it: senatorreeves@brycereeves.com

Begins to create a paper trail. "We know back in 2012 you purchased 3 firearms. we also know that you transferred/sold only two of them so where is the third gun buddy"

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

It is already illegal to possess or to sell stolen property. Bet there are more private sales (which this is all about) of stolen cars, lawnmowers, circular saws, or dogs than there are of stolen guns. But do the folks on Craigslist who are sellling stolen property have to go to the car dealership or hardware store to get a stolen property check before they can sell their stuff?

What liability will the FFL have regarding the accuracy of the stolen-gun check? What records will they be required, and how long will they be required to retain them? How much will they be allowed to charge for this "service"?

Will there be a "user fee" that goes to the state? If so, how much? And what guarantee will there be that the money goes to support this activity as opposed to being siphoned off to something else? (Gee, why did I ask that?)

What personal identifying information will the prospective seller and/opr buyer be required to provide when they go to have the stolen-gun check made?

Why aren't FFLs being required to check to see if the guns they are selling are stolen?

Does anybody really expect that someone selling a stolen gun might get off on all other possible charges but be convicted for skipping this stolen-gun check?

Does anybody really expect that criminals will stop and decide not to sell a stolen gun because they now have to submit to a stolen-gun check?

And the granddaddy of all questions - how much will my taxes go up because of this? And if there is no tax money to support this, what other State Police service(s) will be reduced in order to comply with this mandate?

OK, I'll stop :banghead::cuss::banghead: now.

stay safe.

wrearick said:

Begins to create a paper trail. "We know back in 2012 you purchased 3 firearms. we also know that you transferred/sold only two of them so where is the third gun buddy"

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Exactly - it is back door registration.

The process would require that the gun first be transfered to the FFL, who would then do the verification check. If the transaction to potential purchaser is not completed then FFL would have to do another check to return the gun to you.....AND keep the record for 20 years.

Most (all?) FFLs are going to refuse to get involved = stops legal private transfers.

Grapeshot said:

Most (all?) FFLs are going to refuse to get involved = stops legal private transfers.

Click to expand...

How do you figure this will affect private transfers? There's no requirement for private transfers to go through the stolen gun check. Did you mean this for the SB287 thread?

Roscoe

My first reaction was "welcome to the department of redundancy department", but being the healthy skeptic I am I understand that government is only efficient at trampling individual rights, its most definitely a sort of quasi-registration. Good catch.

roscoe13 said:

How do you figure this will affect private transfers? There's no requirement for private transfers to go through the stolen gun check. Did you mean this for the SB287 thread?

Roscoe

Click to expand...

Those bills are joined at the hip and yes SB337 would require such a check/determination.

SB287 requires that transfers go through a FFL.

This one requires "the dealer obtain a verification check ...."

No FFL, no check for stolen = no legal transfer.

Grapeshot said:

Those bills are joined at the hip and yes SB337 would require such a check/determination.

SB287 requires that transfers go through a FFL.

This one requires "the dealer obtain a verification check ...."

No FFL, no check for stolen = no legal transfer.

Click to expand...

Only if BOTH bills become law. This bill, on it's own, will have no affect on PRIVATE sales/transfers.

We need a full-court press to kill both of these bills ASAP.

Roscoe

T Dubya said:

...efficient at trampling individual rights...

Click to expand...

Irony....

:uhoh:

Vote "NO" on SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers

Email opposing SB 377 sent to my Senator, (Reeves). district17@senate.virginia.gov

For those of you in Orange Co, Louisa, Culpeper, Albemarle, Spotsy, & Fredericksburg, the 17th, after re-districting, went from solid red to flaming purple in 2013. http://www.vpap.org/elections/district/64


The bill is now before the Senate Courts of Justice.

If any of your senators below are listed, please let them know how you feel about SB 377.

Shucks, why be shy? Email the WHOLE committee!

http://www2.vcdl.org/cgi-bin/wspd_cgi.sh/vcdl/reflector.html?REF=cjocs&PRE=


Membership: Norment (Chairman), Saslaw, Marsh, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Obenshain, McDougle, McEachin, Stuart, Vogel, Stanley, Reeves, Garrett

Grab a cup of coffee and look at VCDL's page of other legislators that need some emailin'.

http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/2014leg.html

B. Reddy said:

Email opposing SB 377 sent to my Senator, (Reeves). district17@senate.virginia.gov

Click to expand...

You do realize that your senator, (Reeves) is the one who submitted this bill, right?

I can't imagine a patron voting "no" on his own bill... but we need to explain to him why it's so bad that he should WITHDRAW it... that keeps it from even coming up for a vote.

TFred

Can anyone say

1984?


Any questions? (NSA is watching.)

va_tazdad said:

1984?


Any questions? (NSA is watching.)

Click to expand...

1984 is now 30 years past - we've come a long way baby! Pssst, look over your shoulder. :uhoh:

Yep- asked him to withdraw it.

TFred said:

You do realize that your senator, (Reeves) is the one who submitted this bill, right?

I can't imagine a patron voting "no" on his own bill... but we need to explain to him why it's so bad that he should WITHDRAW it... that keeps it from even coming up for a vote.

TFred

Click to expand...

Sure, I asked him to withdraw it. Here is his reply:

" Please withdraw SB SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty‏

Bryce Reeves

To:

XXXX, this is a good gun bill brought to me by some local reputable gun dealers. Currently ATF is now doing 100% inspections of all paperwork transactions. Because of this, they have found multiple guns that were listed as stolen. So the dealers are out money because ATF seizes the property.

The dealers have no way to check the status of a firearm if you are consigning, , or selling your gun to them to check to make sure a person is not selling them a "bad" gun.

This bill allows them to run a serial number to do just that.

I hope this helps. As a former COP, Army Ranger, conceal carry, hunter, and gun enthusiast, I don't want more restrictions. But I would like my property back given the chance if it were stolen."

B. Reddy said:

Sure, I asked him to withdraw it. Here is his reply:

" Please withdraw SB SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty‏

Bryce Reeves

To:

XXXX, this is a good gun bill brought to me by some local reputable gun dealers. Currently ATF is now doing 100% inspections of all paperwork transactions. Because of this, they have found multiple guns that were listed as stolen. So the dealers are out money because ATF seizes the property.

The dealers have no way to check the status of a firearm if you are consigning, , or selling your gun to them to check to make sure a person is not selling them a "bad" gun.

This bill allows them to run a serial number to do just that.

I hope this helps. As a former COP, Army Ranger, conceal carry, hunter, and gun enthusiast, I don't want more restrictions. But I would like my property back given the chance if it were stolen."

Click to expand...

So where would a dealer check the serial number to learn this? Is there a list somewhere of "guns reported stolen"? If the list includes the lawful owner, then wala! We have a gun registry!

B. Reddy said:

Sure, I asked him to withdraw it. Here is his reply:

" Please withdraw SB SB 377 Firearm transfers to dealers; penalty‏

Bryce Reeves

To:

XXXX, this is a good gun bill brought to me by some local reputable gun dealers. Currently ATF is now doing 100% inspections of all paperwork transactions. Because of this, they have found multiple guns that were listed as stolen. So the dealers are out money because ATF seizes the property.

The dealers have no way to check the status of a firearm if you are consigning, , or selling your gun to them to check to make sure a person is not selling them a "bad" gun.

This bill allows them to run a serial number to do just that.

I hope this helps. As a former COP, Army Ranger, conceal carry, hunter, and gun enthusiast, I don't want more restrictions. But I would like my property back given the chance if it were stolen."

Click to expand...

It disappoints me greatly to have to say this, but Reeves is not telling the truth. This bill requires a S/N check. That is entirely different than "allows."

If a dealer is allowed to run a check, I have no problem with that. The dealer can set a policy, and the customer can weigh that policy and decide whether or not to sell their gun to the dealer. Requiring a S/N check is a different monster altogether.

We got rid of Edd Houck for a reason. This is most disappointing from Reeves.

TFred

Look at Reeves' FB profile pic close up.

What is that expression? It shows teeth, but it's not a smile. Kind of like his proposed bill.

Might not be a bad bill if they could exempt guns transferred by CHP holders. :uhoh:

I'll put that on the wish list....right below allowing Sunday Hunting by persons with CHP's