Quick Virginia private sale question

imported post

Wangmuf wrote:

nova wrote:

Wangmuf wrote:

Rules, rules, rules. What makes a person who lives in a state that they can legally own XXXXXXXXX firearm in unqualified to buy it in another state?

Must be a tax issue. :?

Click to expand...

like it or not, it's the law, and we have to follow it until we can change it back to how it should be...

Click to expand...

I know, but there are a lot of laws that are just nonsensical. I can't have sex in any position other than missionary, what?

Click to expand...

Yeah I know about that whacky law too, the difference is, one is a federal law that will buy you many years in prison with a very hefty fine, with federal agents actively conducting stings on gun owners and gun dealers. The sex thing is state law, and last I heard we didn't have state law enforcement conducting operations to try and catch people doing naughty stuff in the bedroom :lol:

imported post

nova wrote:

Wangmuf wrote:

nova wrote:

Wangmuf wrote:

Rules, rules, rules. What makes a person who lives in a state that they can legally own XXXXXXXXX firearm in unqualified to buy it in another state?

Must be a tax issue. :?

Click to expand...

like it or not, it's the law, and we have to follow it until we can change it back to how it should be...

Click to expand...

I know, but there are a lot of laws that are just nonsensical. I can't have sex in any position other than missionary, what?

Click to expand...

Yeah I know about that whacky law too, the difference is, one is a federal law that will buy you many years in prison with a very hefty fine, with federal agents actively conducting stings on gun owners and gun dealers. The sex thing is state law, and last I heard we didn't have state law enforcement conducting operations to try and catch people doing naughty stuff in the bedroom :lol:

Click to expand...

AS to the one thing, it's a matter of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. As long as what they're doing really is regulation of interstate commerce, there's no limit to that power.

As to the other, try using your search engine on the phrase, Bowers v. Hardwick. This case was, as to some issues, overruled in Lawrence v. Texas, but not as to the "we gotcha being naughty in your bedroom" issue. And as a matter of my own personal opinion, Lawrence is wrong, because it attempts to make state governments the same kind of entities as the federal and to apply the same kinds of rules in both cases, while the Constitution clearly sets up a system with two entirely different kinds of governments with different powers. Lawrence ignores the fact that the states have plenary power to regulate morals and morality; furthermore, if Lawrence be correct, then it's ok to do heroin or cocaine in the privacy of your bedroom. Anyway, as I said, Lawrence did not overrule the search and seizure logic of Hardwick. (You have to appreciate the defendant's name in light of the offense charged. No one could have made up a case like that. Only in real life.)

imported post

user wrote:

...the Constitution clearly sets up a system with two entirely different kinds of governments with different powers. Lawrence ignores the fact that the states have plenary power to regulate morals and morality;

Click to expand...

That's a strained interpretation from a Jeffersonian anti-federalist perspective.

user wrote:

furthermore, if Lawrence be correct, then it's ok to do heroin or cocaine in the privacy of your bedroom.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Click to expand...

Now, before you get all "states' rights"y with the twisted, revisionist view of anti-federalism, keep in mind that in-context Jefferson was referring to the state government (you know, Virginia), and not the federal one.

The intent was not to trade a foreign tyrant for a local one, IMO. And that's exactly what your "plenary power to regulate morals and morality" is code for; otherwise it's redundant. The common law has already established a system of regulation with regards to actual harm (i.e. aggression) of the kind which, in Jeffersonian anti-federalism, is the only legitimate object of government regulation.

Your "regulating morality" in the bedroom (how people have sex, whether they take drugs, in the privacy of their own bedroom, dammit) does not qualify. There is no direct harm of any sort.

It is literally no different from the insane but ultimately harmless worshipping of thousands of deities. The "harm" you will no doubt attribute to it is no more provable, direct, tangible or even real than the supposed "harm" caused by the "destruction of morality" imaginarily resulting from the change in religious attitudes which occurred during the 18th century, and which was argued to create the need for "regulation of morality" in the form of state-mandated religion. Your views are like deja vu all over again.

For Pete's sake, don't you read any history that isn't law?

And yes, such arguments do make me just a little irate.

imported post

Yes, but the question I was addressing was the power of state governments under the federal Constitution. You may recall that the Bill of Rights was copied from Virginia's Constitution. What the people of each state want to, or ought to, put in their own constitutions is a different matter.

imported post

I understand your position perfectly, and I deny vehemently that states have carte blanche to plenarily regulate "morality" and pretend that "the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others" somehow doesn't apply to the states.

Or, rather, as Jefferson understood, they as a matter of reality do and must have that carte blanche, but as a matter of right and principle ought not exercise it, limiting the use of their power to "such acts only as are injurious to others".

There will always be a power capable of "regulating morality", as long as there is government. Better, then, that that power be in the hands of the people.

None of that justifies or argues in favor of that power ever being exercised, however. That the power exists necessitates its being held somewhere. However, as with the power to murder, which we all hold as a practical matter, it is rightly never to be exercised. (A libertarian would point out that to exercise it necessarily entails aggression, as with murder.)

Quite the contrary, as long as I don't hurt anybody when I snort cocaine and smoke heroin in my bedroom (hypothetically, of course), your legitimate powers do not extend to that act, whether they are powers gleaned through a State or Federal government.

imported post

I see your point, and I'm in agreement with the "oughts" and "shoulds" that apply; the traditional position the law takes (derived from a Roman imperial standard that each "subject" is within the protection of The State and thus "belongs" to The State. The State claims the role of "parens patriae". So what one does to his own body in the privacy of his own bedroom can be a threat to The State if he diminishes his own ability to produce goods and services and to participate fully in the political life of The State.

Freedom and social control are mutually exclusive. We're in the middle of a cultural revolution, and no one seems to have noticed.

imported post

I wouldn't have made the sale either, but can someone show if their is a federal or Virginia state law prohibiting the private sale of a handgun between two individuals? I don't think there is any.

imported post

user wrote:

Correct. Though a person may be a resident of more than one state for BATFE transfer purposes (not for voter registration or DMV purposes). The condition is that one has to actually be residing in the state in which he's purchasing the gun at the time of purchase.

Click to expand...

Well, you are partially correct. It must be transferred through a Florida FFL unless the handgun is 1) a C&R gun and 2) the Florida resident has a Curio and Relics FFL.Interstate transfer authorityis the whole point of that license.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

user wrote:

Correct. Though a person may be a resident of more than one state for BATFE transfer purposes (not for voter registration or DMV purposes). The condition is that one has to actually be residing in the state in which he's purchasing the gun at the time of purchase.

Click to expand...

Well, you are partially correct.  It must be transferred through a Florida FFL unless the handgun is 1) a C&R gun and 2) the Florida resident has a Curio and Relics FFL. Interstate transfer authority is the whole point of that license.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that. If the purchaser is a resident of Florida and a resident of Virginia, and is actually residing in Virginia at the time of the purchase, no FFL is required. And a Florida OL can be used as proof of identity - what's needed is proof of actual residence in Virginia, like a property tax receipt, utility bill mailed to the purchaser at his Virginia address, or the like.

But as so many have said, better to be safe than to have a good defense at trial.
 

imported post

user wrote:

Thundar wrote:

user wrote:

Correct. Though a person may be a resident of more than one state for BATFE transfer purposes (not for voter registration or DMV purposes). The condition is that one has to actually be residing in the state in which he's purchasing the gun at the time of purchase.

Click to expand...

Well, you are partially correct. It must be transferred through a Florida FFL unless the handgun is 1) a C&R gun and 2) the Florida resident has a Curio and Relics FFL.Interstate transfer authorityis the whole point of that license.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that. If the purchaser is a resident of Florida and a resident of Virginia, and is actually residing in Virginia at the time of the purchase, no FFL is required. And a Florida OL can be used as proof of identity - what's needed is proof of actual residence in Virginia, like a property tax receipt, utility bill mailed to the purchaser at his Virginia address, or the like.

But as so many have said, better to be safe than to have a good defense at trial.

Click to expand...

No proof of Virginia residence is needed.

If Florida resident is a licensed collector, then purchase of a C&R firearm is perfectly legal.

imported post

mercutio545 wrote:

I brought one of my handguns to sell at the VA Beach gun show today. A gentleman wanted to purchase it, and showed me a VA non-resident CHP, a valid Florida Drivers License, and a Blue (retired?) Military ID.

I didn't think I could sell it to him (I thought it was VA resident to VA resident), so I told him I'd have to check and see if it was legal first. Is this ok to do? I'm pretty sure active duty military is good to go, but wasn't sure about retired. I just want to make sure everything is legal as a beagle. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what in this question has anything to do with relics and curios. I must have missed something.

imported post

user wrote:

mercutio545 wrote:

I brought one of my handguns to sell at the VA Beach gun show today. A gentleman wanted to purchase it, and showed me a VA non-resident CHP, a validFlorida Drivers License, and a Blue (retired?) Military ID.

I didn't think I could sell it to him (I thought it was VA resident to VA resident), so I told him I'd have to check and see if it was legal first. Is this ok to do? I'm pretty sure active duty military is good to go, but wasn't sure about retired. I just want to make sure everything is legal as a beagle. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what in this question has anything to do with relics and curios. I must have missed something.

Click to expand...

There are dealers, collectors and private citizens at gun shows. There are different rules for each.