buster81
Regular Member
imported post
So, I had some time this morning between tasks and decided to kill some brain cells by reading HB1234 with regards to the fictional gun show loop hole.
As I read this, the bill wants to adda definition as follows:
"Dealer in firearms" means (i) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of selling, trading or transferring firearms at wholesale or retail; (ii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (iii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation that is a pawnbroker.
Aren't the folks who are in the business as defined above already required to do background checks?
The bill would have also added this definition:
"Engaged in business" means as applied to a dealer in firearms a person, firm, partnership, or corporation that devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase or resale of firearms, but such term shall not involve a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.
The part in red is what I'm puzzled about. Isn't the goal of the anti's (at least the first step) to eliminate private transactions at gun shows? Am I missing something, or would this bill have done nothing at all? It's late and I'm short on sleep, so go easy if I've overlooked the obvious.
So, I had some time this morning between tasks and decided to kill some brain cells by reading HB1234 with regards to the fictional gun show loop hole.
As I read this, the bill wants to adda definition as follows:
"Dealer in firearms" means (i) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of selling, trading or transferring firearms at wholesale or retail; (ii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged in the business of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (iii) any person, firm, partnership, or corporation that is a pawnbroker.
Aren't the folks who are in the business as defined above already required to do background checks?
The bill would have also added this definition:
"Engaged in business" means as applied to a dealer in firearms a person, firm, partnership, or corporation that devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through repetitive purchase or resale of firearms, but such term shall not involve a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.
The part in red is what I'm puzzled about. Isn't the goal of the anti's (at least the first step) to eliminate private transactions at gun shows? Am I missing something, or would this bill have done nothing at all? It's late and I'm short on sleep, so go easy if I've overlooked the obvious.