Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
I may be wrong and a VA FFL can chime in, but my understanding is that a VA FFL goes through the VSP not to the NCIC like FFL's in some states do.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Reciprocity Restoration Deal
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
I may be wrong and a VA FFL can chime in, but my understanding is that a VA FFL goes through the VSP not to the NCIC like FFL's in some states do.
67GT390FB
Regular Member
My gut tells me that this shiite sandwich is a done deal since vcdl is telling us how great a deal it is and how great it tastes. . I would urge everyone to boycott the voluntary checks so that they can be easily eliminated in a few years after they are proven a waste of resources from lack of use.
Last edited:
AGREED !!!
Don't use them, they're VOLUNTARY. If we don't make use of them then they'll have NO reason to come back to us in a couple of years and say "They're such a success we're going to make them mandatory"
Thundar
Regular Member
The first time a transaction is denied in the voluntary system there will be a HUGE press to make them mandatory.
Thundar
Regular Member
I am a licensed FFL Dealer and Manufacturer in Virginia. Have been since 2010. Yes the VSP do conduct the NICS checks, as allowed by federal law, but they are not the transferor, the FFL dealer is the transferor. Federal law requires an FFL dealer or manufacturer to be in the business. The State Police are not in the business, and therefore not eligible to be the transferor. Letting the VSP be transferrors and to make up the rules for these voluntary NICS checks is very dangerous. Remember they have very little wiggle room when dealing with transferrors and transferrees. When you let the VSP skirt around the mandatory interstate transfer scheme for transferrors, you will open up all sorts of unwanted VSP rules and regulations.
Last edited:
Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
I understand your point of the transferer. In this case the person selling the firearm is the transferer. The VSP is only doing for the seller what they would be doing for you as an FFL when you are the seller.
We are talking about intrastate sales not interstate.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
TFred
Regular Member
Interesting question: What happens to the intended BUYER, who is standing right there in front of the VSP, after just having attempted to buy a firearm as a prohibited person?
ETA: This sort of starts to smell like the very common advice, "Never consent to a search, even if you have nothing to hide..." Nothing good for you can happen, but all sorts of bad things are possible.
TFred
Last edited:
Thundar
Regular Member
No Wolf shadow, the transferror would be the VSP. Yes you are correct that a private party sale is an intrastate transfer. The VSP, acting as an FFL, would make the transaction an interstate transfer.
The litmus test for intrastate vs. interstate transfer is the NICS check. No NICS check, not interstate transfer.
Getting the FBI and the VSP involved in intrastate transfers (making them interstate transfers) will not lead to good things for the gun community. If you think otherwise, name one state where circumvention of the commerce clause has benefitted gun owners.
Wolf_shadow
Activist Member
We're going to have to agree to disagree. VSP are not acting as an FFL! If they were they would have to log the firearm in and out as any FFL has to do. they are only doing a background check on the purchaser, just like they do for an FFL!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
TFred
Regular Member
Could you please let us know why you believe your bolded statement above is the case?
According to the VA-ALERT sent out by PVC last night:
"* NO information on the make, model, or serial number of the gun being sold will be provided to the State Police - i.e. no federal Form 4473! The purchaser will have to fill out the Virginia form, which asks a few questions and has the buyer's name, address, and signature. (If you don’t want to fill out that form, you can just walk away and do the transaction without the background check.)"
I don't believe it is possible for an official "transfer" to happen under those conditions.
TFred
scooter348
Regular Member
Or, on the flip side, the Anti's will say: "See? They aren't using the voluntary background checks that are provided! I told you so! So if they won't use the voluntary background checks, we just HAVE to make the background checks mandatory!" I agree with not using the voluntary checks. My argument is it never should have been written into the deal in the first place.
2a4all
Regular Member
Tfred, if what you say were true, then could any private sale be "an official transfer"?
BG checks for sales from FFLs are processed using the information on the Virginia form, not the 4473 federal form, so this proposed scheme wouldn't be any different. The 4473 is only used if an FFL is involved.
One question is: What will the VSP provide the buyer indicating the result of the BG check? S/he is likely only doing this at the behest of the seller, who wants some indication that the buyer isn't a prohibited person. Buyer & seller agree on a deal, buyer trots off to the VSP table for the BG check and brings what, exactly, back to the seller? Does the seller have to accompany the buyer? Can any buyer request a BG check before arranging a sale (sort of like a letter of credit)?
davidmcbeth
Banned
Rule #12 does not apply when addressing legislation that an organization is pushing that infringes on our RKBA IMO.
(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.
Its hardly bashing to point out when any organization is attempting to pass laws to limit our RBKA.
The rule even states that.
unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization
Grape, pls review the post again and un-delete it.
So, for another example, if the NRA recommends gun locks be mandatory, we can "bash" them over this point. Yes?
(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.
Its hardly bashing to point out when any organization is attempting to pass laws to limit our RBKA.
The rule even states that.
unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization
Grape, pls review the post again and un-delete it.
So, for another example, if the NRA recommends gun locks be mandatory, we can "bash" them over this point. Yes?
You misapply of Rule #12 - VCDL does not have an anti open carry position/agenda/goal.
Reporting events (i.e. "deal") is different than attacking the organization. You do not know what VCDL thinks - you do not speak for VCDL
TFred
Regular Member
I guess that depends on the definition of "official transfer." From all I have read, if a gun is found at the scene of a crime, they are going to track it to the last person on their records, which means 4473. After that, it may be transferred, but is it official? I suspect the answer depends entirely on who you are asking.
Your other questions are good questions. I don't have the answers. I suspect they are making this up as they go along.
TFred
TFred
Regular Member
Is it really worth the effort - day in, and day out? Let's just take a vote and be done with it forever.
TFred
davidmcbeth
Banned
Going by recall here....hasn't it been said that VCDL has had a hand in this "deal" or has given public support for the deal? So I went on in that idea that VCDL's thinking has been made public.
Of course, the conclusion that you made, that "VCDL does not have an anti open carry position" must be supported by some facts regarding their political positions that have been made public. As such, subject to scrutiny. Indeed, they should welcome people's opinions on such matters ~ it would help them to change to a better pro-carry organization, yes?
I am a member of a local pro-carry organization too ... and have helped them avoid pratfalls regarding things. Some ideas they take to heart and some that they consider and reject ~ so goes the world.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
You misapply of Rule #12 - VCDL does not have an anti open carry position/agenda/goal.
Reporting events (i.e. "deal") is different than attacking the organization. You do not know what VCDL thinks - you do not speak for VCDL
Facts? It is common knowledge that VCDL does not promote one style of carry over another. OC, CC, or noC are all fine at our meetings and events. Such is routinely posted publicly in announcements.
Frankly, you have worn out your welcome on the subject which was tenuous at best and now seen more as provoking for its own sake = provocateur. Further such responses will be dealt with differently.
Last edited:
paramedic70002
Regular Member
So this "deal" will only work IF every component passes. Will the antis vote for it? Will the pros vote for it? Will it all be merged into an omnibus bill? If so, and it fails, we have gained nothing (which may be the ulterior motive!). I say we continue to ram the better bills with veto proof majorities.
Even the antis should be ticked that the King has usurped their legislative authority.
Even the antis should be ticked that the King has usurped their legislative authority.
Thundar
Regular Member
Ding, Ding, Ding!!!! Yes it appears that this stuff is being made up as they go. My posts were based upon federal law, specifically the Gun Control Act with amendments. If they are going to do background checks without the 4473, then of course the transfer is quite muddled.
Nothing good will come of finding a way around federal gun laws being limited to interstate commerce. But when the prize is P4P preservation, not Liberty, the odds are good we will see gun hiders dancing for joy while our gun rights are again chipped away.