1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby jdege on Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:15 pm

https://richmond.com/news/virginia/1-102-people-were-denied-purchase-of-gun-during-first-month-of-va-s-new/article_b4ed9ce4-7894-54f5-9e43-abe4fb457ed5.html
1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month of Va.'s new one-handgun-per-month law
Jerry Cochran, owner of Trader Jerry’s, one of Virginia’s largest federally licensed firearms dealers, said his store saw a record number of denials for a single day on July 1.

“They made it retroactive and did not tell us. That’s the deal,” Cochran said. “We had no idea. We could have asked [customers] if they had purchased a gun in June.”

“The law does say 30 days, but everybody would have naturally assumed that it started July 1 — we all did,” he added. “Nobody would have assumed that if you bought one on June 30 ... that you couldn’t buy one on July 1.”
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4618 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby mrp on Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:25 pm

I see a business opportunity for a "Gun of the Month" subscription service.
User avatar
mrp
 
Posts: 960 [View]
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:54 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Holland&Holland on Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:43 am

mrp wrote:I see a business opportunity for a "Gun of the Month" subscription service.

I like it. Sign me up
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12615 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Bitter Bastard on Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:27 am

mrp wrote:I see a business opportunity for a "Gun of the Month" subscription service.


Is that the upper, or lower, limit? :D
Bitter Bastard
 
Posts: 339 [View]
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:20 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby jdege on Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:01 am

I don't know about you guys, but I don't need to buy bunches of guns. I have plenty.

There's only one more gun I really need ...

The next one.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4618 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby ex-LT on Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:08 pm

jdege wrote:I don't know about you guys, but I don't need to buy bunches of guns. I have plenty.

There's only one more gun I really need ...

The next one.

Or, as former Senator Phil Gramm once said...

"I have more guns than I need, but not as many as I want."
DNR Certified Firearms Safety Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Instructor - Pistol, Rifle, and Shotgun
NRA Endowment Life Member
MN Gun Owners Caucus Life Member
Member Post 435 Gun Club
User avatar
ex-LT
Inspector Gadget
 
Posts: 3479 [View]
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Lakeville

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby yukonjasper on Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:08 pm

Shame on the gun store for wasting people's time not knowing the law changed.

Granted, a stupid law like that is ultimately to blame, but it's there business to know and let people know.
Deo Adjuvante Non Timendum - (with the help of God there is nothing to be afraid of)
Spectamur Agendo - (We are proven by our actions)
Non Ducor, Duco - (I am not led, I lead)
NRA Life Member
User avatar
yukonjasper
 
Posts: 5823 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: eagan

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Holland&Holland on Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:10 pm

yukonjasper wrote:Shame on the gun store for wasting people's time not knowing the law changed.

Granted, a stupid law like that is ultimately to blame, but it's there business to know and let people know.


That is the point though. The law took effect July 1st. Most laws, when they take effect is when they take effect.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12615 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Ironbear on Thu Aug 06, 2020 4:15 pm

yukonjasper wrote:Shame on the gun store for wasting people's time not knowing the law changed.

The gun store knew the laws changed. It was the state that failed to tell them, that they were going to make it retroactive. The law went into effect July 1st, but the state set up application of the 1 month limit start June 1st.
"Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just.” ~Blaise Pascal~
User avatar
Ironbear
 
Posts: 2180 [View]
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:38 pm
Location: A nondescript planet in the Milky Way galaxy

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby smurfman on Thu Aug 06, 2020 5:26 pm

The state did not make the law "retroactive" from what I can tell. The law reads (to paraphrase) one is limited to a single gun in any thirty day period. As the law went into affect July 1, the law would extend to the thirty days previous as well as thirty days forward. It is not a "one gun a month law" which implies that a person could buy a firearm on the last day of one month and another the next day on the first but if is a "one gun in 30 days" law meaning one cannot purchase a second firearm within thirty days of the first. In reality, this allows for only one gun in 60 days since the thirty days extends to both sides of the purchase date.

As for my earlier comment regarding FFLs not selling a firearm after 3 days of no response on the background check, the consensus seems to be that it is very likely the seller would be held liable for any actions the firearm was used for. As such, it would be to the seller's benefit to retrieve said firearm but just how to do so is the question. At best, the seller would be hit with a lot of bad PR which could be as damaging as a civil suit. So, the safest action for the seller is to withold the sale until the FBI comes back with a "Proceed".
smurfman
 
Posts: 975 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Holland&Holland on Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:47 pm

smurfman wrote:The state did not make the law "retroactive" from what I can tell. The law reads (to paraphrase) one is limited to a single gun in any thirty day period. As the law went into affect July 1, the law would extend to the thirty days previous as well as thirty days forward. It is not a "one gun a month law" which implies that a person could buy a firearm on the last day of one month and another the next day on the first but if is a "one gun in 30 days" law meaning one cannot purchase a second firearm within thirty days of the first. In reality, this allows for only one gun in 60 days since the thirty days extends to both sides of the purchase date.

As for my earlier comment regarding FFLs not selling a firearm after 3 days of no response on the background check, the consensus seems to be that it is very likely the seller would be held liable for any actions the firearm was used for. As such, it would be to the seller's benefit to retrieve said firearm but just how to do so is the question. At best, the seller would be hit with a lot of bad PR which could be as damaging as a civil suit. So, the safest action for the seller is to withold the sale until the FBI comes back with a "Proceed".


But if the law went into effect July 1 nothing that occurred previously would have been covered by the law. If you pass a law that says it is illegal to drink beer and you still have it in your system when the law takes effect you did not break the law at the time therefore you are not breaking the law now.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12615 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby smurfman on Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:58 pm

Poor analogy. The law that went into affect on July 1 stated that one must wait 30 days between gun purchases. Period. It did not say "starting July 1 there will be a waiting period of 30 days between purchases." Therefore, the new law covers the 30 days prior to July 1 in addition to the 30 days afterward.

Depending on the wording, a new law can affect actions prior to the enactment date. That has been proven in court. At times new legislation is passed to change this consequence, other times not.
smurfman
 
Posts: 975 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby Holland&Holland on Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:44 pm

smurfman wrote:Poor analogy. The law that went into affect on July 1 stated that one must wait 30 days between gun purchases. Period. It did not say "starting July 1 there will be a waiting period of 30 days between purchases." Therefore, the new law covers the 30 days prior to July 1 in addition to the 30 days afterward.

Depending on the wording, a new law can affect actions prior to the enactment date. That has been proven in court. At times new legislation is passed to change this consequence, other times not.


True but the law did not take effect until July 1st. How is a gun store supposed to know? Did you work on the information campaign? Oh, there wasn't one?
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12615 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby smurfman on Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:52 pm

Holland&Holland wrote:
smurfman wrote:Poor analogy. The law that went into affect on July 1 stated that one must wait 30 days between gun purchases. Period. It did not say "starting July 1 there will be a waiting period of 30 days between purchases." Therefore, the new law covers the 30 days prior to July 1 in addition to the 30 days afterward.

Depending on the wording, a new law can affect actions prior to the enactment date. That has been proven in court. At times new legislation is passed to change this consequence, other times not.


True but the law did not take effect until July 1st.
But, the law stated that one could not make a second firearm purchase within 30 days of the first. Pretty simple to understand and not something that hasn't happened before.

Holland&Holland]How is a gun store supposed to know? [/quote] Maybe by being adults and doing their job by reading the new law.

[quote=""Holland&Holland wrote:
Did you work on the information campaign? Oh, there wasn't one?
I would be willing to bet that those holding an FFL were sent copies of the law before it took affect. It is all the more "information campaign" that is needed. If anything, whatever local trade organization that may represent FFLs and/or gun owners fell asleep at the job by not noticing this and bringing it to the attention of legislators, FFL holders, and gun owners before the law was even passed.
smurfman
 
Posts: 975 [View]
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: 1,102 people were denied purchase of gun during first month

Postby linksep on Sat Aug 08, 2020 7:17 am

As the story said, it is a poorly NAMED law because the name is "One Handgun Per Month" but in reality it should be named "Confusing 30 or 31 Day Wait Between Handguns Depending On How Many Days Were In The Month In Which You Purchased Your Previous Handgun".

Democrat-Marxists are all about misleading names though.
"The Affordable Care Act" should have been called "The Destruction Of The U.S. Healthcare System Act"
"Planned Parenthood" should be called "Centers for the genocide of black people".
Science: noun, Whatever answer will help to advance communism.
linksep
 
Posts: 741 [View]
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:41 pm

Next

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron