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

[jdege]

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.”

[mrp]

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

[Holland&Holland]

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

I like it. Sign me up

[Bitter Bastard]

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

Is that the upper, or lower, limit?

[jdege]

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.

[ex-LT]

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."

[yukonjasper]

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.

[Holland&Holland]

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.

[Ironbear]

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.

[smurfman]

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".

[Holland&Holland]

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.

[smurfman]

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.

[Holland&Holland]

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?

[smurfman]

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.

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.

[linksep]

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".