Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Possible shift in PA against self-defense | Main | 3rd Circuit rejects challenge to NJ "may issue" for all carrying »

More problems with Colorado law

Posted by David Hardy · 30 July 2013 05:20 PM

Story here. The law requires background checks for private sales, but allows FFLs to charge a max of $10 for performing them. Surprise: FFLs are refusing to do them, because they lose money at that price.

· State legislation

9 Comments | Leave a comment

wrangler5 | July 30, 2013 7:04 PM | Reply

Fully intended consequences. If you can't ban the guns, just make it impossible to transfer 'em. Of course, it may not have been the elected "representatives" themselves who had the intention, but whoever wrote the words of the law almost certainly did.

Rich | July 31, 2013 6:33 AM | Reply

I really have no idea but what does it cost the FFL's to so the check?

Brian | July 31, 2013 7:43 AM | Reply

The cost is someone taking up room in the FFL's shop for 30 mins and preventing him from doing something productive.

one-eyed Jack | July 31, 2013 9:53 AM | Reply

Also, with a "delayed" NICS response, there would be a second visit for recertification. Jack.

James | July 31, 2013 12:48 PM | Reply

Don't forget the overhead of having to maintain the 4473's for effectively forever.

Harry Schell | July 31, 2013 12:58 PM | Reply

This is not a "bug". It's a "feature" in the new program...

Critic | July 31, 2013 2:00 PM | Reply

The recent federal background check legislation left the fee to be set at any amount Obama wanted. A New York court recently decided that New York City's 400 was a reasonable cost to carry out the check, while the city argued that even 400 wasn't enough. If Obama agreed that 400 wasn't enough, he could have set it as high as he wanted. This kind of fee based attack against guns isn't just a paranoid possibility, it was the method used to virtually ban machine guns in the thirties.

Matthew in Marietta | August 1, 2013 7:38 PM | Reply

If I was an FFL in Colorado I would seriously consider banding together with all other FFLs and refuse to do the transfers. And when someone comes into the store for a transfer give them a sheet of paper with the name, address, email address, and phone number of their elected state officials and tell them to call, write, and email them if they are not happy with the law. Do that for the first 2-3 months after the law goes into effect and all the people who "aren't affected by gun control" will come out of the wood work after they cannot legally sell their over/under shotgun to their skeet shooting buddy. As a consumer a few months of pain would be worth it to me personally to try to "crash the system" by causing chaos and force legislators to change the law rather than allowing unchecked government regulations to stand and continue to grow.

Anonymous | August 3, 2013 12:39 PM | Reply

That's a feature, not a bug.

Leave a comment