Miller's Gun Center (courtesy millersguncenter.com)

Under federal law, the FBI must complete a NICS background check within three business days. After that, the sale automatically proceeds. The provision was added to  the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prevent the government from using NICS to frustrate Americans attempting to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In short, it’s a feature, not a bug; albeit in a system that’s a bug, not a feature.

“The three-day limit became known as the Charleston loophole after last year’s mass shooting at a church in South Carolina in which the gunman bought the firearm through a delayed transaction loophole,” deleware1059.com reports, failing to point out that a “loophole” isn’t a “loophole” when it’s created by design. Or laying the blame for the failure in this case at the feet of the FBI, where it surely belongs.

Anyway, Delaware (not South Caroline) ain’t got time for not having more time to approve or deny firearms sales to its residents. So, in its infinite wisdom, the legislature created HB 325 to give the state — not the feds — more time to double-check the state’s database or launch an investigation into a prospective gun buyer. Governor Markell signed the bill and released the following statement.

Dover, DE— Building on the state’s efforts to implement responsible gun safety laws, Governor Markell today signed legislation to close a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms without passing a background check.

House Bill 325, which received final approval from the General Assembly Wednesday, extends from three to 25 days the amount of time for a background check to be completed before a gun buyer may complete his or her purchase. It will not affect the vast majority of purchases since more than 91 percent of background checks are completed within minutes or, at most, hours.

The three-day limit has become known as the “Charleston Loophole” after last year’s mass shooting in which nine people were murdered in a Charleston, S.C. church. The suspected gunman, Dylann Roof, purchased the firearm used in the killings through the delayed transaction loophole after a background check took longer than three days. It was later determined that the sale should have been denied.

The effort to enact House Bill 325 was led by Rep. Ed Osienski, D-Newark, Majority Leader Rep. Valerie Longhurst, D-Bear, and Sen. Bryan Townsend, D-Newark, with the support of many Delawareans and gun safety organizations such as the Delaware Coalition against Gun Violence.

“The common sense step we take today is about keeping people safe, which shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Governor Markell. “This represents another important step on gun safety, showing we can protect the second amendment while also not accepting the tragic consequences of lax gun laws.

“When we look back over the last few years, we can be proud that Delaware has done about as much as any other state to keep guns out of the wrong hands. That’s because of the courage and determination of so many legislators and advocates. Delaware is a safer place for their efforts.”

HB 325 continues gun safety efforts by the state, including laws the Governor signed in 2013, instituting universal background checks as well as creating requirements for reporting lost and stolen weapons to crack down on straw purchasing through which people buy a weapon to give it to someone prohibited from having one.

Current federal regulations allow a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer (FFL) to proceed with a firearm transaction if a requested background check has not been processed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) within three business days. This loophole has allowed firearm transactions that otherwise would be denied to proceed, resulting in potentially dangerous individuals purchasing guns from lawful sellers on a technicality.

According to the FBI, from 2010-14, gun dealers completed 15,729 gun sales nationwide to ineligible people due to the delayed transaction provision.

From 2013-15, 40 individuals successfully purchased firearms in Delaware and were later determined to be prohibited from possessing a gun. In each case, an officer was deployed to retrieve the weapons. In most of these cases, background checks were denied only a few days after the three-day period passed. However, in some cases, a prohibited person has been able to possess a firearm for weeks before the background check has caught up.

“In 2013, the day after the U.S. Senate voted down universal background checks, we in Delaware got it done,” said Dennis Greenhouse, Chair of the Delaware Coalition against Gun Violence, which has also worked with the gun safety group Americans for Responsible Solutions. “Now, in 2016, the day after Congress again failed to act, we can be proud of Delaware.

“In the last three years, 40 people in Delaware had to have their guns retrieved because of the loophole we closed today. No Delawarean should be put at risk. That’s why this bill is so important.”

The House passed the bill Wednesday by a 21-18 margin, shortly after receiving Senate approval by a 12-9 vote.

“For the average, law-abiding citizen, this bill would have no impact on their ability to purchase a gun. If you walk into a store to buy a gun and pass a background check, then you would be able to leave with your gun, just the same as you can today,” said Osienski, the prime sponsor of the bill. “This is not a hypothetical situation. It already has happened, and in at least one instance, it was a horrific tragedy.”

“If we truly believe, as most Americans do, that any person who seeks to lawfully acquire a firearm must pass a background check before doing so, then this is a common-sense solution,” said Longhurst. “In addition to the issue of potentially dangerous people obtaining a firearm, we have to use ATF resources to retrieve guns from people who shouldn’t have had them in the first place.”

“Delawareans have made it clear that they want us to do what Washington won’t: pass meaningful gun-safety laws. House Bill 325 is common-sense gun-safety legislation that will protect Delawareans by making sure more gun sales only occur once a background check has been completed,” said Bryan, lead Senate sponsor of HB 325. “For the small percent of checks that can’t be completed immediately, HB 325 gives law enforcement officials more time to make sure firearms do not end up in the hands of people who are prohibited from having them.”

Setting aside the non-sensical suggestion that this bill will do anything to reduce firearms-related crime, a right delayed is a right denied. And that’s all I have to say about that.

Save this: the canary in the coal mine is gasping for breath in many U.S. states. As Delaware goes so will go Connecticut, California, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii and more. Not good.

99 Responses to Delaware Closes “Charleston Loophole”: Gun Sales May Be Delayed 25 Days

  1. Does anyone even give a shit about this crap hole state? Its a place not even Wayne would go to. Fuck Del.

    • I think there are two reasons to be concerned by this sort of thing no matter where it happens:

      (1) There is a hypothesis in psychology that the “first follower” is the real leader that starts a ‘movement.’ To be second to do something requires someone to be first, but once done, someone else (aka, another State) will copy.

      That in turn makes it MUCH easier for the third, fourth, etc.

      See, for example: WA state and their UBC law…with OR and how many others trying to follow?

      (2) Precedent in Federal Court if/when this gets challenged and sent up the chain of the appellate process. Federal districts cover multiple states and also serve as “guidance” for other districts to hide behind.

      Don’t be so short sighted as to think “Awe, it’s somewhere else; doesn’t effect me.” That’s how we get the spreading of the cancer.

    • I think you are confusing Delaware with New Jersey. Delaware still has very strong gun rights in general.

  2. Curious to know if any of the 40 individuals who had their firearms confiscated by the police committed any crimes while in possession of these weapons? I’m doubtful and I’m guessing they were also not reimbursed for the loss of these weapons. Sad.
    Then there’s this “This is not a hypothetical situation. It already has happened, and in at least one instance, it was a horrific tragedy.” I would like to see the proof of the horrible tragedy.

    • The F.B.I. claims that “Dylann Roof should not have been able to legally buy that gun that day” because of a single drug possession charge, but the statutes, regulations and case law demonstrate that a single drug possession charge did not make Roof a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3).

      18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) prohibits the sale or transfer of a firearm and ammunition to anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The term is further clarified by 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which defines evidence of “Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as:

      A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. … An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. (emphasis added)

      Federal courts have found that the term “unlawful user of a controlled substance” requires the regular and repeated use of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.

      United States v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341, 352 (6th Cir. 2009): The one time or infrequent use of a controlled substance is not sufficient to establish the defendant as an “unlawful user.” Rather, the defendant must have been engaged in use that was sufficiently consistent and prolonged as to constitute a pattern of regular and repeated use of a controlled substance. The government … [must] … establish that he was engaged in a pattern of regular and repeated use of a controlled substance during a period that reasonably covers the time a firearm was possessed.

      United States v. Augustin, 376 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir.2004): “[T]o be an unlawful user, one needed to have engaged in regular use over a period of time proximate to or contemporaneous with the possession of the firearm.”

      United States v. Edwards, 38 Fed.Appx. 134, 138 (4th Cir. 2002): “In order to sustain a conviction under § 922(g)(3), the Government must prove that the Defendant’s drug use was sufficiently consistent, “prolonged,” and close in time to his gun possession to put him on notice that he qualified as an unlawful user of drugs under the statute.”

      United States v. Jackson, 280 F.3d 403, 406 (4th Cir. 2002): Upholding district court finding that the prosecution must establish “a pattern of use and recency of use.” The arresting officer testified that he smelled marijuana as he approached the car and the defendant admitted to smoking marijuana twice a day for many years, including earlier that evening.

      United States v. Herrera (“Herrera II ”), 313 F.3d 882, 884-85 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc): The Herrera II court was guided by the government’s assertion in its supplemental en banc brief that, for a defendant to be an “unlawful user” for § 922(g)(3) purposes, his “drug use would have to be with regularity and over an extended period of time”. The Government reiterated this at en banc oral argument stating: “We certainly wouldn’t charge one time use. It would have to be over a period of time”.)

      United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2001): “[T]o sustain a conviction under § 922(g)(3), the government must prove … that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his … possession of a firearm.”).

      United States v. Williams contains an in-depth analysis of 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3). United States v. Williams, 216 F. Supp. 2d 568, 571-73 (E.D. Va. 2002):

      There should be little question, therefore, that evidence suggesting a prolonged pattern of unlawful drug use on the part of a defendant will support a conviction under § 922(g)(3). The issue here, of course, is whether a person may be convicted thereunder where the evidence establishes drug use that was contemporaneous with gun possession, but does not prove any pattern, practice, or consistency of antecedent drug use. … Accordingly, there being no evidence suggesting a pattern of use, continuous use, or prolonged use of a controlled substance on the part of the defendant, the defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 must, under the law of this circuit, be granted.

      In light of the above, Dylann Roof’s single misdemeanor drug possession charge did not make him a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3).

  3. After getting away with 25 days watch out for the 365 or two year period. You know, so they can check, double check, go out to lunch and have a smoke, then check some more.

    • Exactly. That’s the point of it, of course. Indefinite denial unless a definite approval is given. The 3-day automatic “proceed” should the NICS system not generate a response is a very real and important thing. I have a good friend who couldn’t buy guns if not for this, as he previously had a government clearance for handling sensitive information and it seems like that has resulted in NICS never sending a response for his background checks. His check goes in, NICS doesn’t do anything at all, and 72 hours later he’s finally able to bring home his firearm. This is despite having a CCW permit and zero negative anything on his record and having been entrusted by the government with secret information, etc etc. If the Charleston not-a-Loophole was closed, he would be denied one of his civil rights literally because he’s trustworthy.

      • I’m tooled up with clearances and never have a problem. He should look into the real reason there is a problem.

        • He’s getting closer after a few conversations with the NICS folks. Looks like he’ll have to go through the UPIN (unique personal identifier) process to clean it up, which makes it seem like maybe he’s being confused with a different person and it has nothing to do with that gov’t clearance — although that was their initial suggestion — but even now if he puts his SSN on the 4473 he still doesn’t get a response. Hopefully it’ll be resolved sooner than later! He’s extra motivated now since the WA I-594 law means it has become a TEN DAY wait for him instead of the previous three.

        • FFL:

          Damn! I gotta wait 25 days to sell this gun to that guy?? Forget it – I’ll sell it to somebody else! I got bills to pay! Kids to feed!

      • I have run afoul of this glitch in the system in Virginia. As explained to me the NICS system records investigations and when you have your initial clearance or your periodic review the first gun you buy triggers a “look at this guy further” flag. It usually gets cleared up in a matter of a few hours when the answer comes back “cleared individual.”

    • Couldn’t stomach reading the whole government statement so I may have missed this point – Does Delaware invoke this 25 days only if the FBI does not approve “on time”, or does the 25 days apply automatically in Delaware even if the FBI check is approved?

      Not that I will ever visit Delaware or attempt to purchase a firearm there, just curious.

      • It is only if delayed. If you are clear you take it home with you just like the majority of states.

        It is a maximum delay of 25 days, not “you have to wait 25 days if delayed”. If you are cleared before then you can take it home.

        Law still sucks though.

  4. I get that folks want bad things not to happen….but the world is not that way.
    Bad guys don’t give a damn.
    We all know that a person hell bent on causing chaos…….will to so as long as they are unopposed.
    Why is this so hard to understand?

    • It isn’t hard to understand, it is hard for some to accept. That is a key distinction between them and us.

      Think of it being the adult equivalent of whining that life isn’t fair. No, Virginia, it is not.

  5. So goes California? We’re at 30 days. Use to be every firearm purchased was 30 days even though you had 3 in the drawer…er disassembled, locked and properly secured.

    Continue the infringement

  6. The left is doubling down on their efforts to destroy Constitutional liberties. The gap between the leftist and everyone else is getting bigger. Eventually, there will be no way to bridge the gap. What happens next? We are seeing the collapse of the EU because of a similar gap.

    • What happens next? Well, America is a house divided against itself. There’s only one solution, which can take multiple forms. I choose a Constitutional Convention to roll back the accumulated federal infringements on our rights. Failing that, then peaceful and mutually agreed upon departure from the Union.

      • Texas doesn’t need to leave. It needs to lead.
        I treat succession like a divorce. No honey, I’m not going anywhere. Leave if you want. But I’m keeping the house and the kids, and good luck fighting me for them.

        • So… you’re saying one state would be The United States of America, and the other 49 would be… something else?

          With all due respect, that doesn’t sound all that practical.

          Texas should secede, keep everything within its borders, and take everyone who wants to go with us (presumably Oklahoma, Alabama, Idaho, etc). A nice clean split, we’re “us” now and you’re “you” now, like happened with the breakup of the USSR. Whether the resulting entity is called “The USA” or “The New Texas Republic” or whatever, I don’t really care. The fervent patriotism I have exhibited over my decades has been dimmed by seeing what passes for “the USA” nowadays. The great republic of America is long gone. If the liberal stains want to keep that name, they’re welcome to it.

          As for Texas and those who come with us, the first step has to be an act to constitutionally ban welfare. If government redistribution of wealth were banned permanently, that would forever rob the invasive parasites from any incentive to come here (or, for the city of Austin, for them to stay here).

      • I contend that those states run by political parties and politicians that refuse to honor their oath to support the Constitution have by default already seceded from the Union, whether or not their party holds a majority in the federal government. It is only up to the rest of us to point this out, join together, and reform the union under the Constitution.

        On a state level it may be necessary for those areas supporting the Constitution within otherwise seceded (Blue) states to fight their way free of the leftist domination, establish themselves as a separate state, and petition to re-join the Constitutional Union.

        A guy can dream, can’t he?

        The international repercussions of a break up of the United States and the security it provides for capitalism and ally nations world-wide would/will be catastrophic.

  7. Gee I thought Slow Joe Biden (Mr Dullaware) stated “allya’ need is a double barrel shotgun”. I guess he’s getting his wish. 25daze is absurd. And no one will be ” safer”.

        • If you want to make an absolutist argument for 2A that does not violate 10A, I think a better one is “Constitutional Carry” not “Federal Preemption.”

          Federal Preemption implies that IF the feds instituted some ban of some sort, that the States would not have a challenge for it.

          The only way your argument “2A” makes sense as a “federal preemption” law is if “shall not be infringed” is honored…across the board at all levels. But, there are many cases where “federal preemption” could be bad…very, very bad.

          Except in the case of “shall not be infringe,” fed pre-emption is a clear violation of the Tenth is sure seems to me.

          That is…the BoR work together…not one here, the other there. Fed Preemption is no more in adherence with 2A than it is 10A.

        • The states already don’t have a challenge for it. When was the last time a state nullified a federal gun control law?

        • They haven’t nullified federal laws, but that’s not the point. You are saying “fed preemption” already exists.

          The point is…where are we gaining lost rights back…in the States or from the Feds?

          Your position is only justifiable if we could turn back the clock to 1790-ish. We can’t. The feds are mighty good at ‘infringing’ and asking all this to be settled at the federal level, while it sounds good, is a pipe dream at this point in time.

          Meanwhile, gains are being made in the States. “Constitutional Carry,” as has been mentioned, is growing not declining.

          Asking for “Federal Preemption” could end that…Feds could say “On our secret list, no carry for you, even if you weren’t on the list when you BOUGHT the gun and passe the BGC.”

          You see how “federal preemption” works?

          *IF* the feds were doing their proper job and PROTECTING rights rather than being among the key infringers…I’d agree with you 100%. We are not there; neutering the federal infringements with State power is one of the best tools we have at the moment, and it’s working. Slowly, but it’s working.

        • Name a single gun right we “took back” from the federal government at the state level since 1934… I’ll wait.

        • Straw Man.

          I’m talking about returning freedoms lost to State laws…and you know it.

          The feds have a horrible track record in “protecting” our rights…2A or the others. Yet you seem hellbent on given them TOTAL control over the laws concerning guns.

          That is just…odd.

        • Federal preemption does this in one fell swoop with no additional exposure to us. Any federal law would trump state efforts anyway.

    • Be careful what you wish for. That’s pure, irrational, hotheaded talk. It’s only because the statists have had to fight on fifty state battlefields that they haven’t taken over already. If they could simply concentrate their efforts at the federal level, then they could dominate us all in one fell swoop.

      • You do remember that they ALWAYS COULD and STILL CAN win on the federal level. We should FIGHT BACK on the federal level. It will make all this penny ante state by state bullshit irrelevant.

        • Er… “penny ante state-by-state” is kind of the entire point of Federalism, is it not? Having different laws in different states is the whole point of having more than one state…

        • Not when it comes to fundamental rights. We banned slavery on a federal level, we should ban gun control on a federal level.

        • @Reality

          Except the part about “shall not be infringed”.
          The Bill of Rights are applied equally to all citizens of the U.S.
          Any State preventing citizens protection under the Bill of Rights is in violation of the Constitution.

        • Michael,

          That sure is fine when it works in that direction…the preservation of rights. That’s the true, proper role of the Federal government AND the BoR…to keep the States from becoming a-holes and say implementing a “No Cross Examination in Criminal Trial” rule.

          BUT…the problem with wording the protection as “Federal Preemption” is that opens the door for it to word the other direction. If the feds “infringe,” as they have done, the States would have no direct power under the “preemption” law.

          I agree 100% that DE’s BS law is a violation of 2A. But, seeking to pass some sort of “Federal Preemption” law is both unnecessary (they are already supposed to be held to the BoR as you stated) and inviting further corruption of the Constitutional system.

    • Don’t mess with Ohio’s laws right now. We’ve got it pretty good here now. I wish other places would follow our example. We were supposed to get Constitutional Carry and Campus Carry here, but we haven’t yet. Maybe next year…

    • Actually, we need the exact opposite. That is an insane idea that would utterly destroy states rights to say pound sand. I’d do away with the tenth and make it so the states can do whatever they choose, the way the founders intended. Then pro-gun states could get rid of the NFA, repeal the GCA, 922R, and the proggies can have their gun free paradise. Gun owners tend to be people who work hard, enjoy freedom, and actually produce something for the world, so I imagine those states would be more prosperous.

        • It didn’t.

          But, that’s not to say we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and just give up on the idea of “State’s Rights.”

          I find it interesting, today being Britain’s new “Independence Day,” that we are discussing centralization of power vs de-centralization of power and control.

          The protection from 2A that you want is already there, but it is simply ignored. This is not the State’s fault, but that of the feds. THEY are the ones seeking to infringe not only 2A, but ALL the BoR (if they could get away with it).

          Consolidating ‘power’ into the hands of the feds via the act of removing power from the States would only serve to erode 2A protections, not improve them.

          Or, do you have some evidence that the Feds will look out for our 2A rights vice seeking to erode them?

        • JR. See below. You seem to think that the power is not already consolidated. The NFA and GCA prove otherwise.

        • I’m not ignoring those laws nor am I saying power is not already consolidated. That’s exactly the point I’m TRYING to make…you said “Federal Preemption” is the solution to this, and I’m saying the feds we have right now (and will likely have for the better part of at least one generation) are the WRONG ones to cede ALL the ‘power’ to.

          I think we are kinda talking past each other. I’m merely responding to your choice of wording in framing the solution as “Federal Preemption.” Taken at face value, that’s very dangerous. That’s ONLY a good thing if what they are preempting WITH is “Shall Not Be Infringed.”

          The very infringements you have mentioned are good examples of why giving them MORE ‘control’ over the States’ rights of ‘self governance’ is a bad, bad idea.

          Just imagine for a second if a “Federal Preemption” law was on the books and Obama got a few of his pet infringements passed…or what Hillary could do with it.

        • Nothing would change, we would be hosed preempion or no preemption. That’s the point. By solidifying the fight at the federal level, we have
          literally nothing to lose.

        • Bring it on.

          The USA is anything but “U”nited. We have, fundamentally, two polar opposite societies wherein both sides are miserable. So — split. Libs go one way, Cons go the other. Each gets to live the way they want, without constantly, incessantly, having to fight the other side. What could possibly be better?

          Today has seen a Brexit. Let’s take the next logical step: Texit.

        • Now I’m advocating for the founder’s initial idea behind states and colonies. Each state can have their own laws regarding freedom. State laws are much easier to change than federal laws. The Federal government should only have the power given to them by the Constitution. The 2A says shall not be infringed, so any federal law is unconstitutional. I honestly think people will be happier if their states can decide what is right for them/ For example I don’t live on the Texas border, so why should I have a say at how Texas wants to handle their border?

    • Serge is dead on right about this.
      Yes, state’s rights are important, and their role is well laid out in our constitution and the Bill of Rights.
      And what is laid out is that, to be a part of the United States of America, there are a few things you have to abide by. His example of slavery is a good one. Got slaves? Well you can’t be part of America. We laid those things out, definitively, in the Constitution.
      The right to keep and bear arms is one of those. That this right not be infringed is one of those.
      So if you want to be part of America, you’ve got to go along with that. If you want to be the Independent Nation of Whatever Statistan, then by all means, go for it. (I would then recommend that the U.S. invade Whatever Statistan and take all their stuff.)

      • If the feds were looking out for our RKBA, or even had a historical track record of doing so, I’d agree with you. ’34 and ’68 are, after all, still on the books, no?

        But now is not the time to be putting our eggs into this basket. The control, the true ideological control, of the federal government is not “pro RKBA” on the whole.

        Even when Scalia was alive we barely had a majority in some cases at SCOTUS. Both houses of Congress are populated by too many weenies to count on them for RKBA protections.

        • “But now is not the time to be putting our eggs into this basket.” Too late. We put all of our eggs in that basket when we ratified the Constitution.

        • You seem to be under the deluded impression that states have any ability or interest in undermining federal gun control. That concept is absurd. The threat of losing at the federal level is always there. What we lack is the willingness to WIN at the federal level. Let me propose a simple bill.

          “The 2nd amendment restoration act.”

          All state and lower level laws as to the ownership, sale, transport, or use of firearms are null and void as per the 2nd amendment of the CotUS.

        • You are calling me absurd while proposing a “2A Reinstatement” federal law?

          Good grief.

          You sound like the grabbers with this…”Crime is illegal but people still commit crimes, so lets make it illegaller.”

          I mean…goodness. If the feds are not going to follow 2A as written now, what on earth makes you think even this law would pass and if it did that they would enforce it?

          In other words, why the hell do we need your new law? Just hold them to upholding 2A. I mean, that’s pretty easy, right?

          Rights are being gained back in the States….most states. If you think that’s not true, you are wrong. For example, licensed handgun OC in TX is better than what was in place last year…not perfect, and not “Shall Not Be Infringed,” but a step in the right direction. MO and here in NC laws have been improved. VA AG tried some shenanigans last year and it blew up in his face. Etc.

          Meanwhile, most the D’s and quite a few R’s in DC are more than happy to propose and pass “feel good” laws that infringe not only 2A but 4, 5, 6 and 14 for good measure that they freely admit won’t change “gun crime.”

          We need to fight at both levels; don’t get me wrong. But I think “Federal Preemption” is not just risky but suicidal…unless it’s JUST 2A and nothing more and nothing new.

        • JR… You’re “taking back” rights from the STATE, note the federal government. Not a single state have EVER nullified a federal gun statute. EVER.

        • I never said the States were taking back laws lost to federal laws.

          You are the one that brought up “Federal Preemption.” That’s the term you used. Do you know what “preemption” means?

          It means Federal law would “preempt” State laws. It means that if such ‘preemption’ existed, the feds could, for example, ban all concealed carry, and the states would HAVE to adhere to it.

          That’s not the case right now, or at least it’s not clear. The CO marijuana laws and push-back on ‘gay marriage’ by the states, as well as a HOST of other situations where the States have butted heads with the feds are examples where such “federal preemption” a so-called nuclear option.

          It’s a tug-of-war…a constant one…the battle between Statism / Authoritarianism and Individual Liberty. People are calling the Brexit thing just that, for example. In this tug-of-war, it is the States that are usually pushing toward the “liberty” side, and our current federal bureaucracy that is pushing for more Statism.

          So, stop bringing up the Straw Man of the States repealing federal law or not…I’m thinking MUCH bigger picture than that.

          That LAST thing we want is ANY power left to the States (and it’s ludicrously stupid to say NONE exists…CO marijuana is a good example) to be willingly given to the feds under some misguided “federal preemption” that would be the Statist wet dream.

      • You seem to be under the deluded impression that states have any ability or interest in undermining federal gun control. That concept is absurd. The threat of losing at the federal level is always there. What we lack is the willingness to WIN at the federal level. Let me propose a simple bill.

        “The 2nd amendment restoration act.”

        All state and lower level laws as to the ownership, sale, transport, or use of firearms are null and void as per the 2nd amendment of the CotUS.

        • “Let me propose a simple bill.

          “The 2nd amendment restoration act.””

          Completely unnecessary.

          As I said above, if they won’t follow 2A as it exists now, what on earth makes you think they would pass, much less follow, this new law.

          What you are saying here is ridiculous, and completely undermines the power of the BoR. They (the Amendments) are already codified in the FOUNDING DOCUMENT that defines the government. They are SUPPOSED to already be following them.

          Why on earth should we have a law that tells the government to follow the law that they are already supposed to be following?

          And what happens next when they ignore your new law? We gonna come to TTAG and propose YASL (Yet Another Stupid Law) for them to ignore: “The 2A Restoration Act Restoration Act”

          I’m quite frankly stunned that you are proposing this in this fashion. It’s just nonsense and not helpful at all to solving the real problems we are currently facing.

          In short…it will do nothing to restore rights. If 2A is ignorable (as history suggests), your proposed law will be, too.

        • Let me simple this up for you… If the Feds banned concealed carry, there would be jack shit the states could do about it. The primacy of federal law over state law has been settled for centuries. What I am proposing is that we use that primacy to OUR advantage for a fucking change.

        • “Let me simple this up for you… “

          States challenge federal laws all the time, and defy them as well.

          Your proposal is ridiculous. You have no basis to demand the feds follow the ‘new’ rules/laws any more than you have basis for them to follow 2A now.

          No magic ‘law’ is going to change that. Federal Preemption that you are dreaming about will represent a very real potential for net LOSS of rights.

      • So the Federal government tramples over our natural/God given rights daily, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc and they decide they as a people do not want to be subject to the federal gov and decide they want to secede. Your reaction is to invade, murder, and steal? Statism thy name is jwtaylor
        States and people should be able to leave the United States of the District of Columbia if they so choose when the Federal government decided to trample upon your natural rights.

        • Yeah… We settled THAT argument back in the 1860s… If memory serves, a war was involved.

        • Nothing is “settled” forever.

          Political climates change and rebellions happen. {Shrug}

    • You see this? THIS is why we need federal preemption of all state and local firearms laws.

      This sounds great if the Feds were actually looking out for us. Technically the 2A should already be doing this for us. So – it’s arguable that we already have this, and it’s not working in our favor.

  8. Once BAD laws get on the books at State or Fed. level , they ALWAYS get expanded. The Time To KILL Vampire Laws is BEFORE they see the light of day !

  9. Whenever someone extols the virtue of their plan for it “protecting the Second Amendment”, it instantly reveals the vice of that proposal as an assault on our rights.

    The 2A doesn’t need protecting. The 2A does the protecting. A liberal’s declaration that he’s protecting the Second Amendment should always and everywhere be heard as his intent to snatch freedom. He’s acting in defiance of the Second Amendment, not in defense of the Second Amendment.

    As for Delaware et.al., sorry, you’re slave states now. The rest of you, save your own states.

    #Texit

    • “The 2A doesn’t need protecting. The 2A does the protecting.”

      Is that original? Whether it is or not, I’m soooo stealing it.

        • From an anonymous Marine interviewed in either Iraq or Afghanistan (I forget which): “We are not in harm’s way, we ARE harm’s way!”

    • This law does suck but DE is far from a slave state. Just a form 4473, pay and you are out the door in 10 min. No mag cap limits, no waiting period, No purchase permits etc. Pistol open carry is lawful with no permit. Pistol open carry in your car is ok as long as it is visible. Cops don’t hassle open carriers. Sure it ain’t perfect but it ain’t NJ or MD. The state house IS full of Dem idiots but the Del State Sportsman Assoc and NRA are strong in DE and stop most of the BS.

  10. “Under federal law, the FBI must complete a NICS background check within three business days. After that, the sale automatically proceeds.”

    Ain’t true. The sale MAY proceed, if the dealer feels like selling it at that point, but it’s up to the dealer’s discretion to decide whether or not to sell. If the dealer is feeling skittish, and the delay hasn’t cleared yet, the dealer can certainly decide not to sell.

    • Good clarification. I never encountered this situation personally as I just get “proceed” (proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed, proceed…)

      Damns… maybe my wife is right and I have enough guns… Nah.

  11. Let me make sure I understand this new law. A terrorist or psycho is Hell-bent on killing dozens of people. They plan for months in advance. They meticulously consider every possible detail. They get their affairs in order. They often booby-trap their home/apartment. Finally, the day comes to purchase their firearms for their attack. Then it happens: they fail their NICS check and they are unable to walk out the same day (or even four days later) with the firearms that they wanted. Utterly stymied, they walk away with their head down and give up their plan completely.

    Who actually believes this nonsense?!?!?

  12. If it wasn’t for Capitalism, because they sure don’t rate as citizens, we’d enforce a closing of the DE loophole and go gun-nazi on them. NO GUNS FOR YOU – DE !

    You are a piss ant infinitesimal state with little to no value. We hope your right about global warming because your gap needs widening.

  13. Somebody famous once said, “a right delayed is worth two bushes in the hand”, or something like that….

    • Miller is not a good guy. He lobbied for mandatory backgound checks for person to person sales so he could overcharge for the transfers. There are better FFLs in DE.

  14. I gave up on the Blue Hen State when it chose to call its citizens Delawarians instead of Delawarites.

    I saw the debates on “Taxi.”

  15. I’m 4th generation Delaware resident. Even Delaware Democrats used to be very pro-gun. Problem is NY, NJ, and MD residents along with many other transplants move in to the state for the jobs and low taxes and bring their anti 2a attitudes and call for the very government programs which were the reason for the high taxes in the states they left. Won’t be long before I throw in the towel and migrate to a more freedom loving state.

  16. Dover, DE— Building on the state’s efforts to implement responsible gun safety laws….

    ….where “responsible” means you waiting 25 days for state law enforcement to get their shit together.

  17. Apply for a gun permit, and the state has 25 days to arrest you for a felony. Think you can go 25 days without commuting a felony? You probably already committed 25 this morning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *