NSSF Applauds Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act Introduction

From the NSSF:

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®), the firearms industry trade association, applauds U.S. House of Representatives Republican Whip Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) introduction of H.R. 2443, the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act. The legislation would reduce the burden on law-abiding citizens, including active duty military and their accompanying spouses, to allow them to buy firearms, including handguns, across state lines, as long as they meet applicable laws at the point of purchase and their home of record.

“This is common-sense legislation that would allow law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms of their choosing while ensuring state and federal laws are enforced,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Federally licensed firearms retailers already ensure firearms are only transferred in face-to-face transactions and only upon completion and verification of an FBI background check. This legislation would enable retailers to use the technology already available to reduce administrative burdens placed on customers through outdated laws.”

The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act would:

  • Enable licensed dealers to transfer firearms (rifles, shotguns and handguns) to out-of-state buyers so long as the transaction complies with the laws of the state of both the transferor and the transferee.
  • Permit licensed retailers to sell firearms at out-of-state gun shows provided that the laws of the state of both the transferor and the transferee are complied with.
  • Allow for face-to-face transfer of firearms between licensed dealers. Currently dealers must ship a firearm, significantly increasing the risk of theft in the process.

This legislation is particularly important for members of the Armed Forces. Currently, military members can purchase firearms in their home state and that of their permanent duty assignment. However, military spouses cannot. Those spouses must either incur the burden of changing state residency with each military move or return to their home state to purchase a firearm. This legislation would allow both members of the Armed Forces and their spouses to purchase firearms as residents of their home of record, the state in which their permanent duty station is located and the state in which they maintain a residence while serving at their permanent duty station.

About NSSF

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit www.nssf.org.

comments

  1. avatar Spectre_USA says:

    Sounds great!

    As an Eastern Washingtonian, there are much better deals in Idaho than here, and I have
    had to have any product purchased less than a mile from the order
    shipped to a local State dealer.

    It makes no common sense, but somehow does to bureaucrats.

  2. avatar Texican says:

    Oooh, and there would then be more competition for your firearms dollar and prices would go down! Win-win!

  3. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    That’s a good deal. Now States that have restrictions wlll have more people to arrest because they said “Fck u” and went to the State that doesn’t have restrictions and brought back their restricted gunms and stuff…. Man this rivers getting deep with the flood water, guy might lose a boat out there.

    1. avatar Moltar says:

      You misread that possum. Basically you’d still have to make sure what you are purchasing is legal in your state. For example, you go on vacation to Kentucky to watch the derby (please be careful on our roads dude we got enough flattened possums already) you decide you wanna purchase an AR from a retailer. Well, it’d have to be legal in your home state and if it isn’t the retailer has a responsibility to deny the sale. If I understand it correctly. I can only imagine how screwed up this law will actually be and how many folks are going to lose their shit over questionable buys.

      1. avatar Matthew Newton says:

        Probably not. Right now long guns can be purchased anywhere, so long as the sale complies with the laws of your home state. That means not just that the gun is legal, but any waiting periods and licensing is observed. This just applies that to handguns (well, ALL guns). Also I was unaware that FFLs HAD to ship firearms and couldn’t face-to-face transfer. That is news to me (and likely every FFL I have run in to, as I’ve seen plenty transfer F2F at gunshows and such, and not simply in-state transfers, but plenty of Interstate transfers for example a PA dealer transferring to a MD dealer, so that the MD dealer can then do the sale to a MD resident).

        As for the rules, for instance a dealer in CO got in trouble for selling a shotgun to that FL girl who flew in, bought one and some shells and seemed obsessed with Columbine. It wasn’t because he sold to a FL resident, it is because he didn’t observe FL law, which was changed and now long guns you must be 21 or older (she was 19) and a 3-day waiting period (he sold it over the counter immediately).

        NICS doesn’t check any of that, it is up to the FFL.

        Simple solution if you don’t know some state firearms laws and don’t want to be troubled to look it up. Deny the sale. Sucks for the potential purchaser, but sales in general are up to the FFL to decide. Better than the situation today. Plenty of times I see better deals in PA than in MD, but can’t buy them without having it transferred…which nets me about $70 in fees, losing me any price advantage ($40-50 transfer fee from my MD FFL, $10-20 in shipping).

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Matthew Newton,

          I seem to recall that you can only purchase long-guns from states that share a border with your state of residence. Is that federal law or state law?

          And that brings up another point: what good would this new law be if state laws prohibit firearms dealers from selling to out-of-state residents?

        2. avatar Moltar says:

          What I was meaning when I said make sure the gun is legal in your state is to say make sure it is legal and doesn’t have any banned “assault weapon” features. When I say people will lose their shit with a few questionable sales I mean exactly this scenario. Possum lives in Cali but jets off to Kentucky for the derby, while here he purchases a bog standard (for our area anyway) AR15 with a few Pmags. Now, The FFL not being too familiar with those state laws in Cali goes ahead and sells Possum that AR. Possum scurries back to the Republic of Komradefornia. If Possum gets caught with that KY legal AR he’s hanged in California and that KY FFL is probably gonna have a lot of explaining to do when BATFE comes a callin.

          This law, if it simply said F*CK your unconstitutional state laws if it’s legal in any state you have to accept it in your state without bitching, then I would be singing its praises from the rooftops and sacrificing virgins upon its altar. But it doesn’t do anything of the sort. It doesn’t protect you or the FFL should you be a N00b and think an AR is an AR is an AR and a GLOCK is a GLOCK is a GLOCK and so you purchase either one in a state with different gun laws than what your politicians currently worship. You have to ensure that the transfer is kosher in both states and that includes the weapon being transferred.

  4. avatar Biatec says:

    You know what. Why is this even thing? they should be talking about repealing the laws that make it hard to buy guns across state lines. NFA laws, 1968 gun control act, lots of other commerce related laws. Why would we need a law saying you can? just get rid of the old ones.

    I mean I get it. I like the spirit of it but it’s like passing a law saying you are allowed to carry guns. There really should not be a law stating things like it. it implies it can be reversed with the will of the people. Maybe I am overthinking this. I don’t know.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      Or is it actually a reform act like reforming the existing laws by removing them? Sorry no edit. Still should just be repealing laws not reforming them.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        👆 Exactly

    2. avatar GunnyGene says:

      It’s done that way to ensure the people in power retain their power, while giving the rest of us the illusion of some tiny bit freedom.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      So you called both of your US Senators and your Rep on this matter TODAY?

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      You get it, Biatec. We need to get a whole lot more POTG to understand this. The exercise of our unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms is sunk if we don’t.

  5. avatar Anymouse says:

    Sounds good. Too bad he didn’t propose it more than 5 months ago. Chance of it passing a Dem controlled Congress is 0, unless outlawing private transfers is tacked on. It won’t even get a hearing.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    Right, good idea. Destined for the dust bin.

    For two years the Trump admin did absolutely nothing about Second Amendment Rights. Ignored completely, no legislative initiatives or actions. They did not have to risk failure or try and be defeated or try and win. They simply ignored all of us.

    Oh, wait, that’s not quite true.

    They did address those evil bump stock toys.

    So at least we have that huh?

    1. avatar MyName says:

      Pretty annoyed by that myself.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      And put wind in the sails of Red Flag laws across the nation.

  7. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    The 2nd Amendment is our “PERMIT”! IT’S fine time we all band together and re-assert our Constitutional right to our elected officials…Fight back to take back OUR rights that our own government has some how taken away! (PS: Think draconian socialist authoritarian police states like NY, Massachusetts, NJ, MD., CT., etc…are going to give to shots about constitutional rights reform without a major fight! Then shouldn’t we be getting ready for a true battle to retain that which is lost in these states!)

  8. avatar Nanashi says:

    Too little too late from the gun grabbers at the NSSF.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Thus speaks NANNYSHI the Soros 5th column troll. One (or two) note Nelly. Trolling NRA and NSSF.

  9. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    There shouldn’t be any new laws. Just repeal the old bad ones. Back in the old days everyone could get a gun, everyone knew everyone could get one. No big deal. It’s what’s in the head, not the hand. Everyone knows that. Even the leftists. It’s just not the way for them to get and keep power over the people. Too bad the kids don’t know that people died for those bill of rights….thanks to today’s public education.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Spot on. And, unfortunately, it’s going to take people dying to restore the exercise of those rights again.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “it’s going to take people dying to restore the exercise of those rights again.” Well, what are you waiting for??? Get out there and lead the way. I’ll send flowers. Cripes, some of you just can’t wait. Watching it all happen on TV doesn’t count, though. Incredible…

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Take some Midol, sweetheart.

  10. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    Just like Texas Senator John Cornyn introducing the reciprocity carry bill after the republicans lost the house, but, before his reelection bid. Scalise, POS!!! What lousy lying bastards!
    While we’re at it, Florida Senators little Marko Rubio and Rick Scott backing red flag laws, raising the age of gun ownership and also the banning of bump stocks. Then our 2A leader in Chief, President Trump, promising gun rights as he slips the knife deep into our backs.
    2.5 years later, more promises and fewer rights. Better wake the hell up!!

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Scalise is one of the good guys numbnuts

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      Cornyn has introduced the reciprocity act EVERY Congress since 2013, dumbass.

  11. avatar JohnS says:

    “Currently, military members can purchase firearms in their home state and that of their permanent duty assignment.”

    No, BATFE disagrees; .mil are residents ONLY of the state to which they have PCS orders. (One exception: live in one state, commute to the PCS location in an adjacent state).

    They might deceive an FFL in their ‘home’ state, with an actual residence address in that state and a Driver License/ID from that state.

    That condition is insane, but real.

    1. avatar Jb02 says:

      You need a new FFL. This is completely false

      1. avatar JohnS says:

        Not from an FFL – from US Code, and BATFE

        18 USC 921 (b) “(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his permanent duty station is located.”

        2004 letter to FFLs, https://www.atf.gov/file/56416/download%E2%80%8E

        Feel free to write your Congress-critter to get this travesty fixed. I have, but mine are (D) from California.

  12. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    I’m dreaming but wouldn’t it be nice if the Supreme Court actually defended the constitution and said that there can be lawful restrictions on the Second Amendment so all gun control laws are null and void ! I’m awake again now and damn things are in a mess.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    I would vote for Steve Scalise if he ran for President! This has no chance of passing as it would make sense😏

  14. avatar Chris Morton says:

    As the anti-gun cultists say, it’s a “good first step” prior to repealing the GCA68 and NFA34.

  15. avatar NoSir says:

    States like PA with back door registries will either be really unhappy or not permit out of state sales. What I really wish was in this was removal of the travel limitations on NFA items. FFS you went through all that shit getting your item registered and the transfer approved to be locked in a state unless you ask for permission to leave. What an absolute load of shit that is.

  16. avatar Stateisevil says:

    0.0 % chance of passage.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email