Commercial vs. Private party sale in the post McDonald world?

[Untamed1972]

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

I'd read this in the McD decision before, but something about it just jumped out at me. I specifically says the "commerical sale of arms". Is that making a distiction between commerical sales and private party sales? Does that mean that CA requirement that PPTs go thru an FFL could be found unconstitutional?

[Untamed1972]

Beuller?

Beuller?

Beuller?

[wash]

That is an interesting thought and I would love to see paperless private transfers like most of the country has.

It just takes a better legal mind than mine to determine if that is a case we could make.

[fd15k]

I'd love them to make a NICS system for non-dealers. Because even though I don't like all the paperwork, I still want to make sure prohibited persons aren't able to buy firearms.

[dustoff31]

Actually, I'm somewhat concerned that we all may eventually see the end of private party sales nationwide through some federal law citing the commerce clause.

We know that even SCOTUS isn't bashful about using that to justify almost anything.

[berto]

Doubt they're making a distinction between FFL and PPT.

[Crom]

Doubt they're making a distinction between FFL and PPT.

I concur. I would not get too wrapped up in forcing the issue.

[drutledge79]

I'd like a system one could voluntarily use -- ideally for free. I'm willing to do a little work to keep prohibited folks from acquiring firearms. A simple "ok" or "not ok" would suffice.

[Untamed1972]

Doubt they're making a distinction between FFL and PPT.

I just thought it was interesting that they said "the commerical sale of arms"....not just "the sale of arms". To me adding the qualifier of "commercial" to the sales would indicate to me that there are sales that could be considered non-commerical. Just like when you sell anything else you own simply because you dont want it anymore. You're not engaged in a commerical business for the purpose of making a profit you are just divesting yourself of personal property which I think congress would have a hard time regulating under the commerce clause. Not to mention when most items are sold used they are sold for less then what the seller paid for the item new so it's hard to claim it's a commerical business for profit.

Like in CA you can sell up to X number of vehicles per year without having a dealers license, because you have the right to sell your personal property if you wish. I dont hafta go thru a dealer to sell my car if I want and my car is registered. There is not even a requirement that I have to verify if the buyer is actually even a licensed driver or not.

[Untamed1972]

I concur. I would not get too wrapped up in forcing the issue.

I wasn't getting wrapped up in it. Just something in the decision that jumped out at me as a rather specific statement.

[dantodd]

I don't think this is saying that non-commercial sales would be paperless. It speaks specifically to "conditions and qualifications" so it applies to requirements for FFLs not regulations on the transfer itself. I can see two general areas where this would have an impact.

First it removes the 2A defense from anyone who is charged with dealing without a license unless the conditions and qualifications were unreasonable.

The second area I can see this effecting is States like Montana who are trying to circumvent federal firearms laws in the name of the 10th amendment. If all commercial sales can be controlled then anyone trying to sell "Montana Only" firearms would be dealing without a federal license, and anyone selling "Montana Only" firearms with an FFL would lose it due to the conditions of the license.

[Crom]

I wasn't getting wrapped up in it. Just something in the decision that jumped out at me as a rather specific statement.

Okay.

I'd read this in the McD decision before, but something about it just jumped out at me. I specifically says the "commerical sale of arms".

Nobody here thinks that the Supremes were making a distinction between private party and commercial sale of firearms. It was more or less his choice of words when writing the statement. He was concerned with access.

It is an interesting observation but I think you're reading into it too much.

Is that making a distiction between commerical sales and private party sales?

No.

Does that mean that CA requirement that PPTs go thru an FFL could be found unconstitutional?

No.

[tiki]

I'd love them to make a NICS system for non-dealers. Because even though I don't like all the paperwork, I still want to make sure prohibited persons aren't able to buy firearms.

I agree.

[M. D. Van Norman]

[Kharn]

I'd love them to make a NICS system for non-dealers. Because even though I don't like all the paperwork, I still want to make sure prohibited persons aren't able to buy firearms.

Then ask to see the buyer's CCW.