suprisingly many FFLs dont even know the law for 3 day rule. And this whole "liability" bullbubblegum is crap as its by law .... you're not liable for bubblegum if the govt who is supposed to do the background check in a timely manner fails. That is their failure. FFLs aren't the govt and they are not doing the BGC. Their job is to sell a firearm. A right delayed is a right denied. If the govt fails to do its job, that's on them....
If a 3 day release was important to you, why did you choose to buy at a box store that has never done a 3 day release?
I was foolish and thought the OSP would process quicker. The sales lady informed that they would refund the bucks if the brc did not clear by the 8th. My overall fault. i'd be glad to loose the bucks than get wrapped up in the 114 process and the consequences.
Most will go back to not releasing after three days to reduce liability risk. Most don't understand why the started releasing after 3 days. It is a balance of risk and the need to make money.
If that is the truth then why in most major shootings is the gun store that sold the firearm included in the lawsuit? There is no law that protects gun stores from civil suits. If there is, please reference it.
Lol....."hoe". The great thing about December is that I can yell "Hoe, hoe, hoe!!" at work and the girls just think I'm just being all Christmassy.
My ffl/gunsmith is doing the 3 day thing for Chl holders and customers he knows. But don't get on ffls that don't want to take the risk. Not from atf but from a lawsuit brought on by circumstances beyond their control. They may win but is the profit margin from the sale of a gun worth the thousands of dollars the ffl would have to pony up for an attorney? Even if the case is dismissed you're still putting out more for the attorney than the few hundred in profit you would have made.
I'm sure they will revert back. It's not that it's illegal or that an FFL would actually be found liable, it's just the threat of scrutiny from the alphabets, potential costs to fight a wrongful suit, and IMHO, a large part of it is a moral issue that compels them to wait. They don't want the burden of feeling personally responsible for allowing a prohibited person to procure a firearm on their watch.
There will either be a delay or an injunction. Either way, you'll be OK.
Just as long as I do not have to apply for a permit. I am hoping for an injunction and the case goes for a formal trial or hearing.
You say this in nice way. There is a Good old slogan I believe it's $hit or get off the pot that's what they need to do lol
How so?
Yep couldn't agree more. I had a few delays this year and I didn't get bent out of shape over it. I went down to OSP HQ nicely and talked with them got it cleared up. I never once got mad at my FFLs for not giving my guns to me. Now it's getting pretty niddy gritty and we all need to stand together and tell the state to shove it. If we can't buy guns the gun stores won't be around better take care of the customers that took care of you.
One way to put it brotha
A lot of people won't. There will be a high percentage of people who apply for the BGC and wait 30 days, get kicked out for being over 30 days, resubmit, wait 30 days, etc. When the queue reaches a critical mass it will end up with people in a viscous cycle of being kicked out over and over because OSP cannot possibly get to them in under 30 days. I hope FFLs continue to do 3 day releases all the way up to the "implementation" of 114.
If they delay people being able to buy firearms because the permit was not in place it gives leverage in the lawsuit. "A right delayed is a right denied". the permit is put off until February it gives more potential backbone to keep measure 114 around longer because in "did not inhibit peoples rights."
You are correct as most will have standing.
