The three day rule

[doninoregon]

I was in a gun store last week and the young employee wasn't aware of the origin of the 3-day rule.

Most people here probably know, but maybe a few don't.

When the Gun Grabbers first proposed mandatory background checks, it went like this.


2A people: But having to wait to buy firearms would be an infringement.

GG: How about if it's "instant"?

2A: What if there's a delay? Or approval never happens? Wouldn't that be an infringement?

GG: How about, if it takes more than three days, you can go ahead and buy it?

2A: ... uh, okay.


Now M114 wants to "close the Charleston Loophole" and eliminate the 3-day transfer provision. (A "loophole" is anything they haven't legislated...yet.)

Doesn't this take us back to the beginning, that a delay, especially an indefinite delay, constitutes an infringement?

If so, doesn't the current delay, caused by confusion about implementation and court actions, constitute an infringement?

Read More

 

[Yarome]

It's another prime example of our legislators unduly negotiating away our rights. The mistaken belief that we are somehow required to find some "compromise" between what the gun grabbers want and what are our protected rights... not to be infringed or "negotiated" away just to give the opposition some kind of "win".

It never should have happened but it shouldn't come as any suprise that they are now trying to take away that... in their eyes... temporary concession they made just to get the legislation passed.

You would think our side would learn from history, but we repeat the same mistake over and over and continue to move the line in the sand of our own free will.

They are fully aware it's an infringment. They couldn't care less... if we continue to let them get away with it... that's on us.

 

[Koda]

Now M114 wants to "close the Charleston Loophole" and eliminate the 3-day transfer provision. (A "loophole" is anything they haven't legislated...yet.)

Doesn't this take us back to the beginning, that a delay, especially an indefinite delay, constitutes an infringement?

If so, doesn't the current delay, caused by confusion about implementation and court actions, constitute an infringement?

yes and yes.

114 is a clear indication of the true intent of gun control. Lots of gun owners are unaware the 3 day rule is not a loophole it seems or they wouldn't have voted for it.

 

[Knobgoblin]

So many loopholes

 

[TTSX]

114 makes me miss covid

 

[titsonritz]

Shut-up and get back inline serf.

 

[Alexx1401]

I was in a gun store last week and the young employee wasn't aware of the origin of the 3-day rule.

Most people here probably know, but maybe a few don't.

When the Gun Grabbers first proposed mandatory background checks, it went like this.


2A people: But having to wait to buy firearms would be an infringement.

GG: How about if it's "instant"?

2A: What if there's a delay? Or approval never happens? Wouldn't that be an infringement?

GG: How about, if it takes more than three days, you can go ahead and buy it?

2A: ... uh, okay.


Now M114 wants to "close the Charleston Loophole" and eliminate the 3-day transfer provision. (A "loophole" is anything they haven't legislated...yet.)

Doesn't this take us back to the beginning, that a delay, especially an indefinite delay, constitutes an infringement?

If so, doesn't the current delay, caused by confusion about implementation and court actions, constitute an infringement?

2A compromise. For decades one side keeps coming back for more. For decades a LOT of gun owners ignore what is going on or go along with yet another compromise.Those who go along always want to delude themselves into believing this compromise will make the other side happy and they will leave us alone. Of course anyone with functioning brain knows this is not going to happen.

 

[nammac]

2A compromise. For decades one side keeps coming back for more. For decades a LOT of gun owners ignore what is going on or go along with yet another compromise.Those who go along always want to delude themselves into believing this compromise will make the other side happy and they will leave us alone. Of course anyone with functioning brain knows this is not going to happen.

They're eating the elephant, so to speak, one bite at a time…

There's already plenty of unenforced gun control laws both federal, state and local. Start enforcing existing laws, trying criminals and putting them in jail. Slapping them on the wrist, releasing them with no bail (currently in vogue) to hit the streets and commit another crime, on another day, is not a criminal Justice system….

But law abiding citizens will continue to be victimized by their governments until the breaking point, then things will get real ugly…

 

[American123]

Once you realize that none of these efforts are actually to reduce immoral violence, and are instead primarily to slowly but surely eliminate the right to firearm ownership, it makes more sense.

 

[arakboss]

The part that is most disturbing is the amount of members here and FFLs who don't seem fond of the 3 day rule releases. if it wasn't for a few shops who have bucked the trend there would be a lot more people waiting in line for their firearms.

 

[Alexx1401]

The part that is most disturbing is the amount of members here and FFLs who don't seem fond of the 3 day rule releases. if it wasn't for a few shops who have bucked the trend there would be a lot more people waiting in line for their firearms.

What many just do not want to get their head around is the 3 day does NOT mean the FFL is in the clear. Let one of those guns they let walk end up in some "big deal" and the FFL will now have to hire VERY expensive lawyers as the AG can spend all the money they want. Its a huge risk just like here is WA when some will let a gun go after the 10 day wait. Many will not let it go for the same reason. It's easy for people who have nothing on the line to to tell those who stand to lose everything they should just take the risk.

 

[GrayGoose]

But law abiding citizens will continue to be victimized by their governments until the breaking point, then things will get real ugly…

If M114 isn't that breaking point, then what will be? I think we're there now.

 

[arakboss]

What many just do not want to get their head around is the 3 day does NOT mean the FFL is in the clear. Let one of those guns they let walk end up in some "big deal" and the FFL will now have to hire VERY expensive lawyers as the AG can spend all the money they want. Its a huge risk just like here is WA when some will let a gun go after the 10 day wait. Many will not let it go for the same reason. It's easy for people who have nothing on the line to to tell those who stand to lose everything they should just take the risk.

Running an FFL is risky business regardless. I was pointing out that it's not just gun grabbers who don't appreciate the three day rule releases.

 

[arakboss]

If M114 isn't that breaking point, then what will be? I think we're there now.

Look at California we are not there yet.

 

[Alexx1401]

If M114 isn't that breaking point, then what will be? I think we're there now.

I keep hoping gun owners will wake the F up but, never seems to happen. Maybe this will finally? Maybe the anti rights people finally over reached? We shall see.

 

[Yarome]

What many just do not want to get their head around is the 3 day does NOT mean the FFL is in the clear. Let one of those guns they let walk end up in some "big deal" and the FFL will now have to hire VERY expensive lawyers as the AG can spend all the money they want. Its a huge risk just like here is WA when some will let a gun go after the 10 day wait. Many will not let it go for the same reason. It's easy for people who have nothing on the line to to tell those who stand to lose everything they should just take the risk.

I think there is merit to both sides of the argument. There is in fact some risk for an FFL to release after 3 days, but in reality it is miniscule to point of almost being nonexistant and they are much more likely to face a lawsuit for selling a mentaly distraught person a firearm, who successfully completed a BGC, than they are for releasing firearm to someone prohibited, where the firearm is not recoverable by law enforcement and is subsequently used to murder someone. For that matter... lawsuits have already been filed against FFL's for lawfully transferring a firearm... after a completed BGC... where that person used the weapon in a mass shooting incident. Waiting for a BGC is no guaranteed isolator against a wrongful lawsuit.

Minimizing risk over something they actually have some control over though is understantable. That their exposure is somehow exponentially increased by releasing under the 3 day rule though is hogwash, IMHO. It's less about liability and frivolous lawsuits than it is about alphabet scrutiny and possibly them using it agaisnt them to pull their license than anything. Especially now under brandons zero tolerance policy weaponization of the alphabets against FFL's.

In that sense, then yes.. the risk is no longer being able to conduct business... than anything.

Playing the "what if" games of "well, it's possible".... is a lame duck. Call it what it is. Fear of the alphabets... and I'm not saying that's not justified, but let's keep it real.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Does the actual "Three day rule" say can or may....?

If something does not specifically state that an action will happen or is required to happen as in :

If after three days , no reply or response from the ATF or other federal , state or local agency in regards to the background check has been received , then the seller is required turn over the firearm to the buyer / transferee

Then...
Can or may , could just as easily be cannot or may not....
Andy

Please note that I am in favor of getting a firearm into the hands of a buyer / transferee with the least amount of fuss and interference as possible.
And that I dislike lawyer word twists and games.

 

[Alexx1401]

I think there is merit to both sides of the argument. There is in fact some risk for an FFL to release after 3 days, but in reality it is miniscule to point of almost being nonexistant

Great get an FFL and show all those doing it wrong how to do it "right". Again a LOT of people with NOTHING to lose telling those who could lose everything how they are doing it wrong.

 

[Yarome]

Does the actual "Three day rule" say can or may....?

It's "may". There is no legal requirement and solely up to the discretion of the FFL.

Personally, I understand why FFL's almost exclusively don't. And when BGC's are being performed in a timely manner.. it's really a moot point. I think all gun owners are in agreement that handing over a firearm to a prohibited person is something we would all like to see avoided. The "safeguard" typically isn't necessesary since most gun owners are reasonable people and willing to show a little patience.

In the event BGC's are being intentionally slow walked or an unconstitutional measure like 114 is looming and all sales will be cut off... that is exactly what that safeguard was put in place for. I commend those FFL's that took advantage of it in the time of need as a short term stop gap. Those that didn't.. well... that was their choice so you can't complain too much.. but then again... every person has the right to choose where to spend their $'s, now don't they.

 

[Yarome]

Great get an FFL and show all those doing it wrong how to do it "right". Again a LOT of people with NOTHING to lose telling those who could lose everything how they are doing it wrong.

The point being that they have the run the risk of frivouls lawsuits every day they have their doors open. Adding additional risk... and as tiny as that risk is... isn't exactly the most valid reason not to do it. Fear of alphabet scrutiny and them finding some lame reason to pull their license is a much greater risk. And that's valid...

These "it's possible in a galaxy far far way".. some prohibited person is going to get one, murder someone and I'm going to be sued out of business type reasons... and thinking that's valid enough to apease gun buyers that it is simply too much of a risk to follow the law.... that's the weak link.