ReggieB9mm
NES Member
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Well this one is neutral on that, it doesn't change when a check is done, nore does it change what DB is used, all it changes is who pays for it, and adds a layer of Gov.Any bill infringing on the RKBA is illegal
No extra protection, just extra point for random delays.Reads like what the bill does is adds long gun background checks to the state and not the fed
Currently state does hand gun and "other" The FFL sends the long gun to the fed Bill would put all the checks on the state
I don't know the answer but is the state doing the background checks for isolation of its citizens from the federal government or is it nefarious?
I don't like bills of any kind.
Buffalo too.Parcells?
Belichick?
Wild Bill Donovan?
Seems pretty namist to me.
And how is that any different from now?My concern is this is only requires an amendment in the future with few small words changed to requiring checks for all transfers, not just FFLs.
Don't know anything about NH laws currently but if they mandate background checks on private face to face transfers you can expect to see what happened in CT happen in NH. Because CT does similar, runs its own background check system that interfaces with NICS. The FBI and NICS folks mandated that only requests from FFL's can be made. This forced all private face to face transfers in CT to now go through an FFL. Smells like a new method/way to go after and eventually stop private face to face transfers and sales that Democrats/gun grabbers have long sought. Here is what the CT indicated last year:My concern is this is only requires an amendment in the future with few small words changed to requiring checks for all transfers, not just FFLs.