Help pick apart this Bill! (UBC)

[Ryanxia]

So Bloomberg got his meat hooks into Maine and this November we will have a "Universal Background Checks" Bill for the People to vote on. He paid signature collectors to gather the necessary signatures for a Citizen's Initiative.

Below is a link to the text of the Bill, believe me that we are going to put up a fight and try to convince people to vote no on it. As a member of Gun Owners of Maine we've been starting to look at the wording of the Bill and draw from it different examples or scenarios in which perfectly normal and currently legal situations would become illegal.

Knowing how informed and creative fellow THR members are here, I was hoping for some more eyes to look at the wording and offer up opinions on how this would affect people in a way that they would want to vote it down. I know there have been a lot of threads in the past of why UBC is a bad thing, but I thought the specific wording of this Bill would be worth a new thread (and since Maine is going to be in a hard fight over the next several months, anything specific to this particular Bill would be great).

Link:
https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Background_Checks_for_Gun_Sales_Initiative_(2016)

Situations I believe will be affected (correct me if I'm wrong):

• If this Bill were to pass, any gun owners in Maine could no longer hire a baby sitter or pet sitter while they are out for the night/weekend because having a firearm in the house with only someone else there would be considered transferring to them and be illegal.

• If there were an emergency and you wanted to ask a neighbor to watch your kids/house briefly, nope, not if you're a gun owner.

• If I keep a little revolver in the glove of my car and stop for gas while with a friend it would be illegal for me to exit the vehicle to pump gas as him being alone in the car would be considered me transferring the gun to him.

Sorry for the long post, any help is appreciated. Any points that you think would sound good to non-gun owners that would let them see how ridiculous and restrictive this Bill is, is what I want to hear.

 

[JSH1]

I don't see any of those scenarios as being a transfer. People in your house should never come in contact with your guns unless you initiate that contact. If you want to be sure without a doubt you can secure you guns locks or within a safe.

Same with the gun in the glovebox. The passenger shouldn't know that it is there. If they do you can lock the glove box and that person no longer has access the gun.

I can't see that any of those arguments are winning ones. I doubt people on the fence are going to be sympathetic to leaving gun owners leaving their guns unsecured with other people.

 

[Twiki357]

Item 6. A transfer fee cap is not specified. That will result in some exorbitant transfer fees at some dealers. Some FFLs in California charge up to $150 to process a transfer.

Item 7. “transferor and a transferee must each complete, sign” So what will happen [at some future time] to the seller if he is selling an unregistered gun? As posted in many other threads, UBCs cannot be effectively enforced without firearms registration.

Item 8.B. Exception for C&R gun sales between collectors, BUT only if they both have C&R licenses. There are a lot of collectors who are federally licensed.

Item 8.E. Exception. There are active and reserve military personnel who are prohibited persons outside of their military duties. Also [possibility] employed by security companies.

Item 8.F. (1) You would not be allowed to let a friend shoot one of your guns at an UNestablished or private property shooting area.

Supported by Maine Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense. That alone establishes that it sucks.

JHS1:
I don't see any of those scenarios as being a transfer. People in your house should never come in contact with your guns unless you initiate that contact. If you want to be sure without a doubt you can secure you guns locks or within a safe.

Same with the gun in the glovebox. The passenger shouldn't know that it is there. If they do you can lock the glove box and that person no longer has access the gun.

I disagree. The way the proposition is written, those would be criminal acts. So, if my adult kids or a shooting buddy are visiting me and I have to go to the store, they would/could have access to my guns – violation. The same with the glove box or for that matter traveling to/from the range with guns on the back seat in a vehicle.

 

[Ryanxia]

I don't see any of those scenarios as being a transfer. People in your house should never come in contact with your guns unless you initiate that contact. If you want to be sure without a doubt you can secure you guns locks or within a safe.

Same with the gun in the glovebox. The passenger shouldn't know that it is there. If they do you can lock the glove box and that person no longer has access the gun.

I can't see that any of those arguments are winning ones. I doubt people on the fence are going to be sympathetic to leaving gun owners leaving their guns unsecured with other people.

They don't have to come in contact with them, no where does it say that. In the examples I gave, those would be considered transfers. The same way if it was a felon they would be considered in possession of a firearm if they were the only one in the vehicle with a gun.

And as far as locking your guns up, many people don't, but even if you did, you would almost certainly have a spare key somewhere in the house, which would still count as possession by the person in your house because that key (even if they claim not to know where it is) gives them access to it. And the only one having access is no stretch to be classified as possession.

Twiki357, some good points. Yes MDA & Bloomberg were the big sponsors here. I like how they put in the 'may charge a reasonable fee' to make people think that they won't charge $125 like we've been saying, but no where in the Bill does it prohibit dealers from charging an unreasonable fee so it really means nothing.

 

[jerkface11]

Well there is no longer a way to appeal a denial. So that's a pretty good argument against it.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/no-way-out-feds-stop-processing-nics-denial-appeals

 

[Ryanxia]

Well there is no longer a way to appeal a denial. So that's a pretty good argument against it.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160122/no-way-out-feds-stop-processing-nics-denial-appeals

You're right that's an excellent point.

 

[danez71]

Item 6. A transfer fee cap is not specified. That will result in some exorbitant transfer fees at some dealers. Some FFLs in California charge up to $150 to process a transfer.

They would be breaking CA state law if they charged that much.

What fees can I charge for handling a Private Party Transfer (PPT)?

If the transaction is a PPT, in addition to the state fees, you may charge up to $10.00 or less per firearm for conducting the PPT. For example:

For a PPT involving one or more firearms, the total allowable fees are $35.00 for the first firearm ($25 DROS fee and $10 PPT fee), and $10.00 for each subsequent firearm.
(Pen. Code, § 28055)

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs#20G

 

[JSH1]

They don't have to come in contact with them, no where does it say that. In the examples I gave, those would be considered transfers. The same way if it was a felon they would be considered in possession of a firearm if they were the only one in the vehicle with a gun.

And as far as locking your guns up, many people don't, but even if you did, you would almost certainly have a spare key somewhere in the house, which would still count as possession by the person in your house because that key (even if they claim not to know where it is) gives them access to it. And the only one having access is no stretch to be classified as possession.

Using that logic they are also illegally in possession of prescription drugs you have even if you lock them up. If the the babysitter is under 21 they minors in possession of alcohol and you provided alcohol to minors if you have any alcohol in the house even if it is locked up.

 

[yugorpk]

A transfer is not someone being in the home with your gun. It is not them looking at your gun. It is not them shooting your gun while you are with them. A transfer is when they take the gun away with them to use or keep in your absence such as a sale or gift or maybe even a temporary loan. As long as the term " transfer " is defined in the law it can be dealt with.

 

[danez71]

Using that logic they are also illegally in possession of prescription drugs you have even if you lock them up. If the the babysitter is under 21 they minors in possession of alcohol and you provided alcohol to minors if you have any alcohol in the house even if it is locked up.

Not really.

It's not logical to apply Transfer and Possession laws that are specific to firearms to prescription drugs and alcohol.


But I agree that what he's describing aren't transfers if the baby sitter doesn't have access to it.

If its not locked up, having a baby sitter (and young child) able to access it won't be a good argument to use.

 

[JSH1]

The bill in question does not define possession nor does it deal with storage of firearms within a person's home. It also doesn't deal with theft which is what we normally call people taking our possessions without authorization. Without clarification in the bill these definitions would go back to how they are defined in other Maine laws.

I agree these are losing arguments. Saying that being in the same house as a locked gun that you have no access to constitutes a transfer comes off as paranoid. Arguing for the right to leave unsecured guns with minors just won't play with the majority of the population.

 

[Realist]

If it relates in any way to the expletive-deleted I-594 that passed in Washington state you're in deep kimchee.
Interesting thing is though, it does seem to suffer from a lack of enforcement.
But it's still law. Fight it.

 

[Ryanxia]

Some good points I guess. I can just see the ATF taking it to the extreme and viewing it as I've stated above. Maybe not right when it passes, but give it time..

One point I used during the attempted Federal UBC back in 2013 is that a friend and myself have different work schedules, we see each other pass background checks all the time on a regular basis. We like to lend each other guns for the other to take to the range (while the first one is working). Under this Bill we would have to pay hundreds of dollars a week to continue to do that.

 

[JSH1]

One point I used during the attempted Federal UBC back in 2013 is that a friend and myself have different work schedules, we see each other pass background checks all the time on a regular basis. We like to lend each other guns for the other to take to the range (while the first one is working). Under this Bill we would have to pay hundreds of dollars a week to continue to do that.

It does appear that loaning guns would be illegal as Maine's bill specifically says the transfer must take place at a shooting range. I don't read that as allowing transport to and from the range.

That is a real issue with the bill and I would say a much more convincing argument than the others you mentioned.

 

[Twiki357]

Danez71:
They would be breaking CA state law if they charged that much.

That’s for an instate PPTs. There is no limit for purchases coming in from out of state that require an FFL to process.

Ryanxia:
I can just see the ATF taking it to the extreme and viewing it as I've stated above. Maybe not right when it passes, but give it time.

This would be a state law. I doubt the ATF would care one way or the other as they are only tasked with enforcement of federal law. Although the increased [potential] volume of UBCs would increase their work load during FFL exams.

 

[AnselHazen]

What about the private sale process itself? As I have heard it I wouldn't be able to sell to a neighbor without gaining access to the database. In essence forcing all privates sales, a long held tradition in Maine, into the LGS. They rightfully shouldn't have to do that for free.

I believe I ran across one possible response to that, which was go to local LEO. The nearest physical presence for me is 30 min away.

Mainers are an independent lot. None of us likes another hand from the guvmint in our wallet.

 

[Ryanxia]

This would be a state law. I doubt the ATF would care one way or the other as they are only tasked with enforcement of federal law. Although the increased [potential] volume of UBCs would increase their work load during FFL exams.

Having seen what the ATF do to people firsthand, any way they can screw with people they will.

AnselHazen - hit the nail on the head.

 

[JSH1]

What about the private sale process itself?.

The buyer and the seller would meet at a FFL who would do the check. The other option is for the seller to ship the gun to a FFL for the buyer to pick up after passing the background check. Either way the transaction would take place at a FFL.

 

[yugorpk]

The buyer and the seller would meet at a FFL who would do the check. The other option is for the seller to ship the gun to a FFL for the buyer to pick up after passing the background check. Either way the transaction would take place at a FFL.

Its more than just a check. You transfer the gun into the dealers books and then out into the buyers hands. 4473 and dealer fees required. If it turns out the buyer is prohibited the dealer has to transfer back to the seller on a 4473 . If the seller turns out to be prohibited the dealer cannot transfer back to him.

 

[AnselHazen]

Having seen what the ATF do to people firsthand, any way they can screw with people they will.

AnselHazen - hit the nail on the head.

And so present it as yet another "tax" on law abiding gun owners.

Can it get amended?

 

[JSH1]

Its more than just a check. You transfer the gun into the dealers books and then out into the buyers hands. 4473 and dealer fees required. If it turns out the buyer is prohibited the dealer has to transfer back to the seller on a 4473 . If the seller turns out to be prohibited the dealer cannot transfer back to him.

Yes the FFL has to do the paperwork; if the buyer passes the background check. I see nothing in bill that says another transfer is required for the owner to get the gun back. The bill specifically says the owner can keep the gun in their possession while the check is taking place.

From the bill:

A. This section does not prevent the transferor from removing the firearm from the premises of the firearm dealer while a background check is being conducted pursuant to subsection 3. Before the transferor sells or transfers the firearm to the transferee, the parties must return to the firearm dealer, who shall take possession of the firearm in order to complete the sale or transfer; and
B. This section does not prevent the transferor from removing the firearm from the premises of the firearm dealer if the results of the background check pursuant to subsection 3 indicate that the transferee is disqualified to possess firearms under state or federal law.

 

[JSH1]

Can it get amended?

Not without starting the whole process over. If it passes the legislature can amend it in the next session. However, I doubt that will happen. Washington's ballot initiative was very poorly written but gun rights groups have made no effort to amend the law to fix any of the problems.

 

[bikemutt]

Not without starting the whole process over. If it passes the legislature can amend it in the next session. However, I doubt that will happen. Washington's ballot initiative was very poorly written but gun rights groups have made no effort to amend the law to fix any of the problems.

Not entirely accurate concerning WA, there are bills in the current legislative sessions to change the law, albeit it minor ways. For example, one bill seeks to restore the waiting period back to 5 days from the 10 days imposed by 594. There are others.

Sadly, there are even more WA gun bills which seem hell-bent on pushing Oregon into the Pacific ocean so we can get closer to California

 

[JSH1]

Not entirely accurate concerning WA, there are bills in the current legislative sessions to change the law, albeit it minor ways. For example, one bill seeks to restore the waiting period back to 5 days from the 10 days imposed by 594. There are others.

Sadly, there are even more WA gun bills which seem hell-bent on pushing Oregon into the Pacific ocean so we can get closer to California

Well that is good to hear and a change for the better.

 

[garymc]

To be clear, they are outlawing private sales. They like to call it ubc or expanded background checks, but that's so you don't realize that it is the outlawing of private sales. I tell people they are mistaken when they say ubc, because it's outlawing private sales. After I've told them that, I say they're lying because they know it.