HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control Reform Activism (Group) » Effective today, federal ...

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 02:59 PM

Effective today, federal background checks are required for all private firearm sales in New York.

The new laws are part of a package of gun control measures dubbed "NY Safe Act" pushed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January, a month after the Newtown, Conn. school massacre.

Private sales now require the purchaser to have a federal background check by a licensed gun dealer. The purchaser must present the seller a form showing he or she passed the check. Sales or transfers among immediate family members are exempt from the law. Private dealers can charge up to $10 for the background check.

Also effective today is another provision that requires judges issuing an order of protection to determine whether to suspend or revoke the state pistol permit held by the person against whom the order of protection is issued. Judges have had the power to do so, but the new provision requires judges to consider doing so.

Another provision effective today makes it a felony to buy or dispose of a rifle shotgun or pistol for someone prohibited by law from having one because of a conviction or disability. The law also requires gun owners to store their guns in a locked cabinet or case if they live with someone who cannot by law own a gun due to a criminal record, past commitment to a mental institution or a court-issued order of protection.

http://www.riverheadlocal.com/local-news/8842-effective-today-federal-background-checks-required-for-private-gun-sales-in-new-york

21 replies, 3409 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Effective today, federal background checks are required for all private firearm sales in New York. (Original post)
Robb Mar 2013 OP
freshwest Mar 2013 #1
hack89 Mar 2013 #2
mwrguy Mar 2013 #3
CokeMachine Mar 2013 #4
mwrguy Mar 2013 #6
hack89 Mar 2013 #8
Robb Mar 2013 #12
ManiacJoe Mar 2013 #5
spin Mar 2013 #7
ManiacJoe Mar 2013 #9
Crepuscular Mar 2013 #10
Robb Mar 2013 #11
GP6971 Mar 2013 #18
Robb Mar 2013 #20
GP6971 Mar 2013 #21
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #13
Robb Mar 2013 #14
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #15
Robb Mar 2013 #16
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #17
slackmaster Mar 2013 #19

Response to Robb (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 03:21 PM

1. Sounds like common sense. It will require a strong commitment to enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 03:37 PM

2. Good move. Now lets fund the system adequately

so federal agencies and the states can keep the data up to date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 04:08 PM

3. Congrats

49 more to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

4. You might mean 48.

 

California has had this in effect for years now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CokeMachine (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 06:40 PM

6. Happy to be wrong on that one.

48 is better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 08:01 PM

8. Rhode Island also requires background checks for private sales. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:30 AM

12. California, Rhode Island, Connecticut,

Illinois, Oregon and -- as soon as our governor signs the bill -- Colorado all require universal background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 04:37 PM

5. An unexpected implementation. Cool.

"The purchaser must present the seller a form showing he or she passed the check. ... dealers can charge up to $10 for the background check."

Sounds like some folks found a reasonable way to do this!
Buyer goes to a dealer, fills out the forms, gets the background check done, pays the $10, brings a copy of the form with confirmed check status to the private seller, makes the buy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 07:50 PM

7. This is a law that I fully support. ...

I live in Florida and I have my own rules when I sell a firearm.

1) Obviously the buyer has to be a Florida resident.

2) I have to know the buyer personally.

3) The buyer has to have a valid Florida concealed weapons permit which means he has had a background check and has had firearm safety training.

As a responsible gun owner I wish to be as certain as I can that any firearm I sell ends up in the hands of another responsible person.

I hope this legislation passes at the national level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 16, 2013, 09:28 PM

9. The fed legislation is different from the NY law.

The NY law seems better regarding the background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:11 AM

10. An example

An example of good gun safety legislation, hopefully it will become a Federal law. Now expand it to include access to mental health records as part of the background check process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 09:23 AM

11. You should perhaps read about the SAFE act.

It includes a provision for mental health professionals to report to the state when they believe a patient is unfit to own a firearm. That information becomes part of the background check, and also became law yesterday in New York.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 12:14 PM

18. Did I read

somewhere that a number of mental health professionals were publicly refusing to comply?

Also, a question......I have not read the act, but would the mental health professionals be required to report to the state even if the person had absolutely no interest in guns? My guess would be probably yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GP6971 (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 02:26 PM

20. Only the Department of Veterans Affairs

The VA believes, and I think they're right, that federal law on vets' records privacy supersedes the state law, which is opt-in anyhow. They're declining to participate based upon their interpretation of their federal obligations.

The law establishes a reporting system, but still leaves it to practitioners to report or not report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 06:35 PM

21. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 10:30 AM

13. Surprised this was not delayed due to the pending legal challenge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:00 AM

14. It's the law, it's being enforced.

Orly Taitz's lawsuits didn't delay the President's inauguration, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #14)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:29 AM

15. Apples and Oranges

Look at Prop H8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:36 AM

16. Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment.

The SAFE act is regulatory. How long have you been following politics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:38 AM

17. Long enough to have seen all kinds of laws/regulations/constitutional amendments

block in court before they became effective.

It was just a question, not been able to follow things regularly as of recent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Original post)

Sun Mar 17, 2013, 01:06 PM

19. This will put an end to all violent crime

 

Just as it has here in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread