A Request For Background Check Form That Must Be Completed And: Fill & Download for Free

Once I see that a legal question has been answered by Anthony Zarrella, I rarely bother penning my own response, even if I’ve been requested (as in this case). Mr. Zarrella has, as always, done a masterful job of answering the question, but I’m a bit passionate about this topic, so I’ll take a shot.Before I do, I want to offer the beginning of Judge Benitez’s injunction:The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured. In this action, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining California’s onerous and convoluted new laws requiring ammunition purchase background checks and implementing ammunition anti-importation laws. For the reasons that follow, the motion for preliminary injunction is granted.[1][1][1][1](Emphasis mine). I don’t spend a lot of time reading court documents, but this one was worded rather strongly. What could make a judge write this way?Background:First, what is the “California’s ammo background check?” With the passage of Prop 63, as of 2018, California has instituted a background check requirement on all ammunition, barring through regulation many businesses that used to sell ammunition. They must perform a background check for every purchase. I could buy a brick of .22lr and a pallet of .40 S&W alongside a case of 00 buckshot all in one purchase with one background check. If I forgot that I also needed to buy some .308 Winchester, that would have to be another background check.In addition, California outlawed the purchase of ammunition from out of state unless that ammunition is imported through a licensed vendor who would, of course, do a background check. I cannot drive to a neighboring state, purchase ammunition, and then drive it in, either. It all has to go through a vendor.Since the institution of Prop 63, I’ve purchased ammunition one time. I bought some .22lr ammunition that was drastically marked down at my local Big 5. In order to do so, I had to undergo a background check. It was about a five to ten-minute wait. I filled out some information and made sure that I had written my information down correctly. I supplied identification. I was then allowed to pay and take my ammunition home. Does that sound terribly difficult?My experience was likely typical of the average gun owner who wants to purchase ammunition, but we should remember that this new law is a bit difficult to defend for several reasons.First, it largely limits me to ammunition I can find in my local store. I recently realized that I was out of buckshot and found that local stores are out. People who carry for self-defense like to trust their safety to particular brands and types of ammunition, but I cannot find my preferred kind. I did find some in Nevada the last time I went through, but I wasn’t legally able to purchase any and bring it back with me.Second, a lot of people cannot pass the background check, even though they should be able to pass, simply because the background check system is flawed. Of nearly 350,000 background checks, more than 60,000 people failed. This isn’t because 60,000 former criminals or otherwise “prohibited persons” wanted to buy ammunition (only about 100 of these failed purchases were attempted by prohibited persons),[2][2][2][2] but rather because they were stopped from exercising their constitutional rights because of inaccuracies in the records system or because they weren’t in the system because they hadn’t purchased a firearm in the last few years, or any number of other reasons.The Story Behind Rhode v. BecerraPretty much every lawsuit is a story. If you want to see some really interesting stories, I would recommend a podcast called More Perfect. You’d be shocked at how difficult some of these legal questions are to answer. A lot of constitutional law comes down to a cause (and its representatives) finding the perfect litigant.In the case of Rhode v. Becerra, the named plaintiff bringing suit against Xavier Becerra (Attorney General of California) was Kim Rhode, an American gold medalist in Trap and Skeet. She has earned a medal at every Summer Olympics since 1996. She has earned three gold medals.Big deal, right? Kim Rhode can drive down to Walmart and buy shotgun ammunition by the crate. It isn’t like shotgun ammunition is difficult to find. The problem is that Ms. Rhode cannot just buy ammunition at Walmart. She has to use special ammunition per the rules of the International Shooting Sport Federation (the body that runs shooting sports for the Olympics).[3][3][3][3] You have to order this ammunition. If you’re going to compete in the Olympics, the ammo I would buy off the shelf at Walmart just isn’t going to do the job. That special ammunition she needs? She needs a lot of it. I have no idea how many thousands of rounds she must shoot per year, but it must be staggering.In addition to three other plaintiffs who were businesses that were hit hard by this law, there were a number of individual plaintiffs. These include a Master Hunter Safety Instructor, a colonel in the US Army Reserve, a volunteer range safety officer, a veteran of the US Navy, and a number of others. All of these plaintiffs are regular people who should have access to ammunition for hunting, safety, teaching, etc. but who found for various reasons that there were obstacles to them purchasing that ammunition that were sufficiently difficult to overcome.The Overlapping Problems with Prop 63California’s attorneys general often claim that an individual law isn’t enough of a violation to be unconstitutional. As an example, California’s handgun roster is supposedly not enough of a problem. Microstamping isn’t enough of an infringement. Added together, we have an ever-shrinking roster to which no new semi-automatics can be added.The same thing is true with Prop 63 and Assembly Bill 711 (from 2013). Combined, this significantly reduces hunting prospects. How?Remember that various kinds of ammunition just aren’t available in my local stores, the supply to which I am bound since I cannot order ammunition under Prop 63. I cannot, for example, find 7.62x54R ammunition for my Model 39. Fortunately, I can reload for that gun.Assembly Bill 711 bars people from using lead ammunition for the purpose of hunting. In order to hunt, you have to either use something other than a firearm or you have to use non-lead ammunition. That isn’t very common. You would need copper bullets. They’re out there but in short supply. They’re expensive. Sometimes prohibitively so.Unfortunately, you won’t find them on the shelves very often. When you do, they are stupidly expensive. Normally, you could shop around online for a better price, but that isn’t going to happen when you can’t order online.What is worse? California legislators are also considering a ban on lead ammunition at gun ranges.[4][4][4][4] Though their bill failed this time around, it is almost certainly going to come back.The Words of Judge BenitezIn Judge Benitez’s ruling, he was highly critical of Xavier Becerra’s statements. This included, “The Ammunition Eligibility Check Laws do not prevent law-abiding people who are permitted to possess ammunition from purchasing it, and thus does not implicate ‘the core Second Amendment right of ‘self-defense in the home.”[5][5][5][5] Judge Benitez then pointed to the more than 100,000 times Californians had improperly been denied the ability to purchase ammunition.Judge Benitez also included the following:“Counted in terms of days or hours, for a citizen who needs or wants ammunition to defend herself or home, the resolution process is hardly quick.”[6][6][6][6]“The Attorney General also offers that, ‘resolving the source of the rejection . . . can be done quickly via the Department’s website in many cases.’ …The evidence shows that the hope does not match the reality.”[7][7][7][7]“In this case the California state statutes not only burden the core of the Second Amendment but often impose upon the core the severest burden – a complete ban”[8][8][8][8]I could go on, but you get the idea. If you want to understand Judge Benitez’s stance, the most important takeaway from reading the words were, “The public interest favors the exercise of Second Amendment rights by law-abiding responsible citizens. It is always in the public interest to prevent government from violating a citizen’s constitutional rights.”[9][9][9][9]Scrutiny[10][10][10][10]The issue is really two-fold. First, we have the fact that the background check scheme was incredibly flawed. Second, we have the fact that it was a burden placed on law-abiding citizens but didn’t serve the interests of the people.What if the process were to be fixed? Apparently it would not be enough. In Judge Benitez’s words:The Attorney General suggests that even if there is a likelihood of success on the merits, any harm is not irreparable because Plaintiffs will still be able to purchase ammunition and it will only take about five minutes… With an accurate and instant background check system working, and if all residents qualified to take the background check, the harm could indeed be reduced. Even so, reduced harm is still unlawful harm when, as appears to be the case here, a Constitutional right is burdened with scant justification. [11][11][11][11]Thus, a lot of this argument comes down to varying levels of scrutiny. I would explain the spectrum of scrutiny, but I would instead suggest that you read Anthony Zarrella's answer to Why did Judge Benitez rule against California’s ammo background check?Footnotes[1] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[1] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[1] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[1] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238203004.html[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238203004.html[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238203004.html[2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238203004.html[3] CRPA Legal Team Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ammunition Restrictions[3] CRPA Legal Team Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ammunition Restrictions[3] CRPA Legal Team Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ammunition Restrictions[3] CRPA Legal Team Files Lawsuit Challenging California’s Ammunition Restrictions[4] AB-3071 Lead ammunition: shooting ranges.[4] AB-3071 Lead ammunition: shooting ranges.[4] AB-3071 Lead ammunition: shooting ranges.[4] AB-3071 Lead ammunition: shooting ranges.[5] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[5] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[5] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[5] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[6] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[6] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[6] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[6] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[7] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[7] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[7] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[7] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[8] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[8] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[8] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[8] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[9] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[9] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[9] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[9] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[10] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[10] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[10] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[10] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[11] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[11] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[11] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf[11] https://www.nraila.org/media/2857/rhode-order-42320.pdf

Gun Shows attract lots of peoplePotential customers roaming the floorPotential private sellers roaming the floor looking to sell or tradePrivate sellers who have something to sell/trade and have paid for booth or table spaceLicensed firearms dealers who pay for booth/table space and conduct the business of selling firearms and accessoriesSales between private parties, regardless of where conducted, do not require a background check to transfer a firearm. When sales between private parties is conducted at a Gun Show, that rule doesn’t change—-Private party sales are not required to have a background check. This, however, is the basis for the myth of the “Gun Show loophole”. Since background checks for private party sales—even though at a Gun Show—are not required, there no loophole. One other point, non-dealers are not allowed to initiate a NICS background check. No Gun Show loopholeRemember the last bullet—-Licensed dealers at the Gun Show? Licensed dealers are REQUIRED to call complete an ATF Form 4473 (Firearms Transfer) conduct a NICS background check and obtain a “Proceed” before transferring a firearm. They can only do this at two locations.Their places(s) of business as listed on the Federal Firearms LicenseA Gun Show and the “Gun Show” box must be checked on the ATF 4473All sales by Firearms Licensees —even those at Gun Shows— must be documented on the ATF 4473, the dealer’s “A&D” record and a NICS “Proceed” response received prior to transfer.No Gun Show loophole.While are private sales do not require a background check, and private sellers are not allowed to initiate a NICS background check, a private seller who sells to an unknown party can request the assistance of an FFL. For a fee, the FFL can temporarily take possession of the firearm, have the purchaser complete the ATF 4473 and initiate the NICS background check. Once a “Proceed” response is received, the transfer can be completed.BTW, this is essentially what happens with internet sales. Find a firearm you like online and purchase. During the checkout, you select a local (to you) FFL and have the firearm shipped to the FFL. The FFL takes possession and the has you the buyer complete the ATF 4473 and then initiated the NICS background check to document the transfer.There is no internet loophole

The question, as asked by Alex Touche, at the time of answering reads:“What is the "gun show loophole"? Is it real, a myth, or an issue that's already been fixed?”Well, Alex, here is the skinny on your question.The alleged gun show loophole is a provision in Federal Firearms Laws that allows for one citizen to sell a firearm to another citizen without performing a background check irrespective of where said transaction takes place.There is a belief by many in the anti-gun crowd that a whole host of sales like this occur at gun shows, hence the name “gun show loophole.” It is UTTER AND COMPLETE TRIPE.This IS the compromise that the gun-control crowd demanded when the Brady Gun Control Act passed implementing expanded background checks, and NOW they are back for more and lamenting that this is such an evil provision and it allows elementary school children to buy machine guns at any gun-show in the country (I’m being slightly hyperbolic, chillax). This is yet one of many reasons that the anti-gun crowd is NOT trustworthy.So, NOW, the anti-gun crowd is seeking to implement a nationwide universal background check.With this, I have ZERO problem as long as these criteria are met:YOU MEAN IT WHEN YOU DEMAND THE LAW. Either you are going to prosecute those who break it or you don’t get to have the freaking law on the books. Lake Oswego pastor won't be charged after AR-15 transfer allegations The linked article points to a social justice warrior who broke the Oregon law TWICE and the state didn’t freaking care. Oregon gun background checks will cover private sales starting Sunday. The pastor in this case BROKE THE LAW TWICE and no one gave a flying fuck.Prosecutions for violations of this law must exceed 75% EVERY YEAR. I don’t care what it does to the courts, you want the law, we must enforce it.If prosecutions fall below 75% for two consecutive years the law is suspended and must be reauthorizedIf the law is implemented at the state level, any state that fails to reach the required prosecution threshold will face reduced federal funding FOR ALL PROGRAMS IN ALL FORMS INCLUDING STUDENT AID. Again, the laws have to mean something and if you aren’t going to enforce them we don’t need them, if you are going to enforce them you have nothing to worry about.There are provisions, similar to those in the Oregon law that allow for avoiding the background check under VERY LIMITED circumstances related to immediate family for whom you should have every ability to know their legal status with regard to firearms possession.The background checks are free to the citizen and can be completed without visiting a dealer.There is NO record of the transaction that will be held beyond 5 days other than:The date of the requestThe time of the requestThe results of the request (Proceed, Deny, Wait)Updates to the results if the initial result was WAIT.Up to 5 days the phone number of the seller performing the background check will be maintained. In the event of a DENY the FBI and/or BATFE must reach out to the requester within these five days to obtain information on the attempted purchase by someone who is showing PROHIBITED in the NICS database. There are false positives that can be cleared up, and those who are truly prohibited persons need to be identified for prosecution under the law.I’m saying it again: if you DEMAND the law, then you must ENFORCE the law.So, that’s the long way to say:The “gun show loophole” is exactly what was asked for the first time background checks were brought up, now the anti-gun crowd wants to come back to the table. What are they bringing?In exchange for the above I’m going to ask for:Nationwide Concealed Carry Reciprocity with THESE conditions:My permit is good in the United States, NO state nor territory nor possession can question the legality of my permit. They can ask to verify it with the issuing authority, but they can’t deny me the right to carry if I so choose.My firearm is good for ME to carry anywhere in the United States. My current firearm isn’t legal in California, or several other states based on their laws. It is perfectly legal in my home state. If I want to CARRY said firearm in any other state this should be legal. If I want to SELL said firearm in any other state I would have to modify it to meet their laws. Kind of like you can drive your car that isn’t equipped with California Compliant Emissions systems in California but you can’t register or sell it there.As long as I act in a legal way in the face of a clear and present danger I am shielded under the “good Samaritan” laws. If I break the laws in the use of my firearm (brandishing, negligent discharge) then I am not protected under these laws.Now, let’s discuss actual compromise.