It isn't about the burden.

It is about the fact the State of Nevada can require the FBI to do jack and shit and jack left town.

This bill required a NICS check. Nevada can't run NICS checks and the FBI won't do them for Nevada.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying it!

Well . . . ok . . . but how is Washington different?

Whether 594 explicitly stated "NICS" or "FBI" or whatever, the end result is that we are running private sales via NICS and causing burden on the feds.

The FBI is just reminding the State of Nevada that they don't have the authority to tell the FBI what to do. But the State can tell NV-based FFLs what to do; the fact that it necessarily involves the FBI is just a matter of coincidence. Sure, it seems like a distinction without a difference, but the distinction is important because it recognizes the limit on the State's authority.

Good question. VERY good question.

Sounds like the basis for an amicus curiae brief to me.

FBI doesn't care about the burden. FBI is telling Nevada they don't have the authority to order these kinds of checks in the way the law was written, because Nevada is it's own point of contact. It is a small difference but an important one. One such tiny details do entire massive laws turn.

Basically if the law had said all transfers had to go through an FFL without going into detail they would have been fine. Apparently they specified NICS, and there is no authority for the state to use that system or order it to be done without dismantling the point of contact that the state is now. It's a technicality but a huge one. It would be like somebody buying an Airbus and requiring Boeing engineers to build the toilet.

You may be right . . . but then again, I think you're making some assumptions here and I hope that you're wrong!





Sorry man . . . was just the first thing that popped into my head!

Except there is no case to file it with. There is I believe exactly one person in WA right now who has ever been charged with a 594 violation. And so far nobody has seen fit to seek redress on financial grounds or excessive burdening of a right (the later I believe is a surefire way to have it thrown out since I'm sure the courts would support a UBC given the wiggle room Heller has, unless a powerful argument can be made for a CPL exemption. I doubt the courts will find an excessive burden though, since private sales still continue at a brisk pace.)

So really there is nothing to file an amicus brief over.