As I have reported before, when I shopping for my first handgun in 1992, I was at a gun store in Marietta, Georgia, and had decided to buy a Taurus PT92, the Brazilian copy of the Beretta 92. However, when the clerk asked for my identification so he could run my background check, I discovered that, as an Alabama resident, I could not legally purchase a handgun in Georgia.
Why? Good question. The originators claimed it would cut down on gun trafficking by criminals, since they could not be sure that an out-of-state purchaser was legally allowed to by a gun. There was no easy way to run a background check on someone out of state in a reasonable length of time.
Given the improvements in communications since the law was first passed, and especially in light of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, this argument has become invalid.
And, finally, the courts have agreed, as a federal appeals court ruled today that disallowing interstate handgun sales through licensed FFL holders was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
This should mean that eventually, once the BATFE sends guidance to gun stores and FFL holders, we would be able to buy handguns through any FFL holder, no matter where it is located.
Now, given my penchant for Glocks (having bought, instead of the Taurus, a Glock 17, upon return to Alabama), how would my life be different today, had I bought the Taurus?
Would I have won free Tauruses in the Taurus Shooting Sports Foundation matches?
Whose pictures would I have in the office, if not the Gunny?
I can only wonder.
2 thoughts on “How History Might Have Been Different”
It will be interesting to see how this ultimately plays out in the Supreme Court…
Indeed. I am not rushing to Alabama to go shopping, though. Not until ATF does their thing. I know enough FFLs to know when that happens. And things ought to get fun, especially for those in Kali.
Comments are closed.