Zoning is Key

Supreme Court ruling aside, it actually seems extremely unlikely that DC residents will be able to buy handguns any time soon. Why? As Rob Goodspeed explains it's all in the zoning. You can't legally buy a gun in DC because there are no gun stores here. And to sell a gun to an out-of-state resident, a gun shop needs to actually ship the weapon to an in-state store that accepts responsibility for background checks, etc. And, again, there are no gun stores in DC. And there never will be gun stores in DC unless some part of the city is zoned so as to allow a gun store. And the city has no intention of doing any such thing.

Most DC residents will be happy with this substantive outcome, but either way it points to the larger lesson that zoning is really important. Most people I know find it idiosyncratic, at best, that I make efforts to familiarize myself with elements of DC's zoning and business license rules. But this is really something that people should do wherever it is they live. A lot of the sort of questions people ask semi-rhetorically about why things are the way they are in Town/Neighborhood X turn out to come down to zoning and business licensing rules that people do well to have some understanding of.

Photo by Flickr user kcdstm used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Great point, but how does average layperson find this stuff out?

Posted by Bob | July 14, 2008 11:28 AM

Why does a gun store require any different zoning that any other type of store? It sounds like the city is begging to get sued again here, if they deny a permit to a responsible gun-store owner who wants to open in a space that's already zoned for retail.

Posted by too many steves | July 14, 2008 11:30 AM

If the city seeks to use zoning as a back-door means to deny people access to guns, it will find itself in court. All it will take is a home invasion, death or rape of someone in their home (what, crime in DC!!!?), and that the person had sought a gun but could not get it. This time, however, a victim might be able to make it a civil rights violation and sue for monetary damages. The NRA will be all over it.

Posted by SJE | July 14, 2008 11:40 AM

People who use guns for nefarious means aren't buying them from gun stores, anyways.

Posted by Joel | July 14, 2008 11:41 AM

Some zoning laws are necessary, but this is yet another police power that's easily abused by government employees with minimal accountability. The pointless limitation of liquor licenses are another example.

The courts wouldn't stand for it if was effectively illegal to sell a newspaper in the District, and a gun isn't any different. Also, what about buying at a gun show, and taking it back to the District? I was under the impression that individual to individual sales were legal in that context. Is that wrong?

Posted by Just Saying | July 14, 2008 11:42 AM

This time, however, a victim might be able to make it a civil rights violation and sue for monetary damages.

No.

This has been another episode of simple retorts to stupid suggestions.

Posted by phil | July 14, 2008 11:42 AM

This appears to be a stalling tactic. DC City gov can try to use zoning ordinances to restrict handguns, but the NRA will surely challenge the constitutionality of such regulations. And another point, the Matt and the article he links to describes one method of purchasing a handgun, (as a far as I understand, I'm an atty)the background check requirements apply ONLY to licensed gun dealers, they don't apply to private sales between parties not engaged in the business of selling guns (i.e. the "Gun show loophole"). DC residents will be able to buy handguns.

Posted by Ponce de Leon | July 14, 2008 11:42 AM

Too many steves is correct. You can't use zoning or other regulatory laws to frustrate constitutional rights (e.g., no parading without a permit, and we won't give your group a permit!)

Posted by Bloix | July 14, 2008 11:43 AM

This appears to be a stalling tactic. DC City gov can try to use zoning ordinances to restrict handguns, but the NRA will surely challenge the constitutionality of such regulations. And another point, the Matt and the article he links to describes one method of purchasing a handgun, (as a far as I understand, I'm an atty)the background check requirements apply ONLY to licensed gun dealers, they don't apply to private sales between parties not engaged in the business of selling guns (i.e. the "Gun show loophole"). DC residents will be able to buy handguns.

Posted by Ponce de Leon | July 14, 2008 11:46 AM

DC is obsessive about local control to a fault. Even liquor licenses are only handed out when a few local people band together to stop the local opposition.

Since I highly doubt that any DC neighborhood has a critical mass of gun-supporters who will be able to come out to stop those who are going to refuse to allow a gun shop to open in their own neighborhood, I have a feeling that this "stalling tactic" will work for a long time.

Posted by Tyro | July 14, 2008 11:51 AM

Since DC ends at the city limits, I'm not sure it really matters that much whether there are gun stores in the actual city. I'm sure there will be some demand for them, of course, but I don't know that the lack of stores with 202 phone numbers will keep too many people from purchasing guns.

Posted by Jake H. | July 14, 2008 11:52 AM

All it will take is a home invasion, death or rape of someone in their home...

What are the statistics of "home invasion" crime in DC? I don't mean being shot while being mugged, or being raped in the park while jogging. Is it a serious problem?

I'm also waiting on the statistics of those factory workers who were shot in Kentucky a few months ago. I'd like to know if they were gun owners, and if so, why the hell didn't they bring them to work? Don't they know how dangerous the world is and how important firearems are for self-protection?

Posted by zacksback | July 14, 2008 12:08 PM

Even after Heller, the right to bear arms isn't as absolute as, say, freedom of the press. However, you could analogize it to the right to sell dirty magazines or nude dances, which are sort of 2nd-tier 1st Amendment rights under current jurisprudence (which I think is bullshit, but whatever). Under current precedent, a city can restrict adult businesses to certain parts of town, for example, no more than x feet from a school. However, those restructions cannot be so ... er, restrictive ... that they amount to a blanket ban. If I want to open an adult book store and the zoning is so restrictive that I can't find anywhere in town to do it, then I can sue the city and win. I've never heard of that standard being applied to gun stores, but in light of Heller, I could see it happening.

Posted by too many steves | July 14, 2008 12:09 PM

Y'all think DC's zoning ordinances will survive the five conservative politicians masquerading as judges?

Wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by Jasper | July 14, 2008 12:22 PM

I think too many steves has it about right. Giuliani already tried the zoning gambit in NYC with respect to porno shops and strip clubs. Didn't work - as I recall, the court only allowed zoning if it didn't constitute a complete ban on the constitutionally protected activity. I would imagine the same would apply with respect to guns in DC.

Posted by Al | July 14, 2008 12:38 PM

DC is obsessive about local control to a fault. Even liquor licenses are only handed out when a few local people band together to stop the local opposition.

You've just described every municipal government throughout human history. Excellent work.

But, yes, the local DC government is obsessive about local control.

Posted by ibc | July 14, 2008 12:51 PM

Ponce de Leon is mostly right. All DC residents need to do is go to a nearby private gun show and buy a gun there from a PRIVATE seller - not a dealer. At most public gun shows most of the people selling guns are federal firearms licensed dealers and they are required to abide by the same rules as a gun store sale.

However, although private sellers do not have to go by those federal rules the downside is that selection is much more limited.

Posted by Stewie | July 14, 2008 12:59 PM

Key misunderstanding here is that federally licensed gun dealers need not have a "store".

The laws require that a gun be shipped to a dealer, and there are many more dealers than there are gun stores. Many gun dealers have a web presence rather than brick and mortar establishments.

Posted by jeffreyw | July 14, 2008 1:01 PM

Great point, but how does average layperson find this stuff out?

Excellent question. I don't know about DC, but to find out on your own in a town of about 4,000 in Vermont, you go to the town clerk's office and ask for the zoning regulations and the town plan. You might get charged a fee for the use of the copier, and for the whole zoning regulations, that might be a hundred pages. But if it's a particularly user-friendly office, maybe they print extra copies to give away, or maybe they can e-mail the latest version to you as a text document. Or a helpful clerk might point you to the specific section of a couple pages that you need, or you could take a few minutes and search the index yourself, so you'd only need to copy a few pages. In a city, hopefully you could just substitute "mayor's office" for "town clerk's office" and do the same thing.

The other way a layperson finds out is by reading stuff written by professional writers who focus on local events and business. Until recently I was a reporter for a pretty small newspaper, and I remember asking during the job interview about the industry as a whole, since it's conventional wisdom that things aren't going well for the industry. If I remember correctly, my soon-to-be boss basically wasn't worried because neither TV nor online media have much local focus, even though that's still very important to peoples' lives. This issue right here, for example. Even if a court would eventually rule against DC's zoning ordinances, it still means a difference of five weeks versus five years (rough estimates) before a gun store could open for business in the city.

Posted by Cyrus | July 14, 2008 1:08 PM

Hey all,

First of all I haven't checked the DC code, where the zoning regulations would be, but if they are anything like what I think they are the limitation would probably something like this:

...No retailer of handguns, weaponry, blah-blah-blah would be permitted within 1000 (or 2000, or 10,000) feet of any publicly-owned land within the City...

Essentially, these regulations would fall under the category of what is or is not a conforming land use (or, I guess what is a nonconforming use) and it's the same way to keep something like stripclubs out of, uh....i don't know...say, Martha's Vineyard.

To all those people saying that the courts will end this or that and cite this case law or that, please note that zoning restrictions have been upheld in the past (but who knows, they may be overturned).

Anyhow, if these zoning regulations are overturned, the odds are it would happen with the wholesale "conforming/nonconforming use" concept being reviewed. So, for those of you who want this type of thing gone, all I can say is good luck trying to get rid of the pig farm, "bawdy house" or other NIMBY that's bound to move next door to you (and further speed your already quickly depreciating home "investment").

- g

ps All retail is classified and placed in categories and placed into "zones". You don't have any "zoning" if everything isn't calssified into a zone. Which is to say, it's all regulated.

pps I really, really hate text-based zoning, but because of FAR restrictions. People are idiots when it comes to density near them. Oh, and God forbid, fixed transit coupled with mixed-uses...there be demons thar.

ppps Smart Code
http://www.smartcodecentral.com/

Posted by G | July 14, 2008 1:09 PM

ibc, in my day, I've seen alcohol-serving establishments come and go in previous neighborhoods I've lived in.

DC is the only place where I saw a restaurants application for a liquor license turn into a years-long neighborhood political dispute. I am sure this happens every so often in plenty of cities, but the fine-grain local control that is allowed in DC seemed to exacerbate the problem.

Posted by Tyro | July 14, 2008 1:11 PM

Key misunderstanding here is that federally licensed gun dealers need not have a "store".

The laws require that a gun be shipped to a dealer, and there are many more dealers than there are gun stores. Many gun dealers have a web presence rather than brick and mortar establishments.

Posted by jeffreyw | July 14, 2008 1:12 PM

Key misunderstanding here is that federally licensed gun dealers need not have a "store".

The laws require that a gun be shipped to a dealer, and there are many more dealers than there are gun stores. Many gun dealers have a web presence rather than brick and mortar establishments.

Posted by jeffreyw | July 14, 2008 1:14 PM

dang, sorry

Posted by jeffreyw | July 14, 2008 1:33 PM

No matter what the Leftists and black "civic leaders" who blame guns, not thugs, for crime do, the days of the DC gun ban are pretty much over now that it is a constitutionally protected right.

The gun ban, of course did not only make purchase and possession of handguns anywhere illegal, provide strict probation and stern reprimands for thugs under 18 caught packing - it also banned anyobe from having a loaded, ready to use rifle or shotgun in home and business.

Among the 1st challenges will be by business owners who own hanguns, long arms seeking to bring them in to DC to protect businesses they own - many that have long records of being preyed upon by armed thugs.
Or hire private security with a job spec that they have a handgun or shotgun and a DC license to guard Korean electronics outlets and hispanic bogedas and Jewish-owned liquor stores...just like the bodyguards of the richest and most powerful in DC are allowed.

Simply banning the natives from gun ownership on flimsy grounds like zoning is one thing, that will be challenged constitutionally in it's own right. But you have all those businesses and all those high turnover government employees that will seek to now legally have guns the purchased long ago and in different states they own accompany them into their Capital Hill, Adams-Morgan apartments - or their dangerous drive through Anacostia to work.

And they will be calling to see if bringing their guns into DC is now legal and if not, why not.

Posted by chris ford | July 14, 2008 1:52 PM

No matter what the Leftists and black "civic leaders" who blame guns, not thugs, for crime do, the days of the DC gun ban are pretty much over now that it is a constitutionally protected right.

The gun ban, of course did not only make purchase and possession of handguns anywhere illegal, provide strict probation and stern reprimands for thugs under 18 caught packing - it also banned anyobe from having a loaded, ready to use rifle or shotgun in home and business.

Among the 1st challenges will be by business owners who own hanguns, long arms seeking to bring them in to DC to protect businesses they own - many that have long records of being preyed upon by armed thugs.
Or hire private security with a job spec that they have a handgun or shotgun and a DC license to guard Korean electronics outlets and hispanic bogedas and Jewish-owned liquor stores...just like the bodyguards of the richest and most powerful in DC are allowed.

Simply banning the natives from gun ownership on flimsy grounds like zoning is one thing, that will be challenged constitutionally in it's own right. But you have all those businesses and all those high turnover government employees that will seek to now legally have guns the purchased long ago and in different states they own accompany them into their Capital Hill, Adams-Morgan apartments - or their dangerous drive through Anacostia to work.

And they will be calling to see if bringing their guns into DC is now legal and if not, why not.

Posted by chris ford | July 14, 2008 1:52 PM

Zoning is a weird beast. I grew up in a family suburb in CA and then went to school in Boston. I was mildly shocked at all the strip clubs you see all over Austin. I understand that this is basically a zoning issue.

Posted by mpowell | July 14, 2008 2:07 PM

Key misunderstanding here is that federally licensed gun dealers need not have a "store".

The laws require that a gun be shipped to a dealer, and there are many more dealers than there are gun stores. Many gun dealers have a web presence rather than brick and mortar establishments.

This is true, though not nearly so true as it used to be since the Clinton administration crackdown on "kitchen table dealers." To receive an FFL, a prospective dealer must have premises from which to engage in business, must certify that he will comply with state and local laws, and that he has notifed relevant state and local authorities of his application for an FFL. See:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/legal/licensing.htm

This gives the District the authority to make it impossible for a dealer to set up in the city. Long guns have always been legal in DC, but there aren't any licensed dealers of long guns in the city, either. Buyers of long guns have always had to go to Maryland or Virginia.

Since DC ends at the city limits, I'm not sure it really matters that much whether there are gun stores in the actual city. I'm sure there will be some demand for them, of course, but I don't know that the lack of stores with 202 phone numbers will keep too many people from purchasing guns.

With respect to long guns, this is correct, but with respect to pistols and revolvers (handguns), which are what Heller addresses, it is not. Under the 1968 Gun Control Act, it is illegal for an unlicensed individual, license meaning in this context a Federal Firearms License, to purchase or transfer handguns in interstate commerce. A DC resident may not buy a handgun in Maryland, he may not receive one as a gift from his friend in Virginia. So, much as it pains me to say this, Yglesias is right. If you live in the District and don't already own a handgun, there is no legal way for you to obtain one unless and until a dealer opens up in the city, and the city will attempt to make that very, very difficult.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 14, 2008 2:13 PM

All a person in DC needs to do is first go to the ATM and draw out $500 dollars. Then drive out to the gun show at Dulles Expo Center (quarterly event). Find the people walking about with a couple of hand guns stuck in their belt. They will sell you one. No license or background check needed since they are a private seller.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 14, 2008 2:43 PM

All a person in DC needs to do is first go to the ATM and draw out $500 dollars. Then drive out to the gun show at Dulles Expo Center (quarterly event). Find the people walking about with a couple of hand guns stuck in their belt. They will sell you one. No license or background check needed since they are a private seller.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 14, 2008 2:47 PM

All a person in DC needs to do is first go to the ATM and draw out $500 dollars. Then drive out to the gun show at Dulles Expo Center (quarterly event). Find the people walking about with a couple of hand guns stuck in their belt. They will sell you one. No license or background check needed since they are a private seller.

That's all a DC resident ever had to do, but it wasn't legal before Heller, and it's not legal after Heller, either, so it's somewhat beside the point.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 14, 2008 3:25 PM

A DC resident may not buy a handgun in Maryland, he may not receive one as a gift from his friend in Virginia.

Incorrect. The cops could once arrest anyone not specially privileged to sport a handgun (like a Senator's bodyguard or bro in law of a DC Council Rep) just for having one in the DC household. Now that Heller ruled blanket banning unconstitutional, a non-commercial exchange is outside gun sales law is going to be hard to hold as illegal.
"Full faith and credit" to honor other states laws constitutionally means you can consider your gay marriage license portable between states, and the 9mm you bought in Kentucky not prohibited as something you own legally from being brought to your new state of residence.

So, much as it pains me to say this, Yglesias is right. If you live in the District and don't already own a handgun, there is no legal way for you to obtain one unless and until a dealer opens up in the city, and the city will attempt to make that very, very difficult.

Incorrect, again. Besides DC residents now able to legally have long guns they legally bought in other states, ownership of handguns may be acquired by several legal means. Someone mentioned the gun show Federal loophole that trumps state or DC law that only residents may buy from a FFL holder. You can also shift your residency legally to another state, and move back to your "gun-ban" jurisdiction with a trunkload of "legal property" firearms. A good dodge in New Jersey I heard of was people with dying relatives paying them under the table to buy some handguns then legally will them to get around courts that would be justly skeptical that 2,000 dollars worth of firearms were given as "gifts".
There is a black powder loophole where one can purchase quite powerful and lethal .44 Remingtons and .45 Colt Revolvers as mail order kits, as well as double-barrel black powder shotguns.

Posted by chris ford | July 14, 2008 3:56 PM

Until recently I was in the homebuilding/land development field.

A gentlemen we were buying some land from once said to me:

'If the Indians had had zoning, none of us would be here.'

Posted by Splotto | July 14, 2008 4:12 PM

Too many Steves is right. I'd be willing to bet that Constitutionally this is similar to adult businesses. You can place restrictions on where they locate, but you can't make it impossible or super-difficult. I once did a project for a city trying to come up with a restriction that would leave only a small number of sites for adult businesses where I had to field-check that the parcels remaining would actually be viable sites where a business could reasonably set up shop and not be a weird inaccessible parcel or easement or something.

Posted by Adam Villani | July 14, 2008 4:55 PM

Mr. Ford, with all due respect, you for the most part don't know what you're talking about. It is Federal law that prohibits interstate traffic in handguns by unlicensed persons. It has nothing to do with DC law. You are correct that someone moving to the District post Heller may bring his handgun with him, assuming that said handgun is registerable in DC, but I specifically referred to those who were DC residents at the time Heller was decided. Since DC currently holds that only revolvers are registerable, his notional 9mm bought in Kentucky would be unregisterable, and Heller didn't overturn registration. Once that person moves into the District, his options for legally obtaining a handgun vanish so long as he resides in DC.

Incorrect, again. Besides DC residents now able to legally have long guns they legally bought in other states, ownership of handguns may be acquired by several legal means. Someone mentioned the gun show Federal loophole that trumps state or DC law that only residents may buy from a FFL holder.

DC residents could always own certain types of long guns. This is not, as your post implies, a result of Heller. They had to buy their rifles and shotguns in other states because DC had no gun stores, and were permitted to do so because the 1968 GCA does not prohibit the unlicensed from buying long guns from licensed dealers in other states, though it does prohibit the unlicensed from trading long guns across state lines. There is no "Federal loophole" that trumps this. It's federal law in the first place.

You can also shift your residency legally to another state, and move back to your "gun-ban" jurisdiction with a trunkload of "legal property" firearms.

Well sure, but then you'd no longer be a DC resident.

A good dodge in New Jersey I heard of was people with dying relatives paying them under the table to buy some handguns then legally will them to get around courts that would be justly skeptical that 2,000 dollars worth of firearms were given as "gifts".

I'm not as familiar with New Jersey's laws as with those of the DC area. That said, for the sake of this argument, I don't really need to be. There is nothing under federal law that prohibits intra-state transfers of firearms between unlicensed individuals who are not otherwise disqualified from owning firearms, and it is on 40 year old federal law, which Heller has done nothing to invalidate, that my argument rests.

There is a black powder loophole where one can purchase quite powerful and lethal .44 Remingtons and .45 Colt Revolvers as mail order kits, as well as double-barrel black powder shotguns.

This much is true. Firearms made before 1898, and non-cartridge firearms made at any time, are not controlled by the federal government. State and local laws apply, and I don't believe DC law makes the same distinctions as federal law.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 14, 2008 6:05 PM

TheOtherCyrus

Even If I live in DC, If a am standing in Virginia when I purchase a handgun from the previous owner as a private transaction, the government has zero jurisdiction. I transporting a legally purchased gun back across state lines is not interstate commerce. That is why you have to find the individual selling a gun as an individual.

The individaul walking around the gun show with a hand gun or two and a sign is the easy way to do it and is legal.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 14, 2008 7:08 PM

Great. Our zoning laws will be declared unconstitutional, and we'll have a a Wal-Mart on 16th St.

Posted by HS | July 14, 2008 8:15 PM

Wikipedia has a nice overview of gun shows and the "gun show loophole" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show

Some interesting stats there, if true.

Nice to know that I, as a convicted felon, can obtain a decent firearm without being detected. Only thing I have to worry about is an undercover ATF agent or local cop posing as an individual dealer.

Of course, even if they close that loophole, all that would do is drive these guys to sell totally illegally on the street, just like drug dealers do. Face it, they're in the business to make a buck. They'll keep doing it as long as they figure they can't be arrested. Their marketing may be a little tougher if they can't go to gun shows, but they'll figure out a way.

I bought the body armor I used in my bank robbery from a dealer at a gun show at the Cow Palace in San Francisco in 1993. He was some old guy who looked like a farmer. But he had tons of body armor and was selling them right and left. Good quality name brand (not Second Chance) at a price half what other larger dealers at the show were charging for Second Chance.

Now, as an ex-con in California, I can't legally buy body armor. Like that would stop me from getting it one way or the other.

I wonder what will happen when people start forging Federal Firearms Licenses and conducting fake business. I wonder how that would be checked for by gun show owners or individuals buying weapons from some Internet gun dealer. I mean, if I find a shady Internet gun dealer and fax him a PhotoShopped Federal Firearms License, would that be sufficient to get a nice firearm shipped direct to me? Who checks anything between him and me - Fed Ex? They might - but do they?

Interesting questions.

Ah, Google shows the following:

Fake Dealers Target Of New ATF Internet Service
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_11_45/ai_67548147

Yeah, but what if your Internet gun dealer is shady as well? You pay him enough, he doesn't check?

"Once the "submit" button is clicked, the number will be researched. If it's valid, the FFL's expiration date, license name, trade name, premises address and mailing address will appear."

I bet some typical hacker "social engineering" can get around some of that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 14, 2008 11:35 PM

You're right that the anti-gun shop zoning regulations will unlikely survive a constitutional challenge, but it will cause a major grassroots uprising in the neighborhood that will get stuck with a gunshop.

Knocking down zoning regulations regarding gun shops could open up a can of worms regarding other zoning restrictions. If the SC says you can open a gun shop, zoning regulations be damned, how long will it take for porno shops, strip clubs, noisy restaraunts and reatil outlets to start launching law suites.

I know some on the far-right have real issues with zoning regulations, this could be a new crusade to screw with DC once again.

Posted by am | July 15, 2008 9:39 AM

Even If I live in DC, If a am standing in Virginia when I purchase a handgun from the previous owner as a private transaction, the government has zero jurisdiction. I transporting a legally purchased gun back across state lines is not interstate commerce. That is why you have to find the individual selling a gun as an individual.

No, it is not legal. A transfer of a firearm between a resident of one state and another is considered interstate commerce per USC, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44, Section 921, (a)(2). Look it up. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html

It is under Federal jurisidiction, and it is illegal, however easy it is to flout, however many sensationalistic yellow journalistic stories you've seen on ABC news.

If we move on to Section 922,(a)(3), we see that

[It shall be unlawful](3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

If you move further down the section, (b)(3), to which the quoted portion refers, carves out an exception for rifles and shotguns bought in person from out-of-state licensed dealers. Handguns and other more esoteric stuff must go through in-state dealers.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | July 15, 2008 10:37 AM