Legally speaking you are, and have been dead on, but what I'm debating isn't the current law, but common, "if then" logic; for practical purposes, transfer is certainly occurring as surely as a car rental is transferring temporary ownership of a vehicle. Once that gun is being fired at the range, for safety and practical purposes, it doesn't matter who it belongs to.chabouk wrote:It doesn't circumvent anything, because NICS is not part of renting a gun. Because no transfer is taking place, it would actually be a crime ("making a false statement") to perform a NICS check on a rental.Embalmo wrote: Of course they are related-Gun rentals without NICS or a CHL, logically speaking, circumvents the NICS process.
There is no transfer taking place when a gun is rented. It is, and remains, the range's gun. The gun doesn't go anywhere, it stays on the range. Would you insist on a NICS every time a clerk hands a gun to a customer?
Suggesting that a clerk handing a cleared, unloaded gun to a customer is transference is a false analogy, as the customer is given no right, permission, or opportunity to use it in its intended manner; that is, walking into another room, loading it, and firing it. Pull some live rounds out of your pocket the next time you're at Academy and start feeding them into the magazine, and you'll find yourself agreeing with me quickly.
I'm unsubscribing to the topic because we both know each other's opinions. You don't like NICS and I think that if we do have to deal with NICS it should at least discourage the bad guys from buying and shooting where we buy and shoot. I appreciate the debate (seriously).
Embalmo