Tripping Gun Owners At The Border

posted on May 18, 2015
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
interstate-guns.jpg

A law-abiding Texan can buy a gun in the Lone Star State with no problem. Likewise, a law-abiding Arkansan can legally purchase a firearm in Arkansas. Why, then, can’t a Texan—who can pass a background check—buy a handgun in Arkansas, or vice versa?

The answer is because a complicated web of red tape has bound up so much of our right to keep and bear arms over the past several decades. And this red tape is one of the major motivating factors behind the drafting of the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, a federal bill sponsored by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.V.). Their intention is to ease the restrictions that are typically piled onto firearm buyers and sellers as soon as they cross state lines. 

“For decades now, our gun laws have made it harder and more costly to legally purchase guns in other states and then safely bring them home,” Scalise announced. “I’m proud to introduce this legislation with my friend and colleague … in order to remove these burdensome and unnecessary restrictions so we can bring firearm laws into the 21st century.”We hear a lot these days about “common-sense” legislation pertaining to guns, and it’s nearly always code for more gun control.

Americans are known for being a people who move around, and we don’t like anything that restricts our freedom of movement. The complicated patchwork of gun laws that regulates everything from buying, to carrying, to storing a firearm has the effect of punishing gun owners for choosing to practice their Second Amendment rights. Any piece of legislation that takes a few snips at that red tape is certainly welcome.

The bill is also intended to benefit military families, who tend to spend their lives moving from one place to another. Service members and their spouses would be able to claim residence based on their state of origin, place of actual residence or state of deployment; currently only the last category is operative. So someone from Oklahoma, stationed in Georgia but living across the border in Alabama would be able to purchase a firearm in any of those states.

The Scalise-Mooney Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act would also be good for the economy. Licensed firearms dealers would be able to transfer firearms to out-of-state buyers, directly transfer them (without shipping) between each other and attend to business outside their state of residence. These conditions would likely have a positive impact on gun sales. The caveat, of course, is that the bill doesn’t supersede state law by making something legal that wasn’t before.

The bill’s vocal opponents seem to have either missed that principle or intentionally ignored it. Josh Horwitz, director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, made the public claim that Scalise-Mooney would make it possible for someone who couldn’t pass a background check in their home state to drive to a jurisdiction with looser requirements and purchase a firearm there.

That argument might be enough to give one pause—if it were even remotely true, that is. The reality is that firearm purchasers would still be expected to pass the requirements of their state of residence. A California buyer would still have to pass a California background check, even to buy a gun in Arizona.

So what’s all the fuss about? Have Scalise-Mooney’s opponents simply failed to read or understand the bill? 

That’s always possible. But the more likely answer is that anti-gunners will leap at any excuse to confine gun owners in more webs of red tape. They understand that setting up legal and financial disincentives to firearm ownership hurts the Second Amendment far more than demonstrations in Manhattan with celebrity speakers. They want this right to go away, and they don’t mind going after whomever or whatever it takes to achieve their purpose.

We hear a lot these days about “common-sense” legislation pertaining to guns, and it’s nearly always code for more gun control. The Scalise-Mooney bill, on the other hand, actually embodies common sense by cutting some of the red tape that confuses and constricts gun owners. 

Use Your Power

We shouldn’t allow the antis to control the narrative on this matter with more of their cynical half-truths and lies. Everyone gets a chance to weigh in on this bill. Let your representatives know that you support the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act by writing today.

 

Latest

The Armed Citizen
The Armed Citizen

The Armed Citizen® January 21, 2026

Around 7 a.m. on Nov. 7, 2025, near Los Angeles, a 79-year-old Vietnam War veteran heard his duplex tenant screaming. He found a naked 30-year-old man had forced his way into the woman’s home.

The DOJ Civil Rights Division is Hiring Second Amendment Attorneys

After Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, was a guest on Gun Talk Media with Tom Gresham, NRA-ILA reported that Dhillon is “embracing a new style of litigation on behalf of the Second Amendment.”

Cynical Strategies To Subvert The Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act

Since President George W. Bush signed the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) into law on Oct. 26, 2005, those bent on civilian disarmament have sought to bypass the legislation’s clear commands. In fact, 20 years later, gunmakers were fending off a frivolous nuisance suit from the city of Gary, Ind., filed in 1999, despite the PLCAA and state-analogue legislation.

The New York Times Tries to Explain the Drop in Crime

The New York Times is attempting to explain away the Trump administration's success at lowering crime rates with these explanations.

Winner-Take-All Elections Mark A New Chapter In The Second Amendment

Will a meaningful Second Amendment survive in Virginia? That this is even an open question shows how dramatically one election can reshape a state when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

Part 1: How the Mainstream Media Lost Touch With America—The Takeover by the Elites

Why is so much of the mainstream, legacy or corporate media opposed to our right to keep and bear arms? This three-part series attempts to answer these critical questions—understanding, after all, leads to solutions.

Interests



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.