Gun control made simple: you won’t have your gun anymore, but I still will.

It was a great catch for Drudge [UPDATE: no, it wasn't, see below], had he left it at that. Unfortunately, he tries to make Kerry into a criminal, and in so doing, utterly butchers the law. Drudge writes:

It is not clear if Kerry submitted to a waiting period and completed the required paperwork (Form 4473) or Brady background check before he claimed the gun.

It’s not clear that he needs to, either. Unless the person who gave him the gun was a licensed dealer, the transfer probably fell within the private party transfer exception to the Brady Act. What? You’ve never heard of the private party transfer exception? It’s been living in the papers for a long time now, under an assumed name: “gun show loophole.”

Also, since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, it has been illegal for an unlicensed individual (a non-dealer, non-collector, non-manufacturer, etc.) to obtain a firearm in a state in which you are not a legal resident.

Really? It has been illegal for any unlicensed individual to obtain a firearm in a state in which I am not a legal resident? Damn, I’d better get the hell out of California fast. I had no idea that your guns were illegal unless I can own them legally in California. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to get you in trouble just by living here.

Seriously, though, Drudge is wrong. As originally passed, the Gun Control Act of 1968 did indeed generally prohibit citizens from obtaining firearms outside their state of domicile. In its present form, however, the flat prohibition applies only to handguns, with 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) expressly allowing face-to-face transfers of long guns outside the recipient’s state of domicile, provided that “the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States.”

Thus, if Kerry could have lawfully received his shotgun in Massachusetts under the same conditions (i.e., Kerry holds an FID, the shotgun is not a prohibited “assault” weapon under Massachusetts law, etc.), his receipt of the same weapon out of state was probably legal. Hypocritical in the extreme, mind you, but legal nonetheless.

UPDATE: Uncle says Drudge is wrong about the gun, too. Apparently, the whole issue is phony.

UPDATE x2: Juan Non-Volokh and NRO Corner have more on Drudge’s collossal goof. Meanwhile, Drudge himself has quietly removed his inapt references to the Brady Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968. Between that and his screwup over the pistol grip, there doesn’t seem to be much there there.

UPDATE x3: Dave Kopel, who has forgotten more about firearms laws than I’ll ever know, says Drudge was right as to the pistol grip. While Kerry’s weapon does not have a “pistol grip” withing the meaning of existing law, it does have a grip that would meet the broad definition of “pistol grip” contained in S. 1431.

UPDATE x4: In his fine tradition of occupying every conceivable position on an issue, John Kerry has responded, denying he had ever intended to ban this particular gun. Well, if that’s the case he should have been more careful drafting the bill before introducing it in the Senate. Thanks to reader Clint Taylor for pointing this out.