|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 6, 2017, 11:54 PM | #176 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Quote:
There is an appeal process for anyone denied purchasing a firearm due to a NICS background check, regardless of the reporting agency. |
|
December 7, 2017, 12:42 AM | #177 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Technically, the appeal you're talking about is an appeal of the NICS denial, it's not an appeal of the initial report that put the person on the NICS blacklist in the first place. |
||
December 7, 2017, 09:21 AM | #178 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
December 7, 2017, 10:03 AM | #179 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
If I recall, the Obama directive was for those that were collecting SS benefits based on mental defect or claims of mental illness AND they required a representative payee due to their inability to manage their own affairs. Basically, by their own admission they were mentally defective. |
|
December 7, 2017, 10:08 AM | #180 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Administrative due process was at issue in the case just a couple of years ago in which the EPA issued a compliance order against the buyer of an empty lot that prevented them from building on it. That had constitutional implications, but just the fact of an administrative hearing resolving someone's rights isn't a violation. The people involved just need to afford due process. Goldberg v. Kelly is the case I recall from a class on that area.
Generally, one who disagrees with the result of the administrative hearing and appeal process is obligated to exhaust those administrative options before getting his problem before a member of the judiciary. Quote:
The problem [I have] with legislating that a rifle with a magazine that holds 11 rounds, for instance, should be prohibited from general possession because it won't be handled responsibly is that it deprives a right without any kind of individualized finding. I know lots of people who aren't responsible enough to possess a firearm, or drive or vote for that matter, but my opinion on that doesn't matter unless a person has had a hearing in which he gets to present his side of the matter.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; December 7, 2017 at 10:15 AM. |
|
December 7, 2017, 11:09 AM | #181 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 7, 2017, 11:44 AM | #182 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
On the face it's obvious that most administrative adjudicating hearings pertain to members of a professional organization, individuals with licenses subject to the administrative agency, or people seeking specific benefit from the administrative agency.
None of the above really deal with a constitutional right. I would be appalled if an administrative hearing could, in fact, restrict a constitutional right. Appalled, but not really surprised. I can find neither example of, nor prohibition against this actually occurring. Admittedly I didn't spend a great deal of time researching this. I would be really interested if someone is aware of a specific example. |
December 7, 2017, 12:51 PM | #183 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Can someone help me out here? I'm not seeing anything in the text of HR38 that changes the NICS system. I am also seeing that HR4477, which would make changes to NICS, has not been voted on.
What am I missing?
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
December 7, 2017, 12:53 PM | #184 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
December 7, 2017, 12:59 PM | #185 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Some refresher on the social security reporting to NICS:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ocial+security HR38 does contain the Fix NICS Act, as well as authorizing a study on bumpfire stocks. Text here: https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/1...-PgH9685-2.pdf Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; December 7, 2017 at 01:10 PM. |
December 7, 2017, 01:14 PM | #186 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
Quote:
What actually happened was one of those all too common "perfect storm" bureaucratic catch-22s. A combination of law and bureaucratic regulations, from multiple govt. agencies. While it may not have been deliberately engineered, and might simply have been a case of unintended (and unforeseen) consequences, since the result was some people being improperly/incorrectly (and illegally) listed as prohibited persons, the anti gun administration simply let it slide along. Even after it was "discovered", they did nothing to correct the situation, since it went along with their agenda. The LAW (GCA 68) says "mentally incompetent" people are prohibited from buying firearms (from and FFL dealer). The LAW also defines "mentally incompetent" as "adjudicated incompetent", meaning a COURT rules it, after a hearing where both sides get to present evidence. (this is the ocean we all sail on) Now along comes the SSA (and the VA) which also use the term "mentally incompetent" (or something similar) as in in house definition which applies ONLY to actions and rulings (about benefits) WITHIN their respective agencies. (this is the first storm) The Administration, in its hypercompetent wisdom orders that all "mentally defective/mentally ill people must be reported to the NCIS. This was one of those "common sense" things, (of course mentally incompetent people are prohibited, the law says so...) which did NOT take into account that the definition in law, and the definition used by various govt. agencies are substantially DIFFERENT! (the second storm) NCIS gets a report of mental incompetence, and has no means, nor motive (its not in their mandate) to verify that such reports are accurate and meet the legal definition. They simply HAVE to take them at face value, and at face value the (incorrect) classification puts that person in the prohibited category. (Third storm, your boat (gun rights) gets sunk. NO violation of gun rights happens when SSA (or for that matter the VA) lists you in the mentally disabled group. That ruling ONLY applies to your status in the SSA files. The violation of rights happened when that "in house" ruling was sent to the NCIS as if it were the legal ruling (which is it NOT). To restate, slightly simpler... The law says "ducks can't buy guns", and the law also says "its NOT a duck, until a judge RULES that its a duck". Agency A says "if it walks like a duck, then for our purposes, it is a duck". Agency B says "if it walks like a duck, AND quacks like a duck, then for our purposes, it is a duck". Administration says "all ducks must be reported to Agency C". Agency C says "if its reported to us as a duck, we put it in the prohibited group, per the law". So, Agencies A & B send their list of ducks to Agency C, who does not know, and is not told that A and B list ducks are not ducks under the law, but only ducks in the eyes of Agencies A & B. Agency C performs their duty, under the law, and A&B list ducks get listed as prohibited. New administration takes over, realizes what has been going on, and changes the rule (to comply with the law) to say "only those that meet the correct legal definition of "duck" must be reported to Agency C. And then the press has its field day, shouting how the new administration is making it easy for the mentally ill to buy guns. Sorry for the drift, but this issue needs to be correctly understood, not just with sound bites from either side, and since the Reciprocity bill now is linked with NCIS "improvement" I thought it a related issue.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
December 7, 2017, 01:14 PM | #187 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
HR 38 and 4477
According to the link provided by BR, the bills were combined on recommendation of the House Judiciary Committee (Rules Committee Print 115-45), and the House voted on the combined version.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
December 7, 2017, 01:30 PM | #188 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
For just one example, see Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 122 S.Ct. 775, 151 L.Ed.2d 783 (2002). A Chicago ordinance requires that organizers wishing to hold certain types of public assemblies first obtain a permit from the Chicago Park District. The petitioners had applied for permits on multiple occasions to hold rallies urging the legalization of marijuana. The Park District granted some permits and denied others. Petitioners were dissatisfied and filed suit to enjoin enforcement of the permitting ordinance as facially unconstitutional. The case went up to the Supreme Court which ultimately agreed with the lower courts that the ordinance was valid and enforceable because it set constitutionally permissible standards of the issuance or denial of permits.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
December 7, 2017, 02:03 PM | #189 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Thank you Frank, that answers my question. Had not thought about protest permits but yeah it applies.
|
December 7, 2017, 03:06 PM | #190 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
Quote:
The ancillary aspect, as it pertains to the VA, is that the VA is on a mission to try to prevent veteran suicides. That's generally a laudable goal. Where it becomes a problem is that they actively solicit any and all information that a veteran in their system even might be just a little bit depressed -- then they list him as having PTSD, and the next thing you know that veteran has been reported to NICS -- all because he answered a simple question at a routine appointment with "Yeah, I have felt a little sad a few times in the last six months." Well, who HASN'T? I go to the VA for most of my health care. It doesn't matter if my wife ran off with my best friend, my dog died, my house burned to the ground, and a bus just ran over my pickup truck. when the intake clerk asks "Have you felt sad, even a little bit, since your last appointment?" my answer is "Nope, everything's great. How're things for you?" Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 7, 2017 at 03:15 PM. |
||
December 7, 2017, 03:15 PM | #191 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Thanks BR for the link. The text of the bill at congress.gov does not have the second half listed, for whatever reason.
__________________
SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty. |
December 7, 2017, 05:53 PM | #192 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Quote:
|
|
December 7, 2017, 08:28 PM | #193 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
ArmedChicagoan when you read the ruling of the 7th it cites both Heller and McDonald as the precedent for their reluctant decision:
The panel majority (Judge Williams dissenting) held that so strict a ban—unique among the states—on carrying a gun violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008), and held applicable to the states in McDonald v. City of Chicago, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 177 L.Ed.2d 894 (2010). For purposes of the present appeal the most important part of our 2012 decision is the last paragraph: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. It was the Heller ruling that "compelled" them to reverse their position. Were it not for Heller, Illinois would still be "unique among the states" with concealed carry illegal. Here is a link to the ruling: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1648621.html
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
December 8, 2017, 09:36 PM | #194 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
@K Mac - yes Heller and McDonald were necessary prerequisites but Shepard went beyond those rulings.
|
December 10, 2017, 05:06 PM | #195 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
The U.S. House passed the 'Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act' around 12/6/2017. It still has to pass the U.S. Senate.
I think it's interesting to see how National Public Radio reported this. Quote:
I'm thinking the bold text above demonstrates NPR just doesn't understand the issue or perhaps I don't. And I'm not being facetious here, I really might not understand this issue. Here's the links: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ss-state-lines https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...un-bill-283768 |
|
December 10, 2017, 06:05 PM | #196 |
Member
Join Date: May 2, 2012
Location: upstate New York
Posts: 90
|
National reciprocity is needed
We need national reciprocity it makes sense, if your drivers license is recognized in all 50 states, why shouldn't your gun permit be? I here so many stories of people traveling though anti gun states, and being arrested for doing nothing but carrying their gun. Often these states have ridiculous laws, simply to stop law abiding citizens from their 2nd admenent rights.
|
December 10, 2017, 06:19 PM | #197 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,441
|
And whose laws will rule in those states? They won't give up their restrictions.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
December 10, 2017, 07:30 PM | #198 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
Dale, I think what was being referred to is that not all guns are legal in all states. I've read that there are some gun models that are not allowed in states like California. Maybe this law doesn't cover taking a gun that's fine in your state into one where it's been banned.
|
December 11, 2017, 12:34 AM | #199 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
Quote:
The trouble the driver's license example is that gun laws, unlike traffic laws, vary widely between the states. AS DO the requirements for getting a carry permit. Driving, you go to the DMV pay the fee, take the tests, written and road test, and if you pass, you get your license. Pretty much standard in all states. Not so gun laws and restrictions. Every state has their own versions, some states are similar, some are widely different. There are multiple issues at work now, instead of one simple common set of rules. Further complicating matters, and moving things further and further from the driver's license example are the issues of state's rights, and many peoples differing interpretations of our right to keep and bear arms. And then there is the current state of established law, and how it is interpreted by various courts. All very complex, and not easily amenable to a one size fits all solution. It was long ago established that while you do have a Constitutional right to travel ("Liberty" is the usual reference), you and I DO NOT have a Constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads and highways. SO, a state regulated system of licensing (and testing) was established. Since the "rules of the road" are pretty uniform throughout the states, there wasn't any big resistance to each state recognizing each other's driver's licenses. It is automatically assumed that each state's drivers have the same basic skill and ability to operate a motor vehicle, and this is proven by their passing the required tests. Not so with firearms. Some states have required tests before they will issue a carry permit, some do not. And some states have taken the approach that they will not recognize other states permits that do not have the same issuance requirements as their state. Which, under established law, they have a right to do. They shouldn't, but they legally CAN. Not only is that right a matter of political power for the state, but it is also a matter of public safety, as they see it. The argument is that they simply don't wish to allow people who do not meet their state's "level of trust" requirements to go armed among them. They feel that is a public safety risk. There is some merit to that argument. But, is it enough?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
December 11, 2017, 01:02 AM | #200 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
Sonofscubadiver-your point about some guns not being allowed in some states was something I completely overlooked.
It seems like a 'common sense' gun law to me, that is, all states recognizing all permits but it's obviously a very messy issue. It's nice to come to this site and get peoples reasoned opinions on this stuff. |
|
|