I'm not going to give up on this

jimpeel · July 6, 2006, 09:56 AM

My representative, Marilyn Musgrave, recently was able to defund the trigger lock provisions of federal law and raise the ire of the anti-firearms agendists.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215075

Quote:

HOUSE OVERTURNS MANDATORY GUN LOCKS PROVISION

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to overturn the federal requirement that federally licensed firearm dealers provide a "secure gun storage or safety device" (e.g., trigger locks, cable locks, gun safes, gun cases, lock boxes, etc.) with the sale and/or transfer of every handgun. The amendment, offered to a larger appropriations bill, was sponsored by U.S. Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), and passed by a vote of 230-191. This legislation has yet to be considered by the U.S. Senate.

I had posted a request to all who gather here to call and try to get the Restoration of Rights program refunded at http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208086 with not much result.

So I have been in contact with Ms. Musgrave's office and faxed the following to her Chief of Staff for Second Amendment matters whom, I confirmed, received it this morning.

Quote:

Joseph Wolldershein
202-225-5870

Dear Sir,

Knowing that Ms. Musgrave is a champion of the Second Amendment, I was pleased at her recent victory over anti-firearms groups and the defunding of the trigger lock law.

Of interest to Ms. Musgrave may be the defunding of the Restoration of Rights program of the then BATF in 1992. Under this program, a person who has a conviction which prevents them from firearms ownership could apply for the restoration of their rights to the BATF(E).

Unfortunately, in 1992 anti-firearms groups successfully lobbied for the defunding of the program by preventing the BATF(E) from using any budgeted funds for that purpose.

In 2002, a man named Thomas Lamar Bean petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (SCotUS) -- UNITED STATES v. BEAN 537 U.S. 71 (2002) -- for certiorari in his case after he had applied to the BATF(E) for restoration of his rights. His application was returned without action due to the defunding of the program.

In a unanimous decision, the opinion of which was delivered by Justice Thomas, the court found that mere inaction by the BATF(E) did not constitute a denial.

Quote:

Held: The absence of an actual denial by ATF of a felon's petition precludes judicial review under §925(c). The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief from a firearms disability if certain preconditions are met, and an applicant may seek federal-court review if the Secretary denies his application. Ibid. Since 1992, however, the appropriations bar has prevented ATF, to which the Secretary has delegated this authority, from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon the applications. Section 925(c)'s text and the procedure it lays out for seeking relief make clear that an actual decision by ATF on an application is a prerequisite for judicial review, and that mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction. Grammatically, the phrase "denied by the Secretary" references the Secretary's decision on whether an applicant "will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety," and whether "the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." Such determination can hardly be construed as anything but a decision actually denying the application. (emphasis added) Under §925(c)'s procedure for those seeking relief, the Secretary, i.e., ATF, has broad authority to grant or deny relief, even when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. This procedure shows that judicial review cannot occur without a dispositive decision by ATF. (emphasis added) First, in the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under §925(c), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies the applicable standard. 5 U. S. C. §§701(a), 706(2)(A). The APA's "arbitrary and capricious" test, by its nature, contemplates review of some action by another entity. Second, both parts of §925(c)'s standard for granting relief--whether an applicant is "likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety" and whether the relief is in the "public interest"--are policy-based determinations and, hence, point to ATF as the primary decisionmaker. Third, §925(c) allows the admission of additional evidence in district court proceedings only in exceptional circumstances. Congressional assignment of such a circumscribed role to a district court shows that the statute contemplates that a court's determination will heavily rely on the record and the ATF's decision. Indeed, the very use in §925(c) of the word "review" to describe a court's responsibility in this statutory scheme signifies that it cannot grant relief on its own, absent an antecedent actual denial by ATF. Pp. 2-7.

This leaves those who would apply for relief with no outlet for relief as the next step. Application to the District Court is disallowed absent an actual denial of relief by the BATFE.

I would ask that Ms. Musgrave champion an effort to have the funding restored to the BATFE budget so that persons seeking relief will once again have an outlet through which they can have their rights restored.

I will seek to bring this issue to her personal attention the next time she is in the Longmont, CO area but would appreciate a heads-up to her by you on this issue.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
[address]
Longmont, CO
[phone]

I'll keep everyone posted on what happens.

For those unfamiliar with this case, you may read the decision in United States v. Bean at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=537&invol=71

jimpeel · July 24, 2006, 12:38 PM

Joseph Wolldershein called me and we spoke for about fifteen minutes. He was quite interested in the issue as he had heretofore not known there was such a program as the restoration of rights program. He was also interested in gleaning more details about the program and its defunding in 1992.

I explained how the program works, the effort by Bean to get his rights restored, and his fight to the top of the legal system. I also told him that this same precedent could be applied to any program if there was specificity of departmental responsibility and then defunding of that program. He was able to see the parallel.

I told him that I realized that an issue is always based upon whose ox is being gored and, that while I was pleased with the defunding of the trigger lock program, there are others on the other side who were pleased at the defunding of the restoration of rights program.

I answered the unspoken question and informed him that, "No, I am not an ex-felon, and I do not need restoration of my rights." I explained that there are millions of Americans who, since GCA '68, have had their firearms rights taken from them for non-violent felony offenses such as petty theft with a prior conviction or embezzlement. I also explained that there is no provision in the Constitution for the removal of rights outside of the crime of treason. (As an aside; there are, in fact, only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution which fall under the auspices of the federal government -- treason, piracy, and counterfeiting but I did not mention that fact to Mr. Wolldershein.)

He stated that he would bring the issue to Ms. Musgrave's attention and that she is always interested in Second Amendment issues.

If I get any more info on this I will post it here.

publius42 · July 28, 2006, 01:08 PM

I'm usually a HUGE fan of defunding anything and everything, but...

Bender711 · July 28, 2006, 01:30 PM

I've never seen, whats so bad about getting a free lock with guns?

Mr. James · July 28, 2006, 01:32 PM

Mr. Peel,

Wouldn't re-funding of this program also be of comfort to those whose firearms rights were abrogated on the basis of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, a la Lautenberg? In other words, "Restoration of rights - it's not just for felons anymore." (apologies to the Florida Orange Growers Assn.)

Fremmer · July 28, 2006, 03:52 PM

The firearm manuafaturers will contine to include cables or other locking devices (including internal locks) in their guns (and will continue to charge consumers for the same) regardless of whether it is required by Federal law.

You can thank lawyers for that, and remember, those lawyers are doing it "for the children."

JSalcedo · July 28, 2006, 04:38 PM

I found my box of 15 or so gun locks. Think I'll hang em on the christmas tree this year.

Seriously, I'm all for restoration of civil rights to anyone who has paid their debt to society.

Its not like anyone felon or not is going to have a problem getting a gun if they want one.

But for those of us who like to stay on the side of law and order having a way to go legit is always a good thing.

jimpeel · March 2, 2007, 01:05 PM

I haven't addressed this in some time as there was an election and I didn't expect Musgrave to move on this. It has now been several months since the election and I should start beating this drum again.

July 28, 2006, 01:32 PM	#5
Mr. James Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2001 Location: The Old Dominion Posts: 1,521	Mr. Peel, Wouldn't re-funding of this program also be of comfort to those whose firearms rights were abrogated on the basis of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, a la Lautenberg? In other words, "Restoration of rights - it's not just for felons anymore." (apologies to the Florida Orange Growers Assn.) __________________ "...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

July 24, 2006, 12:38 PM	#2
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	Joseph Wolldershein called me and we spoke for about fifteen minutes. He was quite interested in the issue as he had heretofore not known there was such a program as the restoration of rights program. He was also interested in gleaning more details about the program and its defunding in 1992. I explained how the program works, the effort by Bean to get his rights restored, and his fight to the top of the legal system. I also told him that this same precedent could be applied to any program if there was specificity of departmental responsibility and then defunding of that program. He was able to see the parallel. I told him that I realized that an issue is always based upon whose ox is being gored and, that while I was pleased with the defunding of the trigger lock program, there are others on the other side who were pleased at the defunding of the restoration of rights program. I answered the unspoken question and informed him that, "No, I am not an ex-felon, and I do not need restoration of my rights." I explained that there are millions of Americans who, since GCA '68, have had their firearms rights taken from them for non-violent felony offenses such as petty theft with a prior conviction or embezzlement. I also explained that there is no provision in the Constitution for the removal of rights outside of the crime of treason. (As an aside; there are, in fact, only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution which fall under the auspices of the federal government -- treason, piracy, and counterfeiting but I did not mention that fact to Mr. Wolldershein.) He stated that he would bring the issue to Ms. Musgrave's attention and that she is always interested in Second Amendment issues. If I get any more info on this I will post it here.

July 28, 2006, 01:08 PM	#3
publius42 Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2002 Posts: 1,936	I'm usually a HUGE fan of defunding anything and everything, but...

July 28, 2006, 01:30 PM	#4
Bender711 Senior Member Join Date: September 20, 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 340	I've never seen, whats so bad about getting a free lock with guns?

July 28, 2006, 03:52 PM	#6
Fremmer Senior Member Join Date: June 19, 2005 Location: Nebraska Posts: 3,482	The firearm manuafaturers will contine to include cables or other locking devices (including internal locks) in their guns (and will continue to charge consumers for the same) regardless of whether it is required by Federal law. You can thank lawyers for that, and remember, those lawyers are doing it "for the children."

July 28, 2006, 04:38 PM	#7
JSalcedo Member Join Date: February 22, 2002 Posts: 84	I found my box of 15 or so gun locks. Think I'll hang em on the christmas tree this year. Seriously, I'm all for restoration of civil rights to anyone who has paid their debt to society. Its not like anyone felon or not is going to have a problem getting a gun if they want one. But for those of us who like to stay on the side of law and order having a way to go legit is always a good thing.

March 2, 2007, 01:05 PM	#8
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 12, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	I haven't addressed this in some time as there was an election and I didn't expect Musgrave to move on this. It has now been several months since the election and I should start beating this drum again.