Federal Watch ListThis Watch List represents the positions of the GO-NH Board of Directors on pending Federal legislation. Later amendments may alter GO-NH support or opposition for a given bill.
To see the text of a Federal bill, click on the bill number. Due to the
ephemeral nature of Federal legislation, these links may be invalidated by bill
changes due to committee reports or post-hearing revisions. In that case, the
bill can still be found by using the Library Of Congress' Thomas system, at this
To see the text of a listed Federal bill, enter the bill number in the
"Legislation in Current Congress" search facility, and click "search".
Proposed Amendments to HR2640
These are reasonable
shortcomings, and would be inserted in a REMEDIES
SECTION of the bill – as the bill may change, if a truly final version becomes
available (a rare thing in Congress) we will post the specific proposed
location of each of the proposed amendments
1. strike "on the date of the enactment of this Act" and insert "on July 26, 2007".
This is probably the most important provision.
This would do two things. First, it would keep the law from being applied
retroactively, and second, it would keep the BATFE from changing the meaning of
the statute by changing its regulations
between now and enactment. Remember, administrative regulations are primarily
created by unelected bureaucrats.
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of
this Act, if a person is denied the right to purchase a firearm in a National
Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [UNITED STATES
CODE] 922(g)(4) et seq. that person shall,
within 14 (fourteen) days of the denial, be sent a letter to the address the
person provided on the 4473, informing the person denied specifically WHY they were denied, including date of record, the authority
supplying the record, and if a court, the name and address of the court and
docket number of the record.
Ø This provision requires that NICS not simply ignore a person who has been denied a firearm, and allows those denied to receive a specific reason why they were denied within a reasonable period of time (the amendment mandates the court hear the matter within 4 months), and if NICS refuses to provide the specific information to the person as to why they were denied the right to purchase a firearm, this amendment allows the person to bring an action in their local court without having to pay an expensive filing fee as well as provides that the person will be reimbursed for expensive attorney fees.
3. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Act, the name of a veteran, disabled child, or other person suffering from a disability may be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [UNITED STATES CODE] 922(g)(4) only pursuant to a finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority and only after notice and an opportunity to be heard by the individual whose name is to appear on this list. It shall be unlawful for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to maintain the name of any veteran who was discharged under honorable conditions and who has not been subject to a finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority pursuant to the provisions of this paragraph. Any person whose name continues to be unlawfully retained by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in violation of the provisions of this paragraph may, beginning on the day six months from the date of enactment of this Act, bring an action against the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in the district court for the district in which such person resides, the current filing fee of $350.00 shall be waived, despite any local rules to the contrary, the person filing shall not be required to file electronically, if requested by the person filing the court shall hold a hearing on the matter within 120 (one hundred and twenty) days of filing, and, upon a finding that such person's name has been unlawfully retained, shall be awarded actual damages, attorneys' fees, and liquidated damages of $10,000.00."
Ø This requires that NICS not simply ignore a person whose name has been illegally or wrongfully included on the list and allows those prohibited from purchasing a firearm by the illegal inclusion of their name on the list a hearing within a reasonable period of time (the amendment mandates the court hear the matter within 4 months which is reasonable considering in many instances a person will not actually go to trial and receive a final decision from a judge until years after filing a suit it court), and if the person prevails, the person will regain the right to purchase a firearm. This amendment allows the person to bring an action in their local court without having to pay an expensive filing fee as well as provides that the person will be reimbursed for expensive attorney fees.
4. "No person shall be prohibited from acquiring, possessing, or selling a firearm under subsections (d) and (g) of section 922, Title 18 U.S.C. [UNITED STATES CODE] solely because of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or attention deficit disorder (ADD) or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."
Ø This makes it clear that simply because an individual has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist (maybe incorrectly) with a given condition, does not, by itself without more, prohibit them from owning firearms. Many veterans have served our country honorably, and the military is becoming more and more concerned with their mental health and now, in many instances conducts mental health examinations both before and after military service. This provision will insure that those who have honorably served our country will not be prohibited from owning firearms because of the emotional battle scars they may carry from honorably serving their country.
5. "provided, however, that a soldier or veteran, honorably discharged, is not, by virtue of his service and the trauma suffered in connection with his service, prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, receiving, selling, or disposing of a firearm under paragraph (4) of section 922(d) and 922(g) of title 18, U.S.C.” [UNITED STATES CODE]"
Ø This makes it clear that simply because a psychiatrist or psychologist (maybe incorrectly) believes a solider or veteran that has been honorably discharge suffers from a trauma in connection with his military service, that individual will not be prohibited from firearm ownership. We cannot punish our veterans for the scars that we demanded they incur on our behalf.
6. "provided, however, that a person who, having been a child participating in a program under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, shall not be prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, receiving, selling, or disposing of a firearm under paragraph (4) of sections 922(d) and 922(g) of title 18, U.S.C. [UNITED STATES CODE], by virtue of a diagnosis in connection with such program."
Just being in the IDEA program wouldn't allow
the federal government to equate the
Submitted by attorney Penny S. Dean, Esq., A.A., B.A., M.I.P., J.D.
Attorney Dean was admitted by examination to the bars in
Dean is not only a practicing attorney but a shooter and shooting instructor as
well. She is an NRA Certified Pistol
Instructor, Hunter Safety Instructor, a LFI I, II, & III graduate (Lethal
Force Institute, Massad Ayoob, Director).
She has been a guest commentator on Cam and Company, NRA Patriot radio,
and numerous other local and national radio shows, including NH Outlook,
New Hampshire Public Television
For the Latest National Gun News - NRA News!To get the latest, hottest information about what's going on in the nationwide battle for firearms freedom, bookmark the NRA News.
With daily features on the latest news from around the nation and around the world, plus e-mail alerts to keep you up to the minute, the NRA News is a valuable resource for staying informed about the fight for your rights.
Judge Alito on Terry Stops of Armed PersonsJudge Alito, while sitting on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, joined in, but did not author, an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a stop and frisk of a suspected armed robber, in U.S. v. Nelson, 284 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2002).
The opinion cited two other cases, Valentine and Ubiles, regarding two different situations in which police officers confronted individuals known or suspected to be armed:
In upholding the stop as reasonable [in Valentine], we distinguished United States v. Ubiles, 224 F.3d 213 (3d Cir.2000), a case factually similar to Valentine. In Ubiles, a man approached a group of officers during a festival to indicate that there was a man in the crowd whom he had seen with a gun. The officers frisked the identified man and recovered a gun. However, in the Virgin Islands, such gun possession is not illegal, and the informant never alleged that any illegal activity had occurred or would occur. [emphasis added] Id. at 215. In drawing the distinction, we emphasized that officers can consider the time and area, as well as suspicious responses--in Valentine, the walking away upon seeing the officers--in determining whether suspicion is reasonable. Id. at 356-57. Additionally, we noted that in Valentine, unlike in Ubiles, the mere possession of a gun without a permit was illegal. Id.
In essence, the precendents set forth that in a jurisdiction where possession of a firearm is legal without license or permit, simple possession of the firearm does not allow for a stop unless there is other information or evidence that gives rise to suspicion.
Alito's telling dissent in machine gun case:
Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer