Guns – Page 1107 – Shall Not Be Questioned

More Blog Reaction

More details can be found at the linked article. While I think it’s ridiculous an interest group wields such power in Washington that Congressional leadership has to negotiate with them, this is overall a good step and NRA support should ensure its passage.

… it’s far better for liberty and the health of the republic if politicians don’t listen to the interest of constituents and interests groups at all, and rely only on their good and pure instincts on subjects that they, most likely, don’t know much about?

But I suppose what’s really at work with a lot of congressional dems, who just want to stick it to sport shooters and gun owners, is that it really sucks to, you know, actually have to listen to them and take their concerns seriously rather than being able to dismiss them as a bunch of kooks.

Blog Reactions to the Deal

We still don’t have a bill yet, so all we have to go on here is the Washington Post’s reporting, which is always a scary prospect when it comes to this issue. We do have some reactions from the blogosphere though, which are interesting.

Jeff Soyer worries about it turning into a bad deal really quickly. This is a real concern. I’m worried about this as well. It’ll be a real litmus test for how serious the Democrats are about ending their habit of screwing gun owners every chance they get.

Joe Huffman says:

If someone is so dangerous they can’t be trusted with a gun then I don’t think they can be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches either. Either they can be trusted in public or they should be locked up.

I agree with this sentiment, but the vast majority of the population doesn’t. NICS, without a doubt, is a feel good measure, to make the public think it’s been made difficult for criminals to get guns, but it’s a feel good measure that there doesn’t seem to be much political traction to get rid of. People that think NICS is useless are very much a political minority. I think Joe’s second point is a good one:

Making the least agreeable portions of the infringement on our rights more palatable just means it will be more difficult to justify getting rid of it entirely later on.

I don’t think there’s any way we’re getting rid of NICS through the legislative process, but I do think this is a good point when it comes to the courts; in that the less infringing the background checks are, the less likely the court may be to throw it out. This is a good argument against the bill, I think.

SayUncle sums it up as “NICS deal – hey, letsâ€™ pay for stuff thatâ€™s already law“, which I think is accurate if the WaPo’s reporting is correct on this.Â We’re not adding new classes of prohibited person with this bill.Â If you’ve been committed, or adjudicated a danger to yourself or others, and you’re not in NICS, that doesn’t change your prohibited status.Â If the feds care to look, you’re still a “felon-in-possession”.Â If the Democrats hold true to the deal, it would seem that we’ll actually have a recourse for removing prohibited status for some offenses, and getting corrections made to the NICS database.

Deal Reached on NICS Issue

It looks like the NICS deal with the Democrats has come to light:

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks.

It looks like we have won some real concession out of this bill. I’m holding final judgment until I can see the language of the bill itself, but it appears what we’ll get is:

Ability to remove prohibited status for people with minor infractions. Read, Lautenberg crap? I hope so.
The 83,000 Military veterans screwed in 2000 would be able to challenge their prohibited status for mental health issues.
Feds may not charge a fee for NICS checks. Federal government will assume 100% of financing for states to get their information up to date and accurate.
Faulty records must be scrubbed from the system
Carolyn McCarthy gets handed a gigantic snub politically, since the NRA would not work with her. Her bill will be supplanted by this one.

I know we’ll have folks who will say the NRA has sold us out, but I think we’ve won some real concessions over this bill. The ability to remove prohibited status is a big step in the right direction, and something we’ve not had for years.

NICS will have more records, this is true, but a lack of NICS record doesn’t affect actual prohibited status. The Virginia Tech murderer’s absence from NICS did not make him lawfully able to buy a gun. By ATF’s guidelines, he was a prohibited person. This bill seems to allow people to actually challenge and remove prohibited status for minor infarctions.

Like I said, I will reserve judgment until I see some actual language, but I’m prepared to say OK to this deal. If that makes me a sellout, so be it. I see this deal as half a step backwards and a whole step forward, which to me is better than just getting crapped on.

UPDATE:

Captain Ed likes the deal
Bitter does too.
Joe Huffman doesn’t like the sound of it.

When You Can’t Win, Lie?

Jim Kessler of Third Way is either ignorant of the law, or he’s a lying sack of shit. In this article:

But then one day, one of the litigants against the gun industry obtained this data and used it to show negligence and malfeasance among some in the gun industry. So at the expense of law abiding citizens, Congressman Tiahrt, at the request of the NRA, limited the information supplied to police. Post-Tiahrt, police would still learn the name of the original buyer and the gun store that sold it, but thatâ€™s about it. If they ask ATF about suspicious activity, ATF is forbidden by the Tiahrt Amendment to divulge it. If that original buyer is also the original buyer of ten other guns traced to crimes across the country, that information is guarded by ATF as if it were the Holy Grail.

The police are still able to request trace data as part of a bonafide criminal investigation. Both the ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police favor keeping the trace data restricted. All Tiahrt does is prohibit the information from being released to cities so city politicians can’t endanger criminal investigations. That’s why the ATF and FOP are opposing relaxing the restrictions on this material.

Also, trace data doesn’t work this way. Trace data allows law enforcement, given a recovered firearm from a crime scene, to find the trail of legal ownership. It doesn’t allow them to find, Tiahrt amendment or no, what other guns a person might own.

For a Progressive Strategy group, Third Way doesn’t seem to accept that gun control has been a disaster as a political issue.Â Gun-control supporters aren’t as motivated or organized as we are, and we can hurt a lot more on election day than they can.Â If guns rank high in someone’s political calculus, there’s an overwhelming likelihood they are pro-gun.

Straw Purchases

Red’s blog has a good post up about the difficulties dealers go through in regards to straw purchasing.Â Every time I go to a gun shop with Bitter, I kind of worry that they think it’s a straw purchase setup.Â Of course, neither of us are prohibited persons, but it’s occurred to me that I’ve bought most of my inventory when another person was present.

More on Pennsylvania Reciprocity

Looking over the letter, I think the person may have contacted the incorrect division within the Office of Attorney General, or it was referred to the incorrect division. The division that handles the reciprocity agreements with other states is the Office of Legislative Affairs, and the reply came from The Criminal Prosecution Office. I have worked up a letter to them as well, and will send it along asking for clarification on the previous letter. It’s quite possible the person responding to this letter has little knowledge of the status of our agreements with other states, but nonetheless had to come up with something. We’ll see what kind of answer I get.

Writing State Police

I’m going to write to the state police public information person about the non-resident reciprocity issue and see what kind of response I get. I’ll post the actual letter as an update a bit later. Unfortunately, the PSP make it rather difficult to contact them by e-mail, so old fashioned snail mail will have to do.

UPDATE: Here’s what I plan to send:

I am writing to obtain some clarification from the Pennsylvania State Police in regards to the attached letter from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office on whether the Pennsylvania State Police recognize out-of-state licenses to carry firearms by people who do not reside in the states with which we have an agreement.Â For instance whether a resident of Ohio, in possession of a valid license to carry firearms from The State of New Hampshire, would be able to lawfully carry a firearm in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

I represent a blog, with approximately fifteen thousand visits a month, that covers issues of concern to Pennsylvanians involved in the shooting sports and gun rights communities.Â One of my readers brought this issue to my attention, and we would certainly appreciate any clarification the Pennsylvania State Police can offer, in regards to State Police policy, and officer training, on the issue of reciprocity agreements with other states for carrying firearms.

We’ll see how they respond.

More on Non-Resident Reciprocity

From the Pennsylvania State Police Web Site:

Other information included under â€œFirearm Reciprocityâ€ is a list of states that allow any out of state resident with a valid concealed weapons permit from their home state to carry a weapon while in those respective states. These states usually require the individual to have the actual permit and a photo ID on their person while carrying the weapon.Â Note that unless Pennsylvania has a reciprocity agreement with a state, regardless of whether or not their home state recognizes our license/permit, the residents of that state MAY NOT carry a firearm while in Pennsylvania unless they have a current and valid Pennsylvania License to Carry or fall under the exceptions as listed in 18 Pa.C.S. Â§ 6106(2)(b).

Emphasis mine.Â This would indicate that they view only resident licenses as being valid. Â This would be an incorrect view.Â I may try to get some clarification from the State Police themselves.Â Any law enforcement who holds this view would be gravely in error.

Challenging Reciprocity Agreements

I think there’s been little court play for reciprocity agreements in Pennsylvania.Â This letter from the Attorney General’s office would indicate that some law enforcement in the state, including the Pennsylvania State Police, is challenging the notion that people can carry on out-of-state non-resident permits.Â The AG’s office is merely saying here that the decision to prosecute is left to the discretion of the local district attorney.

The letter specifically mentions New Hampshire. Â Here is our agreement with New Hampshire.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will recognize valid New Hampshire permits to carry concealed firearms by valid permit holders while said permit holders are present in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

This agreement is authorized under the Uniform Firearms Act. Â Â Â§6109.3k:

(k) Reciprocity.–The Attorney General may enter into reciprocity agreements with other states providing for the mutual recognition of each state’s license to carry a firearm.

Given the wording in these agreements, it would seem to me there can be no reasonable reading that would exclude non-resident license holders from other states. Â Now, that said, the police are still free to arrest you, and the District Attorney is still free to prosecute you, because government officials can be assholes. Â But I wouldn’t let that stop you from carrying.

More later…

via SayUncle and OhioCCW

Submitted Renewal

I submitted my renewal for my LTC. Should be here in about 10 days they said. Bucks County seems to have slightly different procedures than Chester County. For one, they take your picture for you. They wouldn’t take my passport photos from Eckerd. I wish I had known that before I paid for them. For two, it’s local county government clerks that process the application rather than the sheriff’s deputies.

Pennsylvania requires photocopies of any out of state licenses. I think this is mostly for people who are applying from out of state, but it seemed to thoroughly confuse the person processing my application. I have licenses from Florida, New Hampshire, and Washington. I photocopied both front and back, but Washington has nothing on the back, so it wasn’t clear to the person what was going on.

Because they only accept cash, I asked for a reciept, which seemed to put off the clerk, who explained to me that they have to account for the money regardless. Hello! You people are the government! The minute I say “OK, I’ll trust these people. They seem honest and competent.” is the minute I end up on the phone saying “No, I submitted that application to you a month ago, and paid forty six dollars. What do you mean you have no record of it?”Â Of course, the LTC is only supposed to cost 19 dollars, but most of the sheriff’s figured out people would pay extra for credit card sized licenses rather than the large pieces of papers spelled out by state law.Â I don’t have a problem with this.

I don’t know, on one hand, it’s nice that I didn’t have to go to Doylestown to submit an application. On the other hand, the Sheriff’s deputies in Chester County took my application, said “Looks good to me, if all goes well you should have your LTC in a few weeks.” and that was that. It arrived in the mail a few days later. Once my application is approved here, I have to pick it up. Another trip.

Not sure which I prefer.