National CCW Reciprocity Bill Introduced for 2017
Ask any concealed carry license holder who does any appreciable amount of travel and they can tell you that the United States can be a patchwork of state and local laws. Can you have a loaded firearm in your car? Are rifles and handguns treated differently? Does a loaded magazine count as “loaded,” or must a round be chambered? Do No Guns Allowed signs carry the force of law? Can you carry in restaurants which serve alcohol? Is your concealed carry permit even good in your destination state?
These issues might represent a lot to consider when traveling with firearms, but a new bill introduced in the House might solve at least one of them.
Yesterday marked the first day of the 115th Congress and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-8) kicked it off with a piece of pro-gun legislation in the form of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. HR38 would eliminate the confusing hodgepodge of laws across the nation by allowing individuals who legally carry a concealed firearm in their home state to exercise the same right in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry – a concept known as National Reciprocity.
NRA-ILA Executive Director, Chris Cox, supported the bill, saying “the current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home.”
The official Congressional summary of HR38 is still pending as of this writing; however, Rep. Hudson has released this text of the bill, a one-pager summary, and a brief Q&A.
Hudson, a strong advocate of Second Amendment rights, has introduced similar legislation in the past, including last session’s HR986 during the 114th Congress. Despite decent support from among his congressional peers, this bill failed to make it through the legislative process. Now, with republican control of the House, Senate, and White House – along with at least one Supreme Court seat to be filled by the incoming President Trump – the new iteration of the national reciprocity bill has a chance at passing. It is already off to a good start with a bi-partisan field of more than 60 co-sponsors. Continue reading
ATF Publishes Open Letter Law Enforcement on 41F Policies
The BATFE recently published an open letter to Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) regarding the January 41F ruling (fmr 41P) which makes changes to the way in which NFA applications are handled for legal entities and individuals.
In part, the letter specifies “that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the responsible person questionnaire, if applicable, be forwarded to the [CLEO] of the locality in which the applicant, transferee or responsible person is located (“CLEO notification”)” and that the ruling “eliminates the requirement that an applicant obtain a certification signed by the CLEO before the transfer or making of an NFA firearm may be approved.“
The letter goes on to explain that there is no action required by the CLEO upon receipt (or lack thereof) of the paperwork – to include even confirming receipt of the documents. Further, the letter says that it is up to each CLEO to determine how they dispose of or retain (and whether or not they do either).
Of immediate concern are several potential issues regarding this lackadaisical hands-off approach to record keeping and privacy mandates. One concern would be with how an applicant would prove that they met the new CLEO notification requirement if there is no acknowledgment of receipt by the CLEO, and what future repercussions might be. Application denials? Revocation of approved applications with forced surrender of the firearms? The ATF has already proven that they are not above such tactics in the recent Form 1 Machine Gun debacles, which are still in litigation. Or worse?
The second concern would be how the CLEOs are protecting applicants sensitive information that is contained in the notification paperwork. As the $200 cost associated with making or transferring NFA firearms ($5 for transferring AOWs) is not a fee or a price for goods or services sold but, rather, the tax paid for making or transferring the item, the application could well be considered a tax document. This document details the what firearms are being made or transferred, at which physical address, and – for many applicants – their home address, photograph, fingerprints, signature, and other sensitive information. This information could potentially be problematic if it fell into the wrong hands, which is not outside the realm of possibilities when the CLEO is able to simply toss your notification paperwork into the trash bin for dumpster divers to find or leave it laying around on a desk at the PD for petty crooks to have a look at as they are brought through.
As if identity theft wasn’t enough of an issue, without any mandated safeguards on how this information is to be protected, consider the possibility of a motivated criminal coming to Joe Gunguy’s house at 123 Anystreet Lane to steal the expensive 7.5″ Noveske 5.56 AR-15 pattern rifle to use on the streets. If this firearm is so much more dangerous than an off-the-shelf firearm that it requires owners to to register them and pay an extra $200 tax on them and notify the government when we travel with them, does it make sense for the CLEOs to treat the information about those weapons so recklessly? Or is this just another spotlight on the absurdity of the NFA in general?
The full text of the letter is here. Further discussion of the open letter to CLEOs is available on Joshua Prince’s law blog.
More Controversy for Couric’s Anti-Gun “Documentary”
Did Crew Send a Producer to Commit a Felony?
Not long after the deceptive editing used in Katie Couric’s “Under the Gun“ was brought to light, it looks like there might be more controversy surrounding the anti-gun film masquerading as a documentary.
If you are not familiar with the situation, Couric’s film crew edited in roughly 8 seconds of silence and uneasy glances from gun owners after she asks them a question about how to prevent bad guys from obtaining firearms. To many, this made the interviewees look like “idiots.” What actually happened was that several of the interviewees immediately provided sound, cogent responses to her question.
Now, in a recent interview with LipTV’s Ondi Timoner, Under the Gun producer Stephanie Soechtig seemingly admits to sending another producer (from Colorado) to Arizona, where he “was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols.” Unfortunately, this is a federal crime – despite what Soechtig says – as interstate purchases of long guns must be performed through an FFL in that state (when allowed at all), and interstate purchases of handguns are flatly illegal.
Soechtig says:
We sent a producer out and he was from Colorado. He went to Arizona and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check in a matter of four hours. And that’s perfectly legal. He wasn’t doing some sort of, like, underground market.
As many readers likely already know, to legally purchase a handgun from out of state, the firearm must be shipped to an FFL in your state, and then transferred to the purchaser as usual, including a NICS background check.
A number of producers are listed on the film’s credits page, however, it appears that there are only two male names which would match up with Soechtig’s claim that the producer they sent was a “he.” Interestingly, one of the male producers named operates a twitter page listing his location as Denver, Colorado – where Soechtig claims the producer who made the illegal purchases was from.
We hope for the sake of the producer and the Arizona seller of the firearms, that what this “documentary” film maker says in the interview is just more lies from the anti-gun left, otherwise she may have just created two new felons!
The Ins and Outs of Shipping Firearms
Shipping a firearm can be a confusing ordeal and the plethora of conflicting information and anecdotes floating around online and at gun counters doesn’t make the matter any clearer. Is it illegal to ship a firearm with a particular carrier? Is it against this carrier’s company policies? What about the USPS? Can it go across state lines? Does it matter who I ship it to? Can I ship it to myself instead of flying with a firearm?
First off, the rules are different for licensees (FFL holders) versus non-licensees. We are mainly going to cover the rules for the non-licensed average Joe here since, if you are an FFL you probably already know how to ship firearms. We will briefly touch on some aspects of FFL shipping, however, since having a licensee do your shipping can often be easier and more affordable than doing it on your own.
If you ship incorrectly, you may end up facing consequences like denied insurance claims if your firearm is lost or damaged or, worse, going to jail. With these kind of high stakes, it pays to do it right at all levels when shipping a firearm. Continue reading
Support HR 3799 to Remove Silencers from NFA
As announced last week, a new bill has been introduced in the House to “provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.” That is, to essentially remove them from the purview of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and ease the cumbersome process of acquiring one of these valuable safety devices – a process that involves a lengthy wait and a $200 tax on top of the cost of the device.
Matt Salmon (R-AZ), introduced HR 3799, the Hearing Protection Act of 2015, to the house on October 22nd. There, it was Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration. The full text of the bill, as well as updates about its progress, is available here.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) announced almost immediately their full support of the bill. GunLink also fully supports HR 3799 and urge everyone to contact their representatives and ask that they also support the bill, which is co-sponsored by Frank Guinta (R-NH), John Carter (R-TX), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Chris Collins (R-NY), Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Mia Love (R-UT), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Chris Stewart (R-UT), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), and Bruce Westerman (R-AR).
An easy way to contact your representatives is to use the tools at the PopVox HR 3799 page. From there, HR3799 proponents can choose to support the bill. Be sure to include a personal message about why you support the bill. By including your personal message about why you support the bill, you guarantee that the PopVox system will generate a physical letter of support that will be hand delivered to your representatives’ offices.
You can also discuss the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 on the GunLink forums.
Why Support HR 3799?
Aside from the fact that Continue reading
Bill Akins’s Open Letter on BATFE Akins Accelerator Ruling
The Akins Accelerator is back! This time with no continually biased springs to rile up the BATFE. To commemorate its phoenix-like rise from the bureaucratic ashes, let’s take a look back at a part of the device’s history. What follows is an open letter from William Akins, inventor of the Akins Accelerator. This letter was originally published on now-defunct Blogspot blog Red’s Trading Post in December 2007.
My fellow Americans.
Let me draw your attention to a process known as bump firing which is exactly what my stock allows you to do except my stock stays stationary whereas in bump firing the entire firearm including the stock moves.
Bumpfiring uses no devices of any kind. It is a skill or knack as it were, that the shooter learns. Before I go into it, I would like to mention that if you read the illegal BATFE 2006-02 ruling that bans my accelerator device, that same ruling actually bans the process of bump firing and therefore any semi automatic capable of bump firing. Read the 2006-02 ruling at the BATFE website, then come back here and look at what I am about to show you.
To bump fire, you hold the weapon very loosely with your right hand and put your finger against the trigger without actually pulling it yet. Then you pull forward with your left hand concentrating on keeping forward tension on your left hand. By doing so you pull forward on the weapon and push the trigger against the right hands trigger finger which fires the gun, which recoils allowing your finger to actually stay in contact with the trigger but allows the trigger to come back forward and reset, but remember, you are keeping forward pressure with your left hand on the fore end of the stock again pushing the trigger into your trigger finger. Actually according to the BATFE ruling, the hellfire and tac trigger should be more illegal than my device since both those devices have your finger RIDING the trigger back and forth and never releasing from it, whereas my device causes your finger to completely disengage from the trigger for each shot. So why are two rapid fire devices that clearly fall within the new BATFE ruling allowed but mine is banned? Politics. Here’s a few links to videos showing bump firing without any kind of device at all.
This is the exact same thing my device does except the firearm does it within a stationary stock whereas in bump firing the whole firearm and stock assembly moves. However it is the same under Federal law as my device, and SHOULD be the same under the illegal BATFE ruling as my device, i.e. banned equally as my device has been banned. But the BATFE selectively enforces their new illegal ruling. Why? Because if they equally enforced their bogus ruling against the technique of bump firing, they would have to ban all semi automatic weapons, which is actually what their new 2006-02 ruling does. It bans my device, the hellfire device, the tac trigger and the process of bump firing with no device. Continue reading
