A House Judiciary Committee markup session was held on Tuesday, March 25, advancing several pro-Second Amendment measures for a full vote in the United States House of Representatives. Notably, the long-awaited “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” was among the bills, however, H.R. 2184, known as the “Firearm Due Process Protection Act,” was also looked upon favorably by the committee as it also advances for full House consideration.
H.R. 2184 is sponsored by Republican Representative Tom Emmer of Minnesota’s 6th District, who also serves as House Majority Whip. The bill seeks to provide law-abiding Americans, improperly denied their right to legally purchase a firearm due to administrative errors during a background check, with legal recourse, for which there is shockingly no provision at this time. It is designed to enforce accountability within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by mandating finalized decisions on record correction requests within 60 days.
“Thousands of Americans every year are being prevented from exercising their constitutional rights not because they are criminals, but because of bureaucratic errors. The Firearm Due Process Protection will provide important recourse to Americans whose Second Amendment freedoms are being restricted through no fault of their own. We are grateful to our over fifty colleagues who stand in support of this common-sense fix,” says Emmer.
If passed on the House floor, the “Firearm Due Process Protection Act” will move to the Senate, where speculation exists regarding bipartisan support since the bill focuses on correcting procedural issues within existing law. I wouldn’t personally hold my breath on Democrats backing anything that supports gun rights for any reason, but I suppose we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
“Rep. Emmer’s bill would help protect gun owners from the broken National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The system disproportionately targets minorities and individuals with common last names, either rejecting background checks due to cultural spellings of names or falsely flagging individuals as criminals because they share a common last name. To remediate this failure, Rep. Emmer’s bill allows for affected individuals to seek recourse through litigation,” according to Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America.
The government expects citizens to be accountable for their actions but practices “rules for thee and not for me,” which has become a .gov staple throughout history. I’ll confess to a small sigh of cautious optimism for any measure that secures Americans’ rights and holds the feet of our institutions to the proverbial fire when it comes to their accountability to the public, arguably more important than vice versa. Don’t get me wrong. While any person or system can err from time to time, a procedure in place for so long without provision for due process when denying a Constitutionally guaranteed right to law-abiding Americans is indicative of a system designed that way on purpose. A statutory assurance of timely resolutions goes a long way in addressing and hopefully closing that due process gap which has frustrated many American gun buyers for years.
The problem with the national reciprocity act is it does not protect you from those lefty states arms and ammunition restrictions. They will simply write laws about the hardware which will essentially nullify reciprocity. When will the R’s learn?
You are right of course, However, anything that forces the left go on the defensive and burn clock and cash creating laws that split the baby is a good thing.
The best thing the republicans could do though would be to outlaw “carveouts for law enforcement.” Thats the other thing the left loves to do.
Is that a chrome-plated airsoft pistol in the picture?… are they coming for those too??
One thing I see a LOT with NICS is when an 18, 19, or 20-year-old buys a long gun, I get a delay nearly every time. Even though they are legally allowed to purchase. Then it’s dragged out to the 5 day Brady limit. I had one customer get a delay added to his delay just because, I don’t know, he was under 21? NICS doesn’t care; they don’t have to deal with the customer getting upset. Heck, I had one under 21 buy a long gun, he reached the Brady limit, I did the transfer, several weeks later I got a phone call telling me he was denied. I told them, sorry, but I transferred it at the Brady date.
Xring, the ATFE legacy agents are planning an early morning raid on your buyer’s residence any day now
(poor dog) and will simultaneously be visiting your establishment for a complimentary records accounting. My brother once had a transfer held up for hyphenating the 17 letter Mn. county in the 5/8s inch long box on the 4473.
Take the guns first due process later process act
The 4473 is an infringement on a constitutional right that specifically states Shall Not Be Infringed.
I don’t care, whatever it takes to keep the guns out of the hands of ” those people ” and the poors.
Rights in America are purchased and if you can’t afford to buy those rights you shouldn’t be able expect to have them.
The Poor and POC with weapons are just criminals waiting to happen .
Every good Law Enforcement officer knows that.
The Take The Guns First Due Process Later Process Act.
Rights are purchased in America and if you haven’t got the money to buy your rights you should not expect to have them.
The poors and POC shouldn’t have firearms or weapons anyway. They are just criminals waiting to happen, every good and decent Law Enforcement officer knows this to be true as well as this Great Countries judges and honorable leaders.
Power to Money. Power to the Elites.
Long Live Freedom.
Can’t
.
123
the Take The Guns First Due Process Later Process protection Act.
Fuck your new and improved. It’s got more glitches in it then gremlin city
“The system disproportionately targets minorities…”
The democrats are probably not going to go for correcting that, its one of their most favorite things to do.
I’m super Pro 2A, but I’m not fond of lawyers suing states. The taxpayer pays in the end.