The Truth about the President's Executive Order on Guns and "Mentally Ill" People Prohibited from Buying or Possessing a Firearm

The anti gun mass media is misleading the public about the President’s Executive Order on guns, which may broaden the number of people with alleged “mental illnesses” whose names get permanently added to the FBI NICS “prohibited persons” gun purchase background check database. However, the biggest impact the misleading news seems likely to have is a chilling effect, persuading more and more people to avoid any and all interaction with the “mental illness” professions and industry.

The anti gun mass media news has been publishing misleading disinformation about the President's intent to change terminology definitions in administrative law - the code of federal regulations - regarding the prohibition of guns to "mentally ill" people. The news reports are extremely distorted and misleading, attempting to give the general public the impression that such changes to administrative law will prevent people who might commit mass shootings, or other crimes with guns, from obtaining guns. The truth is that even with the proposed administrative law changes in the presidential Executive Order, none of the people who have committed recent true mass shootings: James Holmes, Jared Loughner, Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, etc.; had interactions with the psychiatric profession that would have exceeded the proposed legal threshold for gun rights revocation created by the either the old or the new definitions of the legal terms at issue.

First of all, federal statutory law does not prohibit "mentally ill" people in general from buying, owning, or possessing, guns. However, the gun statutes in some U.S. states, notably New York, Hawaii, Massachusetts and a few others, include subjective and sometime capriciously applied prohibitions against people with any sort of "mental health" diagnosis from buying and/or owning firearms! Under federal statutory law, the prohibition against gun purchase, ownership, and possession, applies only to two specific categories of people: those deemed “mental defective” and those "committed to a mental institution", as defined in the federal firearm statute 18 USC § 922(d)(4).

Furthermore, the mass media is spreading the misleading and incorrect impression that general "mental health" medical records could be, would be, or are being, disclosed and submitted to the FBI NICS gun purchase background checks system. Such mass media assertions are an incorrect and misleading falsehood, at least with regard to federal law. Here are facts none of the news articles explains.

The federal firearm statute 18 USC § 922(d)(4) states that anyone who:

"has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution"

is prohibited from buying, owning, or possessing, a firearm.

In addition, the - code of federal regulations - aka the CFRs, which are controlled by the White House, contain further, more elaborate definitions of the meaning of the phrases:

"adjudicated as a mental defective"

and

"committed to any mental institution".

The President's Executive Order would/will change 27 CFR 478.11 (see link) which would change the elaborated, administrative, definitions of the two phrases above that are contained in the federal statute 18 USC § 922(d)(4). It takes an act of Congress to change 18 USC § 922, which is federal statutory law, but the President has control of federal administrative law, which is intended to clarify statutory law, enabling him to change 27 CFR 478.11. The gun ban zealot President's intent is to broaden the scope of these terms as described by 27 CFR 478.11, thereby snaring more people as “mental defective” or “involuntarily committed”, whose names would be placed into the FBI NICS gun purchase background check "prohibited persons" database. The current version of 27 CFR 478.11 contains the following definitions:

Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or

(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—

(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and

(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.

The primary change to the definitions above would/will be that they would broaden the definition to include - court ordered - "out patient" "mental health" treatment. The implications of this change could be significant. For example, this change could mean that a drunk driving or drugged driving prosecution that includes court ordered out patient alcohol treatment would lead to permanent loss of gun rights, and placement of that person's identity records into the FBI NICS background checks no guns database. The proposed new version of 27 CFR 478.11 would contain the following definitions, inserting a new definition of "committed to a mental institution", (emphasis added), as follows:

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.

Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(a) A determination, order, or similar finding by a court, board, commission, or
other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal
intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to self or others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.

(b) The term shall include—
(1) Those persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect, or lack of mental responsibility by a court in a criminal case;
(2) Those persons found guilty but mentally ill by a court in a criminal case in a jurisdiction that provides for such a finding; and
(3) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial by a court in a criminal case.

(c) The term shall not include —
(1) Any person adjudicated by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply; or
(2) Any person who has been adjudicated and subsequently received relief from disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) or under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

Committed to a mental institution.

(a) A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes an involuntary commitment to a mental institution for inpatient or outpatient treatment. The term includes an involuntary commitment for mental defectiveness, i.e., mental illness, to a mental institution. It also includes a commitment to a mental institution for other reasons, such as for drug use.

(b) The term does not include a person in a mental institution solely for observation or evaluation, a voluntary admission to a mental institution, or voluntary outpatient treatment. The term shall not include any person so committed by a department or agency of the Federal Government, if any of the conditions of section 101(c)(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 apply, or any person who has received relief from disabilities under a program authorized by section 101(c)(2) or section 105(a) of that Act or under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

The proposed new text has been published in a Department of Justice BATFE memorandum available on multiple web sites. The memorandum is entitled, Amended Definition of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” (2010R-21P).


A second Executive Order would change some aspects of the definitions in the code of federal regulations related to the HIPAA medical privacy statute and regulations regarding provision of information to the FBI NICS about the people defined in 27 CFR 478.11. The mass media disinformation machine uses the phrase: “mental health records", which is completely false and misleading. The Executive Order change would only clarify to state level courts and psychiatric institutions that federal law enables and requires them to submit notices of court adjudications and involuntary commitments to the FBI NICS gun purchase background database to deem such people "prohibited persons", in venues and jurisdictions where some state level governments have previously refused, citing conflict with HIPAA medical privacy. Together, the two Executive Orders are intended to broaden the scope of people who will be deemed "prohibited persons" in the FBI NICS gun purchase background checks database.

Every American should also take notice that the FBI NICS gun purchase background check database is one of the most big brother information repositories on citizens and other people currently maintained by the federal government. The FBI NICS database contains names, birth dates, social security numbers, mother's maiden names, and other identifying information, about everybody in the U.S.: citizens, known illegal aliens, legal aliens, and so on; with each identity record associated with zero or more record(s) of gun ownership prohibition events, such as involuntary psychiatric commitment, adjudications of not guilty by reason of insanity, felony convictions, domestic violence convictions, and so on.

In order for such a database to function as it advertised to the gun ban zealot political faction, it has to be that big brother oriented, with clear information on everybody, absolutely everybody, to prevent the few people the government has deemed prohibited from buying/owning guns from doing so. However, the FBI NICS system rejects just six (6) of each 1,000 persons who complete an ATF Form 4473 (ATF Firearms Transaction Record) as a requirement of purchase during the process of buying a gun from a federally licensed gun retailer. Notably, Americans purchased about twenty one million (21,000,000) new guns in 2013 alone, and have purchased about one hundred and eighty million (180,000,000) new guns since 1998, bringing the current number of lawfully owned guns in the United States of America to about 320,000,000, increasing an average of about 1.6 million new guns each month at the present time.

Please Boycott Anti-Gun Washington State "Gun Free Zone" Businesses

Please boycott the following Washington State businesses. These businesses do not respect state constitutional, and federal constitutional gun rights, or the gun rights statutes of the State of Washington. Instead they have declared their businesses "gun free zones", making their businesses little more than victim creating soft targets for criminals that may commit crimes on their premises. Please let these businesses know that their unconstitutional attitude and approach endangers customers and does not protect customers from violence or crime. Here is the list of the businesses to boycott, that don't deserve the hard earned wages of Washington gun owners and gun rights advocates:

• 2K metal Works, LLC
• 5 Point Cafe
• 95 Slide
• A-Pizza Mart (both locations)
• Alive and Well
• Alta Bicycle Share
• Alta Planning + Design
• Atlantic Crossing
• Babeland
• Barboza
• Baskin-Robbins
• Big Mario's Pizza
• Brenthaven
• Bulldog News
• Burgundian
• Bus Stop Espresso
• Cafe Flora
• Cafe Paloma
• Cafe Racer
• Century Ballroom
• Columbia City Bakery
• Crisp Harvest Market
• Cupcake Royale
• Derby Salon
• Elliott Bay Books
• Fat Ducks Bakery
• First United Methodist Church
• Fish Fry
• Freddy's Junior
• Havana
• Latona Pub
• Law Offices of Holmes & Witchley, PLLC
• Lifelong AIDS Alliance
• Lindas
• Lost Lake Cafe & Lounge
• Ltd. Art Gallery
• Manhattan Seattle
• Mars Bar
• Merkel Services Auto Detailing
• Mill Creek OB/GYN
• Moe Bar
• Molly Moons (all 6 locations)
• Neumo's
• New Seattle Massage
• Nube Green
• Oddfellows
• Office Nomads
• Platinum Records
• Portage Bay
• Quinn's
• Rain City Burgers
• Reel Grrls
• Revolutions Coffee
• Royal Bar & Patio
• Ruby Pear Woodworks
• Salvatore
• Satay
• Spud's Fish and Chips
• Seattle Antique Market
• Smith
• Southern Street Kids
• Stone Turtle Health
• Subway Green Lake
• Sugarcomb Salon
• Sugar on Top Salon
• Sutra LLC
• Sweatbox Yoga
• Tacos Guaymas Green Lake
• Tangletown Elysian Brewery
• The Blue Glass
• The Hillside Bar
• The Saint
• Totokaelo
• UPS Store - Roosevelt
• Urban Rest Stop
• Veranda Montessori LLC
• Wallingford Chocolati
• Wildlife Cycles
• Wildrose
• Zoe

In addition to the businesses listed above, please do not patronize any business that displays a sign like the one shown in the photograph below:

Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and the constitution of the State of Washington, Article 1, Section 24:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear Arms
in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired..."

Please respect, support, and defend, this foundational aspect of this state's laws and values.

Stop Blaming Guns, Stop Blaming Lawful Gun Owners ...

A child has been shot and killed in Brooklyn, NY. The bullets weren't meant for the child. The bullets were meant for his father. The anti-gun mass media wants to blame the problem on guns. That is disingenuous gun ban zealot propaganda. Guns did not cause the gang violence that initiated the actions that caused this child's death. Lawful gun owners should not be punished for the criminal actions of drug gang felons who illegally obtain firearms, illegally possess firearms, and illegally use those firearms, to commit violent felonious crimes like murder.

The Brooklyn, NY based felon drug dealer enemies of convicted felon Anthony Hennis, tried to commit a drive by shooting assassination of their enemy Hennis Sunday night. The felon drug dealers were in illegal possession of illegally obtained firearms, tools they believed would help them accomplish their murderous criminal deed. These criminals illegally possessed their guns despite the fact that New York has enacted laws that all but disarm law abiding citizen gun owners. The felonious drug dealer shooters who committed this crime are not law abiding citizen gun owners.

Convicted felon Anthony Hennis had just picked up his 16 month old baby son Antiq Hennis from his mother. Anthony Hennis does not live with his son's mother, and probably isn't married to her. Convicted felon drug dealer Anthony Hennis put his baby son Antiq Hennis into a stroller and began walking down the street, taking his son to visit his grandmother. Anthony Hennis has been convicted of various felonies, including convictions for: drugs, car theft, assault, and for being a felon illegally possessing a firearm.

As Anthony Hennis walked down the street with his son in the stroller in front of him, shots rang out from gun fire that may have come from a passing motor vehicle. The violent convicted felons who attempted to murder adult convicted felon Anthony Hennis missed. Instead one of the bullets struck and killed his 16 month old son. Four .45 caliber handgun shells were recovered from the scene by police crime scene investigators. If the bullets had hit their intended target, his father Anthony Hennis, this story would never have even made the news or newspapers. But because his child was killed instead, his child is being used and abused as a martyr in anti-gun America's - War Against Guns. Anthony Hennis apparently knows who the shooter is, but he is not cooperating with police. Witnesses in the neighborhood apparently believe they know who fire the shots, but police do not have anyone in custody.

Guns were not and are not the problem that caused this crime. There are more legally owned, and lawfully used, guns in America than there are adult Americans. The gun used to kill 16 month old Antiq Hennis was illegally obtained by convicted felon drug dealers who are prohibited by federal and state statutes from possessing firearms of any kind. The gun used to commit this crime was not likely obtained lawfully, was not likely owned legally, and was certainly not in the hands of a law abiding citizen. What this killing makes clear is that no law of any kind, even an unconstitutional complete ban of all firearms in America, would stop such ganged up felon drug dealers from illegally obtaining either guns, or from obtaining the illegal drugs they traffic, which give them the motivation to possess and use illegally obtained guns in the first place. This story wouldn't be all over the anti-gun biased national news if the victim's father had been killed and not his child son. 

For the gun ban zealot mass media to blame guns for this sort of crime is like trying to blame Boeing and Airbus for the downing of the Word Trade Center on 9/11/2001. Boeing is no more to blame for that tragedy than guns are to blame for the death of this child. Islamic terrorists and the evil ideology they follow are to blame for the World Trade Center tragedy. Murderous gangs and their violent drug trafficking are the cause of this child's death, not the illegally obtained gun they used as a tool to commit their gang power and control inspired murder. 

New York already has, arguably, the most restrictive, the most unconstitutional, anti-gun, gun ban laws in America. New York's latest unconstitutional gun ban laws limit law abiding citizens to have a maximum of seven (7) rounds in the ammunition magazine of any gun they possess. The same law also limits the total capacity of ammunition magazines to ten rounds, although fully loading such a magazine is currently deemed a criminal act under the latest, unconstitutional, 2013, New York gun ban law. Felonious drug dealers don't care about such laws or limits, just as they don't care that the crime of murder they committed in this instance exists, or about the crime of illegal drug trafficking that was this murder's antecedent. In addition, New York, has all but banned AR15 modern sports rifles, a type of gun that drug gangs rarely, if ever, use to commit their gang assassinations. In fact, rifles of any kind, traditional or modern, are only used in 300 of the 11,000 U.S. gun murders committed each year in recent years. Unconstitutional New York gun law also requires all gun owners to obtain "may issue" gun ownership licenses that corrupt New York government usually issues only to privileged and/or influential people. Convicted felon drug dealers do not even try to obtain such New York gun licenses (an act that by itself would get them prosecuted), or directly purchase guns from federally licensed gun retailers (which would also get them prosecuted). All that New York's absurd gun laws do is infringe upon the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Such laws don't stop or deter drug gangs. Such unconstitutional gun laws do not stop or deter crazy people, like Adam Lanza or James Holmes, from committing gun violence either. New York's latest gun ban statutes are clear and convincing evidence that the unconstitutional disarmament of law abiding citizens will not reduce or prevent criminal gun violence in America.

It is no more productive to disarm law abiding citizens because of the crimes of a few criminals that it would be to shut down Boeing and Airbus to prevent the possibility of another attack with airplanes upon tall buildings. Neither the planes in the latter instance, nor the guns in the former instance are the problem. It is of paramount importance that Americans not be distracted by incidents like this, which are being abused as an immoral and unjust excuse to infringe upon the constitutional rights of law abiding individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Wayne LaPierre's Speech - NRA 2013 Convention - Houston, TX

Thank you Houston and good morning, NRA! Colonel North. I appreciate your kind words. You are a genuine American hero and, for your service to God, to country and to your NRA, we salute you
and thank you, sir!

At this gathering one year ago, I predicted that our freedom might soon face its greatest threat ever. I spent the past year warning gun owners all over this country that, if re-elected, President Obama  would launch an all-out, historic assault against the Second Amendment and the personal freedom of hundreds of millions of
law-abiding Americans.

Wayne LaPierre

The news media called me paranoid. Obama vehemently denied his anti-gun agenda, mocked us, they even passed out fliers saying he would protect our rights — and a lot of Americans were deceived into believing him. Deceived. 

It didn’t take long for the real Barack Obama to show himself. Even before he was sworn into office, before his inauguration, the president launched his all-out siege against our rights. From gun bans to magazine bans to convoluted schemes tantamount to national registration of every gun owner in the country.

From executive orders voted on by no one to vice presidential commissions and a flurry of legislative attacks, to U.N. treaties to gut our Second Amendment, speeches and anti-gun rallies, media appearances and the heavy-handed weight of the presidential bully pulpit.

Apparently, there is nothing the president will not do to get something — anything — through Congress to advance his agenda to destroy the Second Amendment. Nothing. So far, thanks to you and millions of Americans like you, that’s exactly what President Obama has gotten — absolutely nothing!

A lot of courageous men and women in the U.S. House and Senate have stood up to the president and defended our great freedom. They’ve taken a lot of heat from the president, Michael Bloomberg, and the media, so it’s really important that they hear from every NRA member and gun owner and American who values that freedom.

To those Senators and Congressmen who have stood with the Second Amendment, we say thank you and ask you to keep defending our rights. You have stood with us and represented your home states —
let there be no doubt we stand firmly with you! That’s important, because while the Senate vote less than two weeks ago is significant, it is but one skirmish in what can only be defined as a long war against our constitutional rights.

We are in the midst of a once-in-a-generation fight for everything we care about. We have a chance to secure our freedom for a generation, or to lose it forever. We must remain vigilant, ever resolute, and steadfastly growing and preparing for the even more critical battles that loom before us. I am proud to report that the state of our NRA is stronger and larger than it has ever been. Our commitment to freedom is unwavering, our growth unprecedented.

Today, the NRA is a record 5 million strong! Even as thousands of Americans join our cause every day, the media and political elites denigrate us. They cringe at the sight of long lines at gun shows. They mock Americans who are buying firearms and ammunition at a record pace. They scorn and scold the NRA. They don’t get it because they don’t get America.

President Obama, the President of the United States of America, held a press conference 17 days ago and angrily called the NRA liars. Liars. Really? This from a man who spent his entire re-election campaign saying
he supported our Second Amendment rights and would never try to take away anyone’s gun. And he calls us liars?

This from the president who repeatedly claimed that 40 percent of firearms sales don’t involve a background check. That was never true, and the Washington Post gave the president three Pinocchio’s for that one. And he calls us liars?

The biggest whopper of all, one of the president’s favorite lines, is that 90 percent of Americans support his background check bill. The media can’t rant about anything else — 90 percent don’t want criminals or the mentally ill to get their hands on guns.

Well, I don’t know what kind of polling they do at the White House, but I do know this: When it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals or the mentally deranged, NRA members agree 100 percent!

But Mr. President, the bill you backed wouldn’t accomplish that goal. Your bill was for a check that criminals avoid. Your bill ordered the law-abiding to participate in a maze of regulation that could criminalize lawful firearms transactions and potentially create a massive government list of every gun-owning citizen in the country.

The Schumer bill you first supported — and still support — would create a database of every gun owner in America. The ManchinToomey bill you later backed wouldn’t have prevented Newtown, wouldn’t have prevented Tucson or Aurora, and won’t prevent the next tragedy. None of it has anything to do with keeping any of our children safer at any school anywhere. That’s why the president couldn’t get 90 percent of the Senate to go along with him, because Americans saw through the political posturing. They treasure their freedom and they don’t want government to take that freedom away. As they say in Texas, the president’s 90 percent is all hat and no cattle.

I ran into a member of Congress just a couple of weeks ago. We spoke for a moment and then he said,  “Wayne, I guess I have to go back and listen to 90 percent of the phone calls that are not coming in.” That’s a true story! And it tells you everything you need to know about Obama’s empty 90 percent. So Mr. President, you can give all the speeches you want, you can conjure up all the polls you can and call NRA members all the nasty names you can think of, but your gun control legislation wouldn’t stop one criminal, wouldn’t make anyone safer anywhere and that flawed failure lost on its merits and got the defeat it deserved!

You know, the only “90” the president won’t talk about is Chicago. His own hometown, now run by his own former chief of staff. The president won’t talk about Chicago but he should, because in the entire United States, Chicago ranks 90th out of 90 jurisdictions in federal firearms prosecutions. Dead last. But when I brought that up on Meet the Press, the media ignored it.

The president doesn’t talk about that 90. And the national news media, their cameras perched like vultures in the back of this hall, they haven’t mustered the courage to walk into the White House briefing room and ask about Chicago’s 90th ranking that is getting people killed day and night — a shooting every 6.3 hours.

The deadliest city in America — the president’s own hometown — ranks dead last in federal firearms prosecutions, and the media doesn’t have the guts to ask him about it. If the president had one clue about how to clean up violent crime, don’t you think he’d do it in his own hometown?

If his policies brought us Chicago, why do we want to listen to him any further? No, you’ll never hear the media ask him that. Maybe it’s because all those reporters still have Obama bumper stickers on their cars. The national media and the political elites, they are all part of the same class that thinks they’re smarter than we are. They know better than we do. They can tell us what to do or not, what to own or not, what to eat and drink or not, and how to live or not.

Take Michael Bloomberg. He’s gone from mayor of New York to the title of National Nanny. From sugar to salt to trans fats to fruit drinks to sodas, to what you can and can’t do or order in a restaurant, this guy can’t seem to find enough ways to boss people around. And now he wants to tell us who to elect or not? Seriously, I ask you, if Michael Bloomberg weren’t a billionaire, would anybody even bother to listen to him?

Now he’s joined with the president, created his own billionaire Super PAC, ready to spend hundreds of  millions to attack the NRA, demonize gun owners, destroy elected officials who won’t bow down to his will, and obliterate the Second Amendment.All while the anti-gun media, which supposedly hates money in politics, is all-too-happy to take — and all-to-breathless to brag about — Bloomberg’s money in politics.

Already, they are conspiring in private. Re-grouping, planning, preparing, organizing, even waiting for the, quote “next Newtown” — the next tragedy to come, the next senseless, horrific crime to exploit. Just the other day, an anti-gun spokesman told the National Journal, quote, “The next Newtown is inevitable … those things can help inform debate and galvanize people to act.”

Folks, politics does not get any more disgusting than that. They wait to use the opportunity of violent tragedy, rather than to prevent tragedy itself. Let me say that again. Rather than implement solutions that could prevent senseless violence, they choose broken policies that enable tragedy. Tragedy they wait to exploit, by choice, for political gain.We know that, even now, there are dangerous, deranged, evil people throughout society preparing to unleash unspeakable violence in our neighborhoods, our schools and our churches.
They use tragedy to try to blame us, to shame us into compromising our freedom for their political agenda. They want to change America, our culture and our values.But this is America. The first country in the world founded not on a race, not on a religion, not on a royalty, but on a set of God-given principles we call inalienable rights.

We come from that line of patriots who broke from King George to live their own lives as free people. And nowhere does freedom live more than in our Second Amendment right to own a firearm to defend ourselves, our families and our nation. Without that freedom, we aren’t really free at all. There is nothing more good and right and normal than an honest American citizen owning a firearm to defend himself or protect her family. They can try to blame and shame us with all their might, but when it comes to defending the Second  Amendment, we will never sacrifice our freedom upon the altar of elitist acceptance. And we will never surrender our guns — never!

More Americans today than ever before understand the principle of the Second Amendment. The freedom it gives us as individuals to be responsible for our own safety, protection and survival. Imagine living in a large metropolitan area where lawful firearms ownership is heavily regulated and discouraged. Imagine waking up
to a phone call from the police, warning that a terrorist event is occurring outside and ordering you to stay inside your home.I’m talking, of course, about Boston. Where residents were imprisoned behind the locked doors of their homes — a terrorist with bombs and guns just outside. Frightened citizens, sheltered in place, with no means to defend themselves or their families from whatever may come crashing through the door.

How many Bostonians wished they had a gun two weeks ago? How many other Americans now ponder that life-or-death question? A recent national poll answered that question decidedly. With danger lurking outside their doors, 69 percent of Americans said, YES, I want my freedom, I want my Second Amendment, I want my gun!

Lying in wait is a terrorist, a deranged school shooter, a kidnapper, a rapist, a murderer — waiting and planning and plotting — in every community across this country. Lying in wait right now. No amount of  political schemes, congressional legislation, presidential commissions, or media roundtables will ever change that inevitable reality.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: No bill in Congress, no Rose Garden speech will ever change the inescapable fact that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Boston proves it. When brave law enforcement officers did their jobs so courageously, good guys with guns stopped terrorists with guns. All over this country, people are more and more frustrated with Washington and the political and media elites. They are dismayed over a political debate that has nothing to do with addressing our problems and everything to do with advancing an old, tired, failed political agenda.

Everywhere I go, I’ve learned that the NRA is truly at the heart of America’s heartland. That we are in the middle of the river of America’s mainstream. That what we want is exactly what most Americans want. We know our mental health system is in shambles. We all want it fixed. We want criminals with guns prosecuted and incarcerated. We want the federal gun laws on the books right now enforced against felons with guns, drug dealers with guns, and gangs with guns. If they’d just do that, those violent criminals wouldn’t be on the way to their next crime. They’d be in prison. We all want our children to be safe and protected. That’s why we proposed trained police and security officers in every school. There’s not a mom or dad in America who wants to leave their children unprotected.

If the Washington elites really wanted the same thing, they would stop demonizing law-abiding gun owners. They would stop trying to convince the American people that all gun owners are potential criminals in waiting. And they would actually implement programs that addressed our problems in a real and meaningful way. Put police and trained armed security in every school. Enforce the federal gun laws on the books right now. Interdict and incarcerate violent criminals before they get to the next crime scene. Rebuild our broken mental health system. Help the mentally ill by getting them off our streets and into treatment. And for God’s sake, leave the rest of us alone!

The political class and media class just don’t get it. In a lot of ways, they’ve lost track of what this great nation is really all about. It’s about US and people like us, all over this country. It’s always been about “we, the people,” not the political class, all the way back to our founding.

Here’s what I’m talking about.

[VIDEO PLAYED]

We are the people. This is our country. This is a fight for our freedom, the freedom that separates us from
every other nation on earth. That freedom makes us stronger than other countries. It makes us better than other countries. That freedom is on the line and never more on the line than right now and through the 2014 congressional elections.Seventeen days ago, President Obama said this was only round one.

Round two is on the way, and they’re coming after us with a vengeance to destroy us. To destroy us and every ounce of our freedom. It is up to us, every single NRA member and gun owner, all Americans, to get to work right now to meet them head-on with an NRA strong enough and large enough to defeat any and all
threats to our freedom. Today, we are a record 5 million strong. We must not and will not slow down, not one single bit. By the time we’re finished, this NRA must and will be 10 million strong. Ten million dedicated, 10 million patriotic Americans who cherish freedom and all that is good and right about America.

We don’t care if it’s round 1 or 2 or 15, this NRA will go the distance. And no matter what it takes, we will never give up or compromise our constitutional freedom — NOT ONE SINGLE INCH!

Our feet are planted firmly in the foundation of freedom, un-swayed by the winds of political and media insanity. And to the political and media elites who scorn us, we say let them be damned! Fill your heart with pride. Clear your eyes with conviction. This is our time to Stand and Fight, now and in the next election and the one after that. Now and for the rest of our lives, to save our Second Amendment for future generations.From liberty’s defense, we will never back down. We will never surrender. We will always stand, we will always fight. We will always Stand and Fight for freedom!

Another Commentary by Attorney and Gun Rights Activist Colion Noir

Here is another video commentary about the current political crisis by attorney and gun rights activist Colion Noir.

Oppose the Toomey / Manchin Gun Legislation

After a detailed analysis of the gun bill authored by the Republican Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin, the Democratic Senator from West Virginia, multiple aspects of its language raise serious and urgent concerns. On the one hand, the Toomey / Manchin bill dangles multiple carrots at America’s gun owners and gun rights activists, with the apparent hope of gaining their support for its enactment. Upon further reading however, the Toomey / Manchin gun legislation contains the same unacceptable flaws, draconian problematic clauses, and onerous firearm transaction procedures that exist in Senator Harry Reid’s gun bill, S. 649.

The Toomey / Manchin bill’s language contains problems that should alarm anyone who reads it and considers all of its many implications. Some of the most alarming aspects of the Toomey / Manchin bill include:

• The Toomey / Manchin bill uses the terms “mental illness” and “mental health records” in an incorrect, reckless, and cavalier manner, which could lead to either unintentional negative implications, or the language was inserted intentionally and has malicious implications. The federal firearm statutes have never included “mental illness” generally as a prohibition against gun ownership. The standard for such revocations of gun rights is and always has been: “mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution”, as stated in 18 USC § 922(d)(4) and 18 USC § 922(g)(4). A bill sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham does not contain this sloppy language. The intent of Senator Graham's bill, S.480 (full text at link), is to clarify the definition of who is prohibited from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms due to: mental defect, mental incompetence, involuntary psychiatric commitment, a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and so on.
  
• The Toomey / Manchin bill contains the same consignment procedure masquerading as a background check process for sales of privately owned guns, that appears in Senator Harry Reid’s S. 649 firearms bill. In other words, the seller of a privately owned gun doesn’t just go to a retailer and have the buyer background checked, the private gun seller must turn the gun over to the licensed retailer and consign it to the licensed dealer during the sales process. The firearms consignment process implied by the language in both these bills has multiple onerous implications. Either Senators Toomey and Manchin performed a mere copy and paste of this language from Harry Reid’s S. 649 (and from Senator's Schumer's similar firearm purchase background check bill), or they all know the negative implications embodied in the gun consignment process within this aspect of their bills’ language, and included this language for some yet to be explained reason.
• The Toomey / Manchin bill also contains conflicting language and clauses regarding the federal statutory prohibition against the creation of a national firearms registry. The use of the word “notwithstanding” within the bill in reference to creation of regulations separate from the statutory language in the bill, opens the floodgates for the U.S. Attorney General to sidestep the statute and implement a national firearms registry despite the statute's other clauses, as noted by more than one mass media author. Senators Toomey and Manchin must change this language in order for their bill to have any chance of garnering acceptance from even a portion of the U.S. gun rights activism and defense population.
  

In the alternative, the Toomey / Manchin bill contains multiple provisions apparently intended to attract gun rights supporters. For example, there is language that exempts gun sales, gifts, and transfers, between family members, including aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews, from the onerous consignment and background check process the bill requires for other firearm transactions between private citizens. The Toomey / Manchin bill also exempts holders of valid state issued concealed pistol licenses or concealed carry weapon permits, from additional NICS background checks when buying firearms from an FFL gun retailer. There are also additional clauses within the Toomey / Manchin bill that were apparently included to attract: gun rights activists, federally licensed firearm dealers, and the firearm manufacturing industry; in a variety of ways, including the legalization of types of interstate firearms commerce that is currently illegal.

Gun rights erosion has already begun.

However, the Toomey / Manchin bill does not exempt firearm sales between private individuals when the buyer, or both parties, hold a valid state issued concealed pistol license / concealed carry weapon permit. Any gun legislation the Senate considers should include this exemption, first because such a buyer would already have been subject to a thorough background check, and secondary, to assure the public that elected officials do not have some nefarious intents to require that all firearms transactions be processed through FFL firearms retailers, creating a record of all such transactions that under current federal statute are maintained for twenty years. Legislators must explain why they want every gun transaction between private citizens in America to be processed through a federally licensed gun retailer, even when the buyer already holds a valid state issued concealed pistol license / concealed carry weapon permit that provides proof of thorough background checking. Members of the U.S. Congress need to explain how any of these changes to federal law would have prevented or deterred the perpetrators of the mass shooting tragedies in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona, and elsewhere, from occurring, and specifically how they would prevent similar future massacres. The fact is that not one single clause in any of the gun legislation before Congress would have prevented any of those tragedies.

Despite this bill's potentially attractive clauses, as described in the preceding paragraphs and various other similar clauses in the Toomey / Manchin gun bill, the three primary problems with the bill that were described above, over shadow any and all of the potentially positive aspects of this bill. Based upon this further analysis of the Toomey / Manchin gun legislation, Americans should not support it. At this juncture, America’s gun owners and firearm rights defenders should vigorously oppose any and all of the gun legislation currently being considered by the U.S. Congress.

Full Text of the Toomey / Manchin Gun Legislation

http://afirearmrightschronicle.blogspot.com/2013/04/toomey-manchin-senate-gun-legislation.html

A Detailed Analysis of the Toomey / Manchin Gun Legislation Proposal

Update: The full text of the Toomey / Manchin bill is now available (here). Most of this analysis remains consistent with the full text, although further analysis will be required.

On Wednesday Pennsylvania Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin a Democratic Senator from West Virginia announced alternative gun restriction legislation to counter the gun restriction bill introduced by Harry Reid, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader. Senators Toomey and Manchin published copies of the same summary of their bill on each of their official Senate web sites. However, neither Senator published the actual text of their bill, anywhere, to anyone! Until Americans have an opportunity to read the actual contents of the Toomey / Manchin gun legislation proposal, how are voters supposed to develop truly informed opinions about it?

U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R - PA)

While the anti-gun biased mass media is spouting platitudes about so called universal gun purchase background checks, the truth is that the details of many of the bills introduced and published so far, go way beyond additional gun purchase background checks, to criminalization of currently law abiding citizens and bizarre scenarios like the gun consignment process that forms the core of Senator Harry Reid’s onerous S. 649 gun restriction bill.

For the moment, consider just the summary of the Toomey / Manchin proposal, since they have failed to publish the actual text of their bill. The summary of their bill includes a long list of provisions, many of which cover aspects of federal firearms law other than gun purchase background checks. What follows is consideration of each of the items in the Toomey / Manchin bill summary they’ve published, with the discussion of each summary provision on its merits. Despite the overall condemnation of the Toomey / Manchin proposal by many gun rights activists, the summary at least, contains some valid and viable provisions that Congress may want to consider and enact. The Toomey / Manchin bill summary has two sections. The first section, or title, has four (4) provisions. The Second section, or title, has eleven (11) provisions.

The first proposal in the Toomey / Manchin summary requires states to provide complete data about gun purchase prohibiting events to the FBI NICS database such as: convictions for felony and domestic violence crimes; criminal adjudications of not guilty by reason of insanity; court adjudications of mental incompetence; and records of involuntary psychiatric commitments. Under the proposal, the federal government would restrict funds to states that don’t comply. This provision appears in nearly every gun legislation bill introduced in the current Congress thus far. This provision appears to be one that will likely be enacted by Congress, as a way to improve the quality and accuracy of the NICS background check system.

The second proposal in the Toomey / Manchin summary allows Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealers to voluntarily use the FBI NICS database to run background checks on their prospective employees. The biggest question is why FFL dealers seem to be prohibited from doing so under current federal law. The relevant federal statutes are 18 USC § 921 through 18 USC § 929. Further research would be required to determine precisely how much FFL dealers are currently restricted, such that this proposal is necessary. Since the federal firearms statutes probably do contain such restrictions, this aspect of the Toomey / Manchin proposal seems valid and helpful.

The third proposal in the Toomey / Manchin summary is one that gets into controversial territory. Its states that the bill:

“Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).”

Given that the mass media and Congressional politicians constantly use the misnomer, “prevent the mentally ill from getting guns”, there is a basis to assume that it is just as poor a choice of words as those used by the mass media and by many politicians themselves. Federal firearms law DOES NOT prohibit “mentally ill” people in general from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms! The relevant federal statute paragraphs 18 USC § 922(d)(4) and 18 USC § 922(g)(4) explicitly state that only someone who:

“has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;”

is prohibited from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms. Having been diagnosed with a mental illness or disease codified in the Psychiatric Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) does not by itself revoke a person’s firearm rights under federal law. However, there are states whose statutes do currently include such provisions, such as New York and Hawaii. The principle embodied federal law, and in most state law, is that there must have been judicial due process in a court of law before a person’s firearm rights can be revoked, because the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. In this case, the revocation of of someone’s firearm rights is a constitutional deprivation of their liberty under the fifth amendment. Isn’t it interesting that the fifth amendment and the second amendment are associated in this manner?

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D - WV)

So, the third proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill summary may just be poorly written, with the intent that court adjudications of mental incompetence, pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity, or record of an involuntary commitment are not violation physician / patient privacy under the federal HIPAA medical privacy statute. Most states provide a court adjudication and hearing process that preserves constitutional rights before an involuntary commitment court order is issued and recorded.

However, there has been some hysteria created over this item in the Toomey / Manchin bill summary, over the likely incorrect summary that general psychiatric and psychological medical records would be summarily disclosed to the FBI / NICS database as a basis for denial of firearms purchase eligibility. It doesn’t seem likely that is what the bill authors intended, but that cannot be determined until its authors publish the complete text of their bill. An example of this extreme level of concern about this provision as described in the bill summary is expressed in the article at this link, whose headline states,"The Toomey-Manchin Proposal Will Allow Doctors to Block Your Right to Guns".

The fourth proposal in the Toomey / Manchin summary provides veterans an appeal process to contest submission of their names to the FBI  NICS  database, to contest such a submission and to determine the basis for such a submission. It is hard to imagine why anyone would be adverse to the enactment of this provision.

The first proposal of the bill’s second title says that it attempts to close the “gun show loophole” and other “loopholes” in gun transfer transaction law, while creating exemptions for family members. This is where the details of the bill’s actual language will be extremely important. For example, Harry Reid says the same thing publicly, but the language of his bill S. 649, creates a kind of consignment process that requires a gun seller to physically turn over the gun to a gun retailer as part of the sales process. Such a consignment process has onerous implications in many states. In many states a gun retailer is required by state law to have any guns it acquires background checked by local and state police. In other words, when submitted to an FFL dealer the gun itself goes through a background check in some jurisdictions, which in some jurisdictions involves expensive police ballistics testing and so on to determine whether or not it has ever been used in a crime, before the licensed gun dealer is then allowed by law to transfer it out of their inventory. The point is that the provisions in Harry Reid’s S. 649 would lead to far more than additional NICS background checks. Until the actual language of the Toomey / Manchin bill is made public, there isn’t any way to determine how their bill would implement background checks for sales/transfers of privately owned firearms. It will be necessary to wait until the Toomey / Manchin bill is published to assess this aspect of their proposal.

The second proposal in the bill’s second title might actually be a welcome benefit for gun owners. It claims the bill would fix law that govern interstate travel with a firearm. This is extremely important, since the state of New York has been trying to prosecute people whose planes connect through New York State airports, carrying guns in checked luggage that haven’t been licensed in New York. Such behavior by New York authorities is obviously ridiculous. The Toomey / Manchin seems to be an attempt to stop that sort of nonsense by New York law enforcement officials.

The third proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title might also be welcome and helpful to American gun owners. Under this provision, any private gun seller who gets a NICS background check of the gun’s buyer, or sells to a buyer who holds a concealed carry permit / concealed pistol license, would be immune from lawsuits against the seller if the gun were ever used in a crime after the sale of it. Such a provision seems like a good one, and one that Congress should enact.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would enabled license gun dealers to perform gun sales transactions in state outside their state of residence. This is another provision that ought to be welcome, both to gun owners and license gun retailers. This would enable people to attend events like the famous Las Vegas Shot Show and make firearms purchases there regardless of licensed retailer’s or the individual buyer’s state of residence.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would attempt to insure that gun sales at gun shows receive priority from the NICS background check system so that they can be complete as quickly as the system name implies. This too seems like a good proposal, so long as the bill’s language reflects the intentions implied by the summary.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would allow holders of state issued – concealed carry permit / concealed pistol license – to purchase firearms from a licensed gun retailer without waiting for additional NICS background checks. This is another quite welcome proposal. By definition, every state - concealed carry permit / concealed pistol license – process involves extensive background checking using fingerprints in addition to description identification information. Once that is completed for a given individual, redundant NICS checks seem like wasteful. This provision would be helpful to such license holders in jurisdictions like Washingotn State were the number of concealed pistol license holders exceed 400,000! Let’s hope Congress enacts this provision, regardless of the outcome of the Senate floor debates on the various gun legislation bills.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would allow interstate handgun sales. This is another great provision. With current internet technology manufacturers of rifles nationwide advertise and sell their firearms nationally. A buyer pays for the rifle on the web site, designates a local FFL gun retailer who will perform the transfer to the buyer, and the manufacturer ships the rifle to the retailer who performs the FBI NICS check on the buyer and collects a “transfer” fee. In most cases the “transfer” fees are between $25.00 and $50.00. There are even small FFL gun retailers who specialize almost entirely in processing transfers, rather than maintaining their own inventory. Expansion of the interstate firearms transfer system to handguns would likely provide a welcome boost to the firearms industry. There isn’t any logical reason that handguns are currently treated differently from rifles and other long guns.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would enable active military to purchase firearms both in their home states and in the state where they are on active duty. Why this isn’t currently possible is a mystery, but this bill would write it explicitly into the federal statutes so that military personnel would no longer be restricted as they are currently.

The next proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title would exempt family transfers and a limited set of other transfers from FBI NICS background checks. This too is a welcome provision. However, only the details of the bills language can determine whether or not its authors have created it in a welcome and workable way.

The last proposal in the Toomey / Manchin bill’s second title appears to be an attempt to insure that firearms sales records are not misused, or used to create privacy violating databases, by creating  a federal felony with a fifteen (15) prison term penalty for doing so.

While there has been a lot of animosity expressed by many gun rights supporters about the Toomey / Manchin proposal, including groups such as the NRA, with the exception of questions about the issue of medical records, it may be possible that their bill would be an acceptable improvement to federal firearms sales laws. It will only be possible to make a final assement of the bill once Toomey / Manchin bill actually publish it. Why Toomey and Manchin have yet to publish the complete text of their gun legislation bill has to be the most urgent question in gun politics at the moment. Only time will tell, and only the actual text of their bill will determine if it is one that would be beneficial to America, and specifically to American gun owners. Let’s hope Toomey and Manchin get their bill published soon before people get apoplectic waiting for them to do so.

Pat Toomey - Summary of Toomey / Manchin Gun Legislation Proposal
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965

Harry Reid's Gun Legislation Proposal - Senate Bill S. 649
http://afirearmrightschronicle.blogspot.com/2013/03/s649.html

Full Text of Toomey / Manchin Gun Legislation Bill
http://afirearmrightschronicle.blogspot.com/2013/04/toomey-manchin-senate-gun-legislation.html

Senator Tom Coburn's Alternative Expanded Background Checks Proposal - S.AMDT.727

Senator Tom Coburn's Alternative Expanded Background Checks Proposal  - S.AMDT.727

    TITLE II--EXPANDING NICS CHECKS FOR THE SAFE TRANSFER OF FIREARMS

   SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this title is to extend check procedures under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to promote the safe transfer of firearms in the secondary market.

   SEC. 202. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by repealing subsection (s);

[Page: S2763]

    (2) by redesignating subsection (t) as subsection (s);

    (3) in subsection (s), as redesignated--

    (A) in paragraph (3)(C)(ii), by striking ``(as defined in subsection (s)(8))''; and

    (B) by adding at the end the following:

    ``(7) In this subsection, the term `chief law enforcement officer' means the chief of police, the sheriff, or an equivalent officer or the designee of any such individual.

    ``(8) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall not charge a user fee for a background check conducted pursuant to this subsection.''; and

    (4) by inserting after subsection (s), as redesignated, the following:

    ``(t)(1) In this subsection, the term `covered transfer'--

    ``(A) means a transfer that the transferor, the transferee, or both intends to be permanent, including a transfer by sale, pledge, trade, gift, or consignment; and

    ``(B) does not include--

    ``(i) a transfer between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law;

    ``(ii) a transfer made from a decedent's estate by bequest, intestate succession, or by operation of law; or

    ``(iii) a temporary transfer of a firearm, unless the transferor knows or has reason to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law.

    ``(2) Beginning on the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of the Gun Rights and Safety Act of 2013 or 30 days after the date on which the consumer portal established under paragraph (3) is operational, whichever is later, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to make a covered transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless--

    ``(A) the covered transfer is made after a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s), if upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee complies with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee's business inventory to the unlicensed transferee;

    ``(B) the covered transfer is made in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General under paragraph (3) and after the unlicensed transferee has undergone a background check;

    ``(C) the covered transfer is made--

    ``(i) after the transferee has presented to the transferor a permit for transfer of a firearm that--

    ``(I) allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm; and

    ``(II) was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State, or political subdivision thereof, in which the transfer is to take place; and

    ``(ii) in a State in which the law of the State allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm, if the law of the State, or political subdivision of a State, that issued the permit requires that such permit is issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the unlicensed transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law; or

    ``(D) if the State in which the covered transfer takes place has enacted legislation that requires an unlicensed transferor to comply with subsection (s) before the transfer takes place to assure the unlicensed transferee is not prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm--

    ``(i) the covered transfer is made between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee who reside in the same State, and takes place in such State; or

    ``(ii) if the unlicensed transferor and the unlicensed transferee reside in different States and the States have entered into a reciprocal agreement, the covered transfer takes place in either of such States.

    ``(3)(A) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Gun Rights and Safety Act of 2013, the Attorney General shall, using competitive bidding practices, authorize the establishment of an Internet-based, consumer portal that will allow a person who is not licensed under this chapter to run a self-background check using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for the purpose of conducting a covered transfer under this subsection.

    ``(B) In authorizing the establishment of the consumer portal required under subparagraph (A), the Attorney General shall ensure that--

    ``(i) the consumer portal may be accessed through an Internet website, mobile application, or other means determined appropriate by the Attorney General;

    ``(ii) an unlicensed transferee who completes a background check using the consumer portal and would not be in violation of subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or of State law by receiving a firearm shall be provided a temporary permit, valid for a 30-day period beginning on the date on which the background check is completed, that--

    ``(I) signifies that the unlicensed transferee is not prohibited from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm; and

    ``(II) may be used, during the 30-day period, by the unlicensed transferee for a covered transfer of a firearm under this subsection, in compliance with any applicable State or Federal law;

    ``(iii) the temporary permit described in clause (ii) shall--

    ``(I) be made available to the unlicensed transferee as an electronic printable document and be accessible through an Internet website, mobile application, or other means determined appropriate by the Attorney General; and

    ``(II) contain--

    ``(aa) the name of the unlicensed transferee;

    ``(bb) the date of expiration of the permit;

    ``(cc) a unique pin number that can be used to verify the validity of the permit by the unlicensed transferor of a firearm; and

    ``(dd) any other protections necessary to prevent fraud;

    ``(iv) the consumer portal be designed in a manner that allows for maximum privacy and security protections so that a user of the consumer portal may only run a self-background check and not run a background check on any other person;

    ``(v) any personally identifiable information obtained by the consumer portal from an individual, including names, physical locations, mailing addresses, Internet protocol addresses, and other unique identifiers, shall be destroyed within 24 hours from the time at which the information was obtained, except for--

    ``(I) information required for the unlicensed transferor to verify the validity of the permit, including--

    ``(aa) the unique serial number assigned to a temporary permit; and

    ``(bb) the date of birth associated with the unique serial number; and

    ``(II) any record of a person who--

    ``(aa) attempts to complete a background check; and

    ``(bb) would be in violation of subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 if the person received or possessed a firearm; and

    ``(vi) any information described in clause (v)(I) shall be destroyed at the end of the 30-day period described in clause (ii).

    ``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, except for section 923(m), the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

    ``(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring licensees to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (2)(A).

    ``(C) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring persons not licensed under this chapter to keep records of background checks or firearms transfers.

    ``(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraphs (2)(A).

    ``(5) No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may--

    ``(A) require that any record or portion thereof generated by a consumer portal be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

    ``(B) use a consumer portal to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

    ``(6) The Attorney General shall establish, and make available to the public, a sample form, which may be used, on a voluntary basis, by a transferor to document information relating to each firearm transfer conducted by the transferor, for the purpose of assisting law enforcement officers during a criminal investigation.

    ``(7)(A) If the consumer portal established under this subsection is shut down for a period of more than 7 days, this subsection shall have no force or effect during the period for which the consumer portal is non-operational.

    ``(B) If the consumer portal established under this subsection is ever permanently shut down or defunded, this subsection shall have no force or effect beginning on the date on which the consumer portal is non-operational.

    ``(8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), paragraph (2) shall not apply to a covered transfer described in subparagraph (D) in a State that has enacted legislation that--

    ``(i) establishes requirements for background checks for covered transfers described in subparagraph (D) that are similar to the requirements described in this subsection; and

    ``(ii) allows for the State to have primary enforcement authority of covered transfers described in subparagraph (D) occurring within the State.

    ``(B) If the Attorney General determines that legislation enacted by a State does not establish requirements for background checks for covered transfers described in subparagraph (D) that are similar to the requirements described in this subsection--

    ``(i) the Attorney General shall notify the State of the determination; and

[Page: S2764]

    ``(ii) beginning on the date that is 1 year after the date on which the Attorney General notifies the State under clause (i), paragraph (2) shall apply to a covered transfer in the State unless the State has enacted legislation that establishes requirements for background checks for covered transfers that are, in the determination of the Attorney General, similar to the requirements described in this subsection.

    ``(C) In establishing requirements that are similar to the requirements under this subsection, a State--

    ``(i) may allow for geographic or technological exemptions for rural areas within the State that are remote and lack the technological capabilities needed to access the consumer portal; and

    ``(ii) may impose penalties for violations of the requirements established by the State that are stronger than the penalties imposed under this chapter for violations of the requirements under this subsection.

    ``(D) A covered transfer described in this subparagraph is a covered transfer between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee that occurs--

    ``(i) at any venue where firearms transactions take place or where firearms transferors or transferees are brought together, including at a gun show or event, or on the curtilage thereof; or

    ``(ii) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other public listing on the Internet, in a publication, at a forum, or in any manner accessible to the general public by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.''.