AZAndy
Member
That took a lot of work, and I'm grateful for your effort. Thank you. It's very interesting to look through.
Maryland, SB160, would be a step forward for the "Free State".
Being a former Annapolis resident, any baby steps look good.
Trust me no one would like to see that passed any more than I would. I could travel down the east coast without having to go AROUND MD but I honestly don't think the bill has a chance of passing .... sadly
HB0177 would allow those with concealed carry permits to forgo background checks when buying a firearm
This Bill provides that a currently certified law enforcement officer is exempt from the requirements of a background check when the officer applies for a concealed firearm permit.
Minor correction. HB0177 allows currently certified Utah LEOs to buy a gun or get a CFP without having to go through a background check:
From http://le.utah.gov/~2017/bills/static/HB0177.html
Current CFP holders are already exempted from the background check.
YGBSMHB0271 would require all ammunition sold in the state to have individual serial numbers
Basically, unless a regulatory agency is expressly forbidden from taking an action in support of a law, it may take that action (the exact opposite of how constitutional restraint on our governing systems has always worked, where they are only granted powers explicitly delegated to them by the people). How convenient for congress; it no longer mattered exactly what was in their bills; if vague enough, they could get the desired outcome through regulatory action without any political risk.Justice Stevens said:First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
(Sec. 103) This bill revises federal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to require a federal agency to make all preliminary and final factual determinations based on evidence and to consider: (1) the legal authority under which a rule may be proposed; (2) the specific nature and significance of the problem the agency may address with a rule; (3) whether existing rules have created or contributed to the problem the agency may address with a rule and whether such rules may be amended or rescinded; (4) any reasonable alternatives for a new rule; and (5) the potential costs and benefits associated with potential alternative rules, including impacts on low-income populations.
That bit right there forces the ATF to be a good bit more deliberative in its course of action; they could be challenged immediately & overturned unless they have their arguments squared away & published. No more "indicating holes on a lower makes it a machinegun because we say so," no more "a muzzle brake longer than 4 inches constitutes a silencer in our expert opinion which the court is bound by law to respect even though we're also the ones enforcing it," no more "we have to ban this entire class of 'assault shotguns' because of some imagined crime wave."The bill allows immediate judicial review of interim rules, other than in cases involving national security interests, issued without compliance with the notice requirements of this bill.
There's a ban on the military selling brass? Ya might want to inform the military about that because there's tons available for sale.
AL
SB24 is a constitutional carry bill
This is good work, and its hard to keep on top of one state, let alone all 57, er I mean 50 of them... Seriously, its a lot like herding cats or nailing jelly to a tree.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this one, as good as it is, isn't going to the passed any time soon. As usual, the culprit is politics. In Alabama, a gun friendly, shall issue state, carry permits are issued by the County Sheriff. You go in, fill out the form, pay them a fee between $12-$20 per year for up to 5 years worth, check your e-mail on your phone while they run you through NCIC, and walk out with your photo ID permit. I went down with my wife when she renewed the other day, and it took about 20 minutes from parking the car until leaving the building. The problem is that the Alabama Code of 1975, which is written so loosely as to almost be a joke in some places, says that your permit fee goes to the Sheriff. Here, if you pay by check, you make it out to the "Sheriff's Fund."
And herein lies the problem.
The Alabama Sheriff's Assn is not about to give up that kind of money. Last year, Mobile County issued 36000 permits. If they all went for 1 year at a time, that ads up to $720000. This is essentially a Sheriff's slush fund, and there is no way ANY politician is giving up that kind of money. Then we have to deal with the lack of logic that comes up every time this bill does. "If we don't have a permit system, people can carry guns who have had no background check. CRIMINALS could be carrying guns." The problem is that criminals ARE carrying weapons, hence the need that the rest of the populace feels the need to be armed. When it was suggested that the law says that its legal to carry on "one's own property" and that your car could be considered to be your "property" the Executive Director of the Alabama Sheriff's Association, yelled at a reporter, "Your car IS NOT your PROPERTY!" I honestly think he was trying to draw a distinction between real estate and other chattel, but I don't think his answer could be scripted to sound worse.
To make matters worse, anytime the Sheriff here is questioned by the legislature, they go to him as the expert to interpret what he says. The dog and pony show goes something like this...
Sheriff, do we really need to pay a $20\yr fee to exercise a constitutional right?
Why, sure you do. If you didn't, why, ANYBODY could be carrying a gun, and by paying me $20.00 to run a background check and give you a snazzy little photo id, I'm keeping you safe.
Oh, we never thought of it that way.
Personally, I don't see the point of permits in a shall issue state. If you have no disqualifiers, you know convictions or such, a background check and card make no difference and merely become a source of revenue. If you were to fail the background check because you were a truly bad guy, or gal, you'd carry sans permit anyway. (I can honestly say that I've never arrested anyone for a crime of violence and found a pistol permit on them.) If it was such a big problem, carrying without a permit would be more than a class C misdemeanor...