Below The Radar: Firearm Due Process Protection Act

Millions of law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, as intimated by the president's comment to reporters. (Dave Workman)
Millions of law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, as intimated by the president's comment to reporters. (Dave Workman)

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- There is no denying that anti-Second Amendment extremists have wanted to keep law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Ideally, as Sarah Brady famously put it, they want a “needs-based” licensing scheme. There have been numerous bills introduced, like the Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act, which would create such restrictive schemes.

Right now, what exists is the National Instant Check System. The system is not without flaws, and it certainly needs improvements.

One such improvement is proposed by Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN), HR 1817, known as the Firearm Due Process Protection Act. According to a release by Representative Emmer in 2016, when he introduced the legislation in a previous Congress, the legislation will do several things, all of which are benefits to law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their rights.

First, let’s lay it out what is being addressed: A NICS denial can be a big deal. It is a warning that a prohibited person is trying to buy a firearm. But there are numerous cases of erroneous denials, which often have needed to be cleared up. They can be cleared up, though.

“The primary reasons for successful appeals are mismatched fingerprints and inaccurate criminal history records, and currently the amount of erroneous denials is not public information,” the 2016 release said. But the Obama administration halted the appeals process.

This legislation requires a response to an appeal within 60 days. The bill also provides for people to sue in court to rectify erroneous information if the FBI fails to do so, and for the case to be heard in 30 days. Most importantly, in those proceedings, the text of the legislation states that the government “shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is ineligible to receive or possess a firearm.”

The bill also provides for an award of attorney’s fees should someone appealing prevail in court, and it requires the FBI to report on the disposition of appeals as well. These are all very important, especially when it comes to establishing and reinforcing some constitutional basics.

First, it places the burden of proof on the government to deny a constitutional right. This is in marked contrast to the “needs-based” licensing schemes that Sarah Brady once wanted, which forces people to prove they’d need a given firearm. Second, it also holds the government responsible for when its mistakes cause law-abiding citizens to be delayed or denied in exercising their rights.

The Firearm Due Process Protection Act doesn’t create a perfect scenario, but it represents a step forward. In addition, it also would expose anti-Second Amendment extremists as wanting to deny people the ability to own firearms. Second Amendment supporters should contact their Senators and Representative and politely urge passage of HR 1817. In addition, they should also ask for other improvements, like overriding the licensing regimes and waiting periods in states where such schemes exist.


Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
nobodyuknow
nobodyuknow
1 month ago

NICS HELL!!! Read the Second Amendment!!! ” . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” As an individual citizen, if you demand this right, the government WILL KILL YOU!!!

a.x. perez
a.x. perez
1 month ago

Don’t like need based licensing. It is not about why the person getting the license needs a gun, it’s about why the person granting the license needs to let the person asking for the license have a gun. Seems raw to me.

Tionico
Tionico
1 month ago

These are a few nic eimprovements. But there are two improvements that have never been put forward both of which would solve huge problems. First, eliminate the entire section that gets all the details on WHAT is being purchased. There is NO NEED for this esection. This is suppsed to be a BACKGROUND CHECK for the PURCHASER, Once he is cleared to PURCHASE any firearm, what difference is made whether it is this one or four of that one? NONE. This keeps all of us nervous, as it will eventually lead to a national master list of who has what… Read more »

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago
Reply to  Tionico

Good point! Background check is for the person and not the gun. But everything government is convoluted and confusing on purpose. If you can’t restrict the person, then the gun, then the ammunition. It makes it easier for the left to have all that information in one place anyway.

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

All that information in one place —– IS ILLEGAL !!!!!!!!

MICHAEL J
MICHAEL J
1 month ago

All systems have flaws and the current one is ripe with them. An improvement in federal gun laws may very well benefit the 49 states. But here in California where anti-gun laws are stacked like cord wood, mistakes happen all the time and because of that, it’s easier to deny than to approve. The state’s ammunition background check is a good example. I have witnessed a neighbor trying to purchase a handgun, experience a delay from the background check, finally cleared and approved only to have the FFL refuse to release the weapon based on their own initiative. This neighbor… Read more »

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago
Reply to  MICHAEL J

The East Coast DemocRAT national communist in Maryland have already past this LUDICROUS “law”. The Police have ALREADY murdered a gentleman in Montgomery County using the GUN CONFISCATION “LAW”.

RJL
RJL
1 month ago

Anti-constitutionalist’s sense of morality is situational, based on incident and emotion, instead of rooted in God’s word and law.
Anti-constitutionalist’s stand for nothing. The situation determines their support for an issue and their emotions rule, not reason and rationality.
Moreover, they recognize the contradiction, but still cling to their situational justice. Situational justice is the tool of dictators, tyrants, despots, and unjust, unrighteous monarchs. It has no place in a free constitutional republic. In which the United States of America is……………….
Anti-Constitutionalist’s=Anti-Americans=Enemies of the United States…

UncleT
UncleT
1 month ago

“Right now, what exists is the National Instant Check System. The system is not without flaws, and it certainly needs improvements.”

NO, The NICS needs abolished, not “fixed”

It’s unconstitutional, it’s denied millions of peaceful Americans their 2A rights and you do not ask your tyrant for permission to buy, sell, to carry in any fashion and is unconscionable that so called 2A supporters keep surrendering to this right to big Totalitarian Govt’s.

Will
Will
1 month ago
Reply to  UncleT

,….Abolish the criminal corrupt ATF,Rescind NFA!