Below The Radar: Gun Owner Privacy Act

Take Action Time to Act
Take Action Time to Act

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- With a lot of anti-Second Amendment extremists trying to get firearms registration by various back-door methods involving records from the National Instant Check System, it is worth noting that they are not the only ones pushing legislation involving NICS. To paraphrase Gandalf, there are forces at work in the halls of Congress besides those that hate the Second Amendment.

One of the bills Second Amendment supporters can turn to is S 4040, the Gun Owner Privacy Act. This was introduced by Senator Kelly Loeffler (R-GA). Loeffler replaced Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), a Second Amendment champion who resigned due to Parkinson’s Disease. For being in office less than seven months, Loeffler’s already marking herself as a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights with this legislation.

When you look at the text, it carries some very strong provisions when it comes to addressing privacy concerns about NICS, especially when compared to the current text of 18 USC 922(t). Now, the current text requires the destruction of all records of transactions that don’t violate the law. The reason for that is clear: Those who are lawfully exercising constitutional rights should not have the government keeping records about said rights.

The Gun Owner Privacy Act adds a new section to 18 USC 922(t), which prohibits spending federal funds on any background check system that doesn’t immediately destroy records of transactions that don’t violate the law. This is huge – it eliminates any wiggle room for creating a back-door registration system. In fact, it is the polar opposite of Carolyn Maloney's NICS Review Act.

But there is another benefit as well. Loeffler’s bill also prohibits charging any fee for the use of NICS. Again, we get down to a principle – people shouldn’t have to pay to be able to exercise a constitutional right. In a very real sense, this is akin to charging a poll tax so that people could vote. The poll tax was emphatically rejected with the 24th Amendment.

We should also note that the objections to ensuring the privacy of law-abiding gun owners are one of the biggest “tells” that you can get from anti-Second Amendment extremists, and objections to prohibiting a fee for using NICS run a close second as well. It isn’t just that they want to ban so-called “assault weapons,” they don’t think owning a firearm is a right at all.

When you look at some of the more “ambitious” proposals from Elizabeth Warren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Cory Booker, or even Tammy Duckworth (who teamed up with Bobby Rush), that attitude is palpable in the number of hoops they want law-abiding citizens to jump through. The high crime rates in Baltimore, Chicago, and elsewhere that already have strict laws show that their agenda isn’t about safety.

Second Amendment supporters ought to contact their Senators and Representative to politely urge them to support passage of S 4040. The Gun Owner Privacy Act isn’t perfect, but it makes things much better for those who exercise their Second Amendment rights.


About Harold HutchisonHarold 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
6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Get Out
Get Out
3 months ago

Hmm, they should just post the names, street address, city and state of those that don’t own any firearms or have any firearms in their homes or business’s first. It would be interesting to see if the anti-gunners would want their home GFZ information to be public for criminals to see. It’d be like bee’s to honey or in this case criminals to their unarmed victims. The anti’s would see why we don’t want our info out there either?

Tionico
Tionico
3 months ago

This is a good nest step. Once the records MUST be immediately destroyed, it will set the stage for the next step. That would be to eliminate entirely the page that records the specific details of the specific firearm being transferred. The system was set up as a “background check” OF THE TRANFEREE (buyer). If he is found prohibited and a DENY code is issued, he can’t buy ANYTHING that is a firearm. If he is cleared and gets the PROCEED code, he is legal to buy ANYTHING. So why even provide specifics on WHAT he is getting? Makes no… Read more »

AJChwick
AJChwick
3 months ago

“But there is another benefit as well. Loeffler’s bill also prohibits charging any fee for the use of NICS.” I have some difficulty with the highlighted above text. Does that apply to the FFL Dealer as well? I understand, as an FFL holder, that when I sell a firearm, the NICS check is part of my sale, hence I, and I assume most others, do not add a fee for the NICS check. But if I am doing a Transfer, or facilitating a Private Sale, NICS check, does that language imply/mean that I can not charge a fee, for the… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 months ago
Reply to  AJChwick

Since this law is at federal level, if passed, it ONY is directed at the system itself. It assures NICS/FBI/FedGov cannot ever charge a fee for a check THROUGH the system, It would not bind an FFL from charging a fee to a retail customer for hIS services. You could simpy rename the fee on your invoice, for “transfer processing fee”. instead of “background check fee”. Your paperwork involves much more than just the 4473 and NICS check. Charge for THOSE services, but do not charge fo rthe phone call/online NICS check. The intent seems to be to prohibit the… Read more »

nrringlee
nrringlee
3 months ago

Some Progressive Utopias have already trumped this provision by developing their own state level clearance system. Kalifornia did so years ago specifically to provide a means to do back door registration. Now, every firearm is declared on the Dealer Record of Sale transaction by nomenclature and serial number and the state maintains that data. Also, if you want to buy ammo in Kalifornia you must submit to another permission slip system that compares your registered firearms by caliber to the ammo you wish to purchaces. If your .357 predates the DROS registration system and you have not self-denounced it to… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 months ago
Reply to  nrringlee

Yup. Until enough California rsidents wake up and take action, that nazi state will continue to turn up the gas on the hob until no one can even have any guns. I’m pretty sure it would be “illegal” to buy a box as a gift for a relative who happens to own a firearm ff that caliber.

Can’t wait to learn that the Gabblins Nuisance has been dethroned, along with Becerra the Beast, his evil corrupt sidekick AtG.