Jump to content

Talk:Firearm Owners Protection Act/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Commentary on machine gun ban, should be moved to ban on automatic firearms section?

Regarding these fully-automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the U.S., political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[3]:85

IMO this blurb isn't appropriate to the federal firearms law reform paragraph, it seems a bit tangential in its current location. Should be moved to the "ban on new automatic firearms" section. 174.31.5.144 (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Contradictory paragraph

In 1999, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Lautenberg Amendment, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), violated the Second and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and was therefore unconstitutional, in United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson.[11] This decision was subsequently reversed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals two years later; see U.S. v. Emerson.[12] The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, a necessary first step for further examination by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the domestic violence ban stands, but is binding on federal courts only in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Which is it? Says 5th Circuit reversed District Court decision that held Lautenberg Amendment was unconstitutional....then subsequently says 5th Circuit ruling that overturns the Lautenberg Amendment 'stands'. 38.104.120.214 (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm equally confused by the final sentence in this paragraph: does Lautenberg apply in LA,MS,TX, or not? Or does the original Emerson ruling not apply outside those states? Steve8394 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I worked on it a bit, to hopefully clarify. I think the article as written was trying to go into too much detail. The Fifth Circuit decision did not "overturn" the Lautenberg Amendment; the Fifth Circuit upheld it. Because the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, the Fifth Circuit decision stands, but if you want to keep it simple, maybe we do not need to elaborate to that extent in the article.
I deleted the reference to the District Court's decision, which was indeed reversed by the Court of Appeals. Because the Court of Appeals upheld the Lautenberg Amendment, the Amendment does apply in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi (unless of course the Fifth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled that decision by virtue of some later court case -- and I haven't researched that).
Anyway, assuming that the Emerson decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has not since been overruled, the decision is mandatory authority only in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Of course, the Lautenberg Amendment itself would also be constitutional in any other area of the country where there is no court decision ruling the Amendment to be unconstitutional -- but that is a separate concept. Famspear (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeal

Is there any end in sight or sunset time for this law? If not how would it be repealed?

I dont believe this law has a sunset. Only congress can repeal laws. The supreme court could declare it unconstitutional (2nd amendment) but dont hold your breath. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.128.80 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Ron Paul introduced HR 1096 (Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)). This would repeal some gun control laws, but I'm not sure what if any part of this act. --Kalmia 05:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It would most definitely repeal the Hughes Amendment (MG Ban.) Not sure about the rest.Tr1290 (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prohibited Persons

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.

Wouldnt this cover just about any minor crime (misdemeanor)? Shoplifting for example. I thought only felons were prevented from owning guns at the Federal level? Is this correct?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.128.80 11:24, 13 February 2007 (talk)

In most jurisdictions a misdemeanor by definition is crime for which the sentence is less than 12 months. So, no this act would not cover them, only felonies. The Lautenberg ammendment however, included some nonsense about domestic abuse that covers any abuse conviction. Cheers. L0b0t 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well here in Massachusetts 1st offense drunk driving (misdemeanor) is punishable by 2.5 years max. There are other misdemeanors that can get you 2+ max. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.128.80 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

"Mental defective"

Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.

What does that mean in this context? Does it include any the APA might include in the DSM: including ADHD, Asperger's Syndrome, Gender Identity Disorder, depression, and OCD? Is it only cases where the person is detatched from reality, insane, so to speak, as say, schizophrenia? Is it for conditions which might lead to violence (low IQ, nonunderstanding of actions and consequences, psychosis)? Is the definition left to the courts or states, or what? --71.192.116.13 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


I second your question. I'm removing the link to the mental illness page for now. Perhaps somebody can find a reference to clarify waht this means? Krushia 06:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term comes from the earlier Gun Control Act of 1968, and was archaic and vague even then. In practice, this disqualification usually applies to people who have been involuntarily committed or have been declared dangerous by a court. Any lesser standard would violate the person's right to due process. Elmo iscariot (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlawful user or addicted...

* Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.

Am I the only one who sees this as a bit ironic or stupid? Someone who is addicted to "legal" drugs like alcohol are ok but a junkie cant own a gun? Or someone who was prescribed to some highly addicive drugs like OxyContin got addicted to them (from not abusing them) cant own a firearm?

I don't understand how this part of the law is supposed to be enforced. Can someone tell me how do they determine if you are an unlawful user or addicted to "any" controlled substance? Do they give you a drug test? Do they hook you up to a lie detecter, give you a list of the chemicals on the controlled substances act and ask, "Are you addicted to anything on the list?"

Why discriminate against illegal drugs anyway? Don't know about the rest of you but I would trust someone addicted to heroin with a gun over an alcoholic any day. --Arm 07:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It is enforced by a question on Federal Form 4473 that you fill out at the store. One of the questions is: Are you a user of or addicted to any controlled substance? If you answer yes, they can not sell you a firearm. Cheers. L0b0t 15:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere buried in their logic its another 'safety' issue. Some even blame their pen/pencil for spelling errors.

ArmedCitizen 20:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Much like the tax laws requiring you to claim any unlawfully gained income (like from drug sales or bank robberies and the like), it's most likely there to act as an extra charge on a suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.64.3.68 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Does any of this actually matter, in terms of the article? It is the wording of the law. That it's hard to enforce and doesn't meet your standards of logical defense doesn't affect that in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.1.217 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Digression: Regarding the comment about the laws requiring you to claim unlawfully gained income, the Internal Revenue Code does not really distinguish between lawful income and unlawful income; it's all required to be reported (except where otherwise specifically excluded from income under the Code, such as gifts, etc.). Congress didn't write any specific provision into the Code for the purpose of being able to catch people engaging in crimes.
And, under U.S. federal income tax law, it is LEGAL for you to report the AMOUNT of the illegal income without disclosing the SOURCE of the income -- as long as you don't LIE about the source. Famspear (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The use of the word "gun lobby"

I think "gun lobby" is a loaded term that often screams POV.

when?

maybe my eye slipped — does the article say anywhere when FOPA was enacted? —Tamfang 17:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Citation added (best info I have is that it was signed into law on May 19, 1986). Yours, Famspear 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit

edited Machine Gun Ban section to clarify the differences between GCA and FOPA as relates to private registration of NFA weapons Exdmd 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of the article, an encyclopedia should not be a venue for unsolicited "advise" or opinion, such as the following text:

Italic textit is advisable for travelers with firearms to maintain a low profile while passing through any such states that have severe restrictions on gun ownership.Italic text

Registry prohibition

This section puzzles me a small bit. The wording of the article in question states "...the United States, or any State..." which suggests to me that a registry of "firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions or disposition" is a strict no-no. However, in the state of Michigan, anyone who purchases a handgun using a CCW permit is required to register the firearm with the Michigan State Police. RI-012 (2/2005) states:

"A person who is issued a concealed pistol license after July 1, 2001, is not required to obtain a license to purchase prior to purchasing a pistol. However, the purchaser is required to present the pistol to their local law enforcement agency to have the pistol inspected. The law enforcement agency is required to register the pistol with the Michigan State Police.

In addition, if the purchaser has a concealed pistol license in lieu of a purchase permit, the seller must complete a pistol sales record. These forms are available at local police or sheriff departments, or from the Michigan State Police web site at http://www.michigan.gov/msp. The seller keeps one copy of the form, the purchaser keeps one copy, and a third copy is sent to Michigan State Police, Firearms Records Unit, 7150 Harris Drive, Lansing MI 48913."

This whole system seems to be in direct contention with the registry prohibition, and I'm uncertain of what allows the State to apparently defy this provision. If the law has been changed so that registries are now allowed by the State, then the article should have a mention of this or something, I'd think.

Does anyone know the answer to this? Could they perhaps put it in the article? 69.14.85.112 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It just means that the federal government cannot require that records be kept by a state - I'm not sure it bears explanation in the article, it's in the plain meaning of the statute: "No such rule or regulation... may require that records... be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof." It refers to federal rules and regulations, not state statutes.--24.255.175.182 (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Michigan's handgun registration was grandfathered in because it was established BEFORE fopa (1927). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.84.16.122 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"restrictions on the constitution"

With these considerations in mind, it is advisable for travelers with firearms to maintain a low profile while passing through any such states that have severe restrictions on the Constitution.

That's a pretty loaded statement right there. Doesn't seem too "neutral" to me ... 72.79.208.130 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to make a US verses Emerson page and correct the citation in the in line text

As i can only get on here once in a while someone needs to make a us verses emerson case page and link this article to it. sorry I have to go now. Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.189.229 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced POV (Neutrality?)

I'm not advocating a particular side in the gun-control vs. gun-rights debate, but this article is very obviously written with a bias towards gun-rights. For example,

Controversy exists regarding the validity of the [Hughes] amendment's inclusion into FOPA.

The source cited only mentions the circumstances of the introduction and vote for the amendments, and does not specifically mention any controversy, despite alluding to it. The statement about controversy thus appears to be a conclusion of the author of that section of the article. Has there been any debate about the issue? Have there been verifiable sources making the statement that this is controversial? If so, they should be cited, otherwise it should be removed.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons." In order to comply with the prohibition on a Federal registry of non-NFA items, records of background checks are legally required to be destroyed after 24 hours, however the BATFE has constantly made excuses to keep the computer records longer than the law allows for "demographic and census reasons" and due to this the law isn't properly enforced. The proper enforcement of this provision has been a goal of gun rights groups.

There are no sources cited for this at all, and while the Brady bill is easy to find information on, the statement that the BATFE has been consistent in skirting the rules on destroying records is going to be much harder to prove. At a minimum, there should be sources cited stating that they believe this to be the case and the article should clearly indicate that this is an opinion of some in the gun rights movement. If there are verifiable cases of this, they should be cited from verifiable sources. Without any citations, this is either hearsay, or the opinion of the author of the section, and is not something that belongs in an encyclopedic article about a US law. Perhaps the specific controversies should either be moved to their own section, or moved to an article specifically about them. In any case, they definitely need citations. --66.69.248.6 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I came in to flag this same section. I think "made excuses" and "properly enforced" POV, especially without citations and generally agree with the above. Ogre lawless (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

An article about the Second Amendment is an article about the official statement recognizing a natural right to bear arms. Simply stating that the Amendment exists is a de facto argument against the legal restriction of gun-rights. Morally reprehensible or not, the government simply does not have the right. Should there be more citations? Absolutely.

I also had some issues with the neutrality of this article. In particular, the passage

...permitted travel between states supportive of Second Amendment rights even through those areas less supportive of these rights, and addressed several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights.

seems rather slanted. "Supportive of second amendment rights" sounds very favorable; something like "with fewer restrictions on firearm ownership" would be more neutral. Also, the reference to "several other issues that had effectively restricted Second Amendment rights" represents a serious legal conclusion with no citation. Replace "effectively" with "arguably," perhaps. Finally, the article does not seem to mention any opposition to the bill. I assume there was a fair bit of it, and it should get at least a quick outline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.104.7 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Safe Passage

the safe passage section needs some work. It states that overnight trips are "presumably" covered as normal travel on long trips. This is actually false. See the case of Gregg Revell. He was arrested in NJ for illegal possession of a gun. He asserted that he was covered under FOPA's safe passage provision. As of March of 3/23/2010, the 3rd circuit found specifically that safe passage did not apply to him in part because he had stayed overnight at a hotel. The 3rd Circuit's decision can be found here : http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=09-2029&s=NJ&d=43309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.165.67 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not false - that case doesn't make the point you are implying. The plaintiff failed to comply with the 'Safe Passage' legislation because he had the firearm and ammunition in his possession and directly accessible in his hotel room, even if he didn't actually choose to access it. Were he travelling in a car and had left it properly secured in the boot of the car, he would have been fine to stay overnight, since he would have been complying with the law as written. A better strategy, in his case, would have been to approach local law enforcement, explain the situation and request they secure the items overnight, if they have any concerns about his transport arrangement. Alternatively, he could simply have secured them in the hotel safe while staying and then had them immediately moved back to his luggage when he boarded the shuttle to the airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.54.225.206 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Machine Gun Ban

I went ahead and rewrote this section as it erroneously stated that the machine gun ban had to do with the registration tax and forms (which would lead one to believe that the machine gun ban is implicit as opposed to explicit). Also noted the controversy about this ban and how it was added to FOPA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.247.139 (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This section refers twice to "Recorded vote 74" without similar reference to "Recorded vote 73". Typo? It's not logical in current form. Rackham (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC) 

I also believe this section contains a typo. It appears that one of the instances of "Recorded vote 74" should be replaced with "Recorded vote 73".


Agree on the "Recorded vote 74" duplicate reference. I believe the first instance of "74" should probably be "73" (it follows logically), but am not willing to change it based on what I "believe." (Or on "logic" for that matter!).Jororo05 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read and reread this section several times. As a whole, and in particular the last paragraph, it doesn't make sense. It is impossible to understand what the law says about machine guns from this section. Can someone who knows what the law does say clean it up? I don't think the minutiae about the various votes on amendments is relevant, but if it is the reason why is not clear.JakartaDean (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The intention of this paragraph was obviously to imply that the amendment was passed improperly. But since it doesn't cite any reliable source which has that opinion, it violates the WP:SYNTH policy, and I've deleted it. Smyth (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The section is not synthesis. Two of the sources were unreliable, indeed. The third and fourth are reliable. I've removed the first two. It's important to make a distinction between inferring and implying. The section does not state that the amendment was passed improperly, it only describes irregularities in the proceedings, which made it (minorly) controversial.Anastrophe (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@Anastrophe: Right now, all the article does is describe some events and insinuate that there was something wrong with them, without attributing that opinion to anyone in particular. The reader probably isn't an expert in legislative procedure, and they can't be expected to judge whether the events described are an irregularity or not. If there was an irregularity, then the article should directly state who thinks so, and indicate why that person is noteworthy in this context. Smyth (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend that you read the book that is cited. It is reliable and describes precisely what took place. Again, an editor's inferences don't supercede what a reliable source confirms. Anastrophe (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly my point: that the article required the reader to infer that there was a controversy, when it should just say so directly. I've now fixed this, and removed all the excessive legislative detail which is of no long-term significance. Smyth (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Recording of vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

Jump to 6:30 is you want to.

--Secruss (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is being done by an anonymous IP address and is violating 3RR by reverting the passage that tells of the call for a vote.--Conor Fallon (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firearm Owners Protection Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act/Archive_1&oldid=1148250600"