Thank you for contacting me about S. 675, the NICS Denial Notification Act. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.
I have heard from Oklahomans who both support and oppose this bill. I am a cosponsor of this legislation because I believe information sharing between federal, state, and local partners is integral to effective law enforcement.
I am a strong supporter of our Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. Under federal law, there are nine categories of individuals who are prohibited from owning, purchasing, possessing, or transferring firearms including: convicted felons, illegal aliens, those convicted of domestic violence, an unlawful user of drugs, those who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, etc. If a prohibited person lies on the background check form when he/she attempts to purchase a firearm from a Federal Firearm Licensee (FFL), the FBI is not required to tell state and local law enforcement that someone in their area just tried to illegally purchase a firearm. This is critical intelligence and the FBI should not have a monopoly on this information.
S. 675 would simply require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to alert state and local law enforcement authorities when an ineligible person attempts to purchase a firearm and fails a background check. It also requires the Attorney General to notify state law enforcement if it is later determined that the individual is not a prohibited person. The bill does not require state or local law enforcement to open an investigation or arrest a person. It is simply information that could be helpful to local law enforcement.
State and local law enforcement have a better understanding and grasp on the threats and risks in their jurisdictions than the federal government. Increased communication and information sharing between local, state, and federal law enforcement is a good thing. For instance, if someone with multiple felonies attempts to buy a firearm, local law enforcement would like to know so they can be aware.
You may be interested to know that this bill was included in the FY22 spending bill that the Senate passed on March 10. I voted against the spending bill for many reasons, but primarily because it included massive overspending and was released only hours before the vote. If you would like to read my statement, please click here.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.
I'm confused about which bill or bills we're talking about.
I sent a GOA email to Lankford to not pass the spending bill with the NICS denial stuff buried in it and I got the following back from him saying he did vote for S. 675, the NICS Denial Notification Act.
The spending bill has been passed and signed if I understand what's going on.
Thank You for posting this important info to our community. All of us need to tell our friends about this attack on our rights. Our lackluster RINO Stephanie Bice (R) has to be replaced in WashDC , who voted for the bill. (She represents the OKC area) Rep. Cole (R) also voted for it.
Best I can tell is that the bill contains a weakened version of the Violence Against Women Act which would require the NICS system to notify local officials about NICS denials and have those law enforcement officials investigate those denials.Dumb it down, what happened?
I wonder how this will play out in states that have passed laws forbidding local law enforcement from helping feds enforce gun control....Best I can tell is that the bill contains a weakened version of the Violence Against Women Act which would require the NICS system to notify local officials about NICS denials and have those law enforcement officials investigate those denials.
Personally, I can only imagine that overburdened state and local law enforcement won’t have the resources to investigate every denial that is generated. If the GOA is correct and most denials are actually errors on the side of the gov’t, then it would be even worse because those resources would be further wasted.
I wonder how this will play out in states that have passed laws forbidding local law enforcement from helping feds enforce gun control....
My denial was due to sloppy paperwork by a police department in New Jersey that didn't update their record with the dissolution of a restraining order taken out on me back in 1989. You see, in New Jersey, if a restraining order is not dissolved by a judge it doesn't expire but becomes permanent. I happened to find the section in my divorce decree wherer the judge dissolved my restraining order so my NICS appeal was granted.Some of the provisions include the prosecution and criminal investigation of any NICS check denials. The problem with opening a criminal investigation of every denial is that according to the GOA, 9 out of 10 denials are errors on the part of the FBI. Given the continued issues with our NICS system, one would think it would make sense to finish fixing NICS rather than add such insult to injury.
This will allow the Feds to take the states to court. You know that will end up in front of SCOTUS. I wonder how they will decide.I wonder how this will play out in states that have passed laws forbidding local law enforcement from helping feds enforce gun control....
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: