Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CHL/NICS HB234 has "neat" feature

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CHL/NICS HB234 has "neat" feature

    So an article on BFA's page talks about the NICS check being added to the CHL process.

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/what-...kground-checks
    at one point it says:

    "Once certified NICS compliant, Ohio sheriffs may begin putting the certification on new/renewed CHL’s. All this is leading to a neat feature in the whole NICS background check rules for buying guns.

    On the bottom of page 2 of a Form 4473, there is a box where the FFL dealer can check a customer’s CHL license as an exemption to the NICS check. Anyone who qualified for a CHL, and has “NICS compliant” on their license is legal to buy a gun. No more delay issues for people who are legal to buy a gun, but regularly get delayed at the point of purchase. Kentucky, Texas and many other states have been doing this for years. Both dealers and buyers love it."

    The article tries to calm fears, whether they're well founded or not by enticing us with quick FFL check outs.

    I will say from personal exp that.
    1: I have never been denied or been put on "hold"
    2: Has never slowed my purchase, I mean really, It takes me longer to fill out the form then it does to get it approved and I will STILL have to fill out the form, so how much time am I really saving?
    The most I've ever waited was maybe 5mins of which I happily made use of by looking around at other goodies no display.


    Im not sure what this change means in practical terms, I've listen to some well versed people spell out a case against it, much of it lost on me.
    I do know that the current system is just fine to me and this "neat" feature makes no difference to me, and is not bribery enough for me to support the change.

    what's your thoughts?

  • #2
    Like you I've never been delayed or denied by the NICS check, but others have. For reasons totally unknown, in some instances.

    Think when this "shortcut" is likely to do me some good would be while buying a gun when the NICS phone lines are very busy, like on gun show weekends for example. I've seen some FFL holders not be able to get through for an hour or more on occasion.

    Comment


    • #3
      The FFL will still have to verify the CHL is still valid and has not been revoked. That requires a call or look up. What system will that be?
      _Don_

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems to me it would open up the opportunity for someone in Ohio legislature the chance to try and make it mandatory to have a license to purchase a handgun... Like they did in MD while I was there.

        Not that I really think it would have a chance right now, but on down the road, who knows.
        -Matt

        Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.

        Comment


        • #5
          Unintended consequences...

          Comment


          • #6
            The FFL will still have to verify the CHL is still valid and has not been revoked. That requires a call or look up. What system will that be?

            I'm not aware that in other states that have this feature they are required to do that. Any proof of that?

            Comment


            • #7
              The FFL will still have to verify the CHL is still valid and has not been revoked. That requires a call or look up. What system will that be?

              I'm not aware that in other states that have this feature they are required to do that. Any proof of that?

              No. But it is just common sense. We should know more about the process as we get closer to 3/23/2015.
              _Don_

              Comment


              • #8
                The FFL will still have to verify the CHL is still valid and has not been revoked. That requires a call or look up. What system will that be?

                I've seen Ky. residents show their concealed deadly weapons license at shops in their own state and make a firearms purchase without further ado besides filling out the Form 4473. Nobody had to call it in. If that CDWL was supposed to be suspended or revoked and hadn't been, that's on the cops for not doing their jobs in a timely manner, as I understand it. Supposedly it's exactly the same in Indiana.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The FFL will still have to verify the CHL is still valid and has not been revoked. That requires a call or look up. What system will that be?

                  I'm not aware that in other states that have this feature they are required to do that. Any proof of that?

                  No. But it is just common sense. We should know more about the process as we get closer to 3/23/2015.

                  What process? There's no method in the law for an FFL to validate a CHL therefore I don't see there being any "process" created. The law actually forbids an FFL from being able to verify a status as the only ones that can see if someone has a CHL are the media and they must do so in person.

                  As Brian D. pointed out if someone is arrested for a disqualifying offense that's on the arresting agency to notify the issuing agency to suspend the CHL.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    By the way there's no doubt in my mind that there's the occasional instance of someone still having their carry license after it should have been revoked and physically taken away from the licensee. Like I said, that's on law enforcement dropping the ball.

                    Before even Kentucky had CDW licenses, I knew an ex-cop who was on trial for some felony charges related to his firing, not light stuff. Saw him at a gun show filling out a Form 4473 and making multiple purchases on it.

                    Back then I knew both a prosecutor in the northern Kentucky county where the trial was taking place, as well as a federal prosecutor, personal friends of mine. I didn't like that ex-cop, knew his firing had been legit, so decided to tell my prosecutor pals what I'd seen.

                    Long story short since the trial was still ongoing (although I think a verdict had been rendered by then and the next step was sentencing) nobody seemed interested in the defendant's activities I'd observed.

                    As it turned out the guy got a VERY light sentence considering what he'd done, no prison time, but at least he couldn't get a public safety type job after that.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X