archives

legal stuff

This category contains 53 posts

Government ‘In Action’, Again

(from Wirecutter)

The IRS is struggling to ensure that illegal immigrants are able to illegally use Social Security numbers for legitimate purposes, the agency’s head told senators on Tuesday, without allowing the numbers to be used for “bad” reasons.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen made the statement in response to a question from Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., during a session of the Senate Finance Committee about why the IRS appears to be collaborating with taxpayers who file tax returns using fraudulent information. Coats said that his staff had discovered the practice after looking into agency procedures.

“What we learned is that … the IRS continues to process tax returns with false W-2 information and issue refunds as if they were routine tax returns, and say that’s not really our job,” Coats said. “We also learned the IRS ignores notifications from the Social Security Administration that a name does not match a Social Security number, and you use your own system to determine whether a number is valid.”
MORE

SERIOUSLY?

Well, this explains how someone using a dead Connecticut guys SSN could advance in politics all these years.

REALLY advance…

From The ‘Well DUH!’ Department…

Says Jeh Johnson 

The nation’s top immigration officer said that the “11 million” undocumented aliens in the United States are “not going away,” are “in effect” citizens, and added that deporting the few the administration wants out is unpleasant.
Jeh Johnson, secretary of Homeland Security, told Harvard University students this week that the administration is focused on its plan to integrate illegals into America, despite the policy being tied up in court.
Johnson said that he plans to be in the front row of the Supreme Court April 18 when the case is discussed.
But in the meantime, he is making the case that the illegals here, estimated at a much higher 15.7 million by the Center for Immigration Studies, have essentially become American. The proof: They go to school, have licenses to drive, and can even practice law in California.
Johnson said:
“Immigration policy must be two sides of the same coin. On the one hand, we want to reckon with, acknowledge the estimated 11 million undocumented in this country. More than half of the undocumented population of this country has been here for more than 10 years. And millions of them have in effect become integrated members of society, they go to school with us, they have driver’s licenses, they have kids who are U.S. citizens, they have kids who are lawful permanent residents. The California Supreme Court says that an undocumented person has a right to practice law in the state of California. So they are not going away. So do we insist that they live in a state of ambiguity, or do we reckon with this population and give them the opportunity to get on the books and be accountable?”
Addressing the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum Monday night, he also said that the U.S. doesn’t have “open borders,” but added that deporting criminal aliens and others targeted for removal isn’t pleasant.
Johnson said that deportations have dropped because he wants the focus only on criminals, but even then he isn’t a fan of deporting illegals.
“While the number of deportations in the last several years have gone down dramatically, because I’ve told our immigration enforcement personnel to to focus on the convicted criminals, we have a border security obligation to return people after they’ve gone through the process, gone through the litigation process, they’ve litigated their asylum claims, and they have been ordered deported by a court, and if they are our priorities we have to send them back.
“Is it pleasant? Absolutely not. But as long as we have the obligation to enforce the law, we must enforce the law. We can’t have open borders. I know that disappoints many people, but we can’t have open borders,” said Johnson.
(Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner’s “Washington Secrets” columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com)

I was curious as to the name Jeh, and Googled it…

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Jeh)

“Jeh” redirects here. For other uses, see Jeh (disambiguation)

Jahi[pronunciation?] is the Avestan language name of Zoroastrianism’s demoness of “lasciviousness.” As a hypostatic entity, Jahi is variously interpreted as “hussy,” “rake,” “libertine,” “courtesan” and “one who leads a licentious life.” Her standard epithet is “the Whore.”

In Zoroastrian tradition, Jahi appears as Middle Persian Jeh (Jēh, J̌ēh), characterized as the consort of Ahriman and the cause of the menstrual cycle.[a]

Hopefully, his parent’s didn’t name Jeh him because of this…

Death Or Hanging, Part Two

So, which is worse – the constant (and government-approved) encroachment of Islamic folks (some of whom appear to be scofflaws and terrorists!) or the constant encroachment against our civil liberties by our own government?

Must I choose one?  Really?

from Free North Carolina

We Are At War

Via WRSA

https://i2.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/00/2E7ADF9D00000578-0-image-a-58_1447634992599.jpg

We are currently in the process of losing our freedoms and effective control over our societies. It is sheer madness to continue Muslim immigration in a situation when militant Muslims are actively waging war against us in our own cities. Western political leaders who promote such policies are guilty of criminal negligence at best. They must be removed from power, and replaced by people who protect the long-term interests of our nations.

*******************************
 On the morning of March 22, 2016, Belgium was struck by coordinated nail bombings. Two hit Brussels Airport at the check-in counter, before the security screening. Another suicide bomber hit Maalbeek metro station, located not far from prominent EU buildings. The attacks occurred a few days before the Christian Easter celebrations. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (IS or ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attacks. At least 35 people were killed, and many seriously injured. The Muslim terrorists have connections to militant Muslims in many parts of Europe and the Middle East.[1] The authorities faced difficulties in apprehending some of the terrorists partly because they enjoy widespread sympathy and support in certain Muslim communities.

Brussels is not merely the capital of Belgium. It is also the capital of the European Union (EU), and houses the headquarters of the Western defense alliance NATO. It is therefore a symbolic target. The city contains a large Muslim immigrant population. In notorious urban districts such as Molenbeek, radical Muslims have ties to international Jihadist networks. Belgium has produced more Jihadists as a proportion of its population than any other Western European country. On May 24, 2014, a gunman killed four people at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels.

Following the Brussels bombings, the US State Department warned US citizens of the “potential risks” of traveling to Europe. A statement said terror groups were planning “attacks throughout Europe, targeting sporting events, tourist sites, restaurants and transportation.”[2]

Europe is now becoming more like Israel, facing constant Islamic terror threats in daily life.

And we are becoming more like Britain or Canada, with a side of Russia, as far as RIGHTS are concerned.  Bill of Rights?!  WHAT Bill of Rights?!  And The Supreme Court deciding (through attrition) that union non-members can be forced to pay…

WASHINGTON — Conservatives bent on crippling the power of public employee unions lost their best opportunity in years Tuesday when the Supreme Court deadlocked over a challenge to the fees those unions collect from non-members.

Rather than seeking to reschedule the case for their next term, the justices simply announced they were tied 4-4 — a verdict which leaves intact the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upholding the fee collections.  (USA Today)

Say WHAT?!

HIPAA, Schmippa!

Texas: Med Board lets DEA sneak peeks at patient records

By

Courtesy of U.S. Department of Justice.

It’s such a hassle getting information this way, when you can just pretend to be a state regulator.

The Drug Enforcement Administration has been sifting through hundreds of supposedly private medical files, looking for Texas doctors and patients to prosecute without the use of warrants.

Instead, the agents are tricking doctors and nurses into thinking they’re with the Texas Medical Board. When that doesn’t work, they’re sending doctors subpoenas demanding medical records without court approval.

The DEA can’t even count how many times it has resorted to the practice nationwide. A spokesman estimated it was in the thousands.

But, as a legal brief filed last week points out, lawyers for the federal government can’t find a single case in which a court has “authorized the use of such a broad array of patient information with such a sparse record as to why it needs such information.”

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Texas did just that, setting up a showdown in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals over whether the DEA needs a reason to go rummaging through private medical records in search of pill mills and prescription drug abusers.

Without the legalese, the issue is simple: How good a reason does the DEA need to get access to medical records? The DEA doesn’t think it needs much of one.

Attorneys for Dallas-area doctors Joseph and Abbas Zadeh argue “the DEA should not be allowed to circumvent the requirements of a warrant, and should be required to show probable cause.” Failing that, they should at least have to justify their intrusions to a judge who’s acting as more than a rubber stamp.

The DEA’s practice of avoiding warrant requirements has produced this absurdity: If you have a prescription for Adderall or OxyContin, you might be safer getting your drugs on the street than through your own doctor.

Street dealers, after all, don’t keep patient records, and they’re afforded more constitutional protections than medical practitioners. That is, cops still need a warrant to search them.

In Texas, the DEA’s criminal investigators do an end run around the Constitution’s warrant requirements by getting the Texas Medical Board to order doctors to open their records.

In that 5th Circuit case that’s about to set an important precedent, DEA agents spent hours examining private medical records after tricking a nurse into believing they were with the Medical Board.

The trick was easy. Three DEA agents showed up at a Dallas doctor’s office accompanied by a medical board investigator who told the nurse “they were with the Texas State Medical Board,” according to a deposition in the case. “The other three persons along with her kept silent.”

Mari Robinson, the medical board’s executive director, testified last year in a legislative hearing that her agency does that sort of thing 20 to 40 times a year, but it took some grilling by state Rep. Bill Zedler, R – Arlington, to get that out of her.

“How many times do you show up (at a doctor’s office) with the DEA and not tell ‘em that the DEA is with you,” Zedler asked Robinson at a Sept. 24 hearing.

“I’m not sure what you mean by that,” Robinson said.

“Well, I mean that when they show up, they say, ‘We’re with the Texas Medical Board.’ Period.”

“That is what we do for our part,” Robinson said. “The DEA has its own responsibility.”

Zedler gave an example almost identical to the facts in the Zadeh lawsuit: Medical board investigators got the DEA two hours’ access to confidential medical records through misrepresenting who they were; when the doctor’s lawyer showed up demanding to see some ID’s, the party ended.

“You don’t find that an unconstitutional search through fraudulent non-disclosure,” Zedler demanded. “Did your investigators not know that they had DEA agents with them?”

There wasn’t “anything that we did” that could be unconsidered unconstitutional, Robinson answered, but she couldn’t speak for the DEA.

It turned out that each of the 20 to 40 times a year medical investigators turn up unannounced demanding to see records they’re actually working with the DEA.

The problem is this: The medical board has authority to issue “administrative subpoenas,” as they’re called, because it’s in the business of administering the medical industry. The DEA isn’t. It’s in the business of criminal investigations, which can be hindered by the Fourth Amendment.

The entire apparatus of administrative law is something of a shadow government grafted onto a constitutional system back in the New Deal era, and this shadow government has few safeguards. Rather than checks and balances, the regulatory state is characterized by agencies that handle all the investigation, prosecution, adjudication and appeals in-house, with little interference from other bodies.

The DEA has noticed how convenient it is simply to write a letter demanding all the evidence one might need. So in some cases, such as the Zadeh’s, where the initial subterfuge fails, the DEA simply writes the doctors its own administrative subpoena, even though, by its own admission, it’s looking for evidence in potential criminal cases against doctors and patients.

All too often, the doctors behave much like the telecom companies who were pressured by the National Security Administration to share customer records.

In fact, there are so few cases of doctors actually fighting back the government’s lawyers are building their argument on a case from 1950 in which regulators got access to the financial records of the Morton Salt Co.

RELATED: Texas Medical Board considers arming itself

In 2014, a federal court in Oregon agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that a database of prescriptions was protected by medical privacy rights, and the DEA would need a warrant to access it.

That expectation of privacy will also factor into the decision before the 5th Circuit. Unlike some privacy rights, this one is no novelty.

Arguing on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, attorney Andrew Schlafly points out that patient privacy dates back 2,500 years to the Hippocratic Oath, which states, “All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession… which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and never reveal.”

The 5th Circuit may not decide to impose a standard of “probable cause” on law enforcement, but any standard of evidence would be an improvement on nothing, which is what investigators apparently have on the Zadehs.

Zedler has examined volumes of secret Medical Board records under his legislative privilege, and although he’s sworn to secrecy about them, he said during the hearing the medical board had confirmed the Zadehs weren’t running pill mills, and that there was “zero evidence of non-therapeutic prescribing.”

Yet a federal court upheld the subpoenas based on vague testimony from a DEA investigator that “(i)nformation developed in that investigation indicated (that) Dr. Joseph Zadeh (and Dr. Abbas Zadeh)… may have violated” the law.

That little phrase illustrates the difference between typical law enforcement and whatever the DEA is up to here.

Cops don’t swear that “information developed.” They tell the judge what it is if they want their warrant signed.

Contact Jon Cassidy at jon@watchdog.org or @jpcassidy000.

This story was initially reported last fall, but I thought it bore repetition when I saw it.  Many folks are fond of lampooning States like Massachusetts, New York and California about their progressive politics, policies and politicians.

But, even though Texas is of a more individualist, rights-loving nature, it is still a STATE!  And State and federal entities therein are still made up of people, many of whom want nothing more to control and spy on individuals.

And I’m not even factoring in the whole mental health/gun ownership part of the equation!

If You Wish In One Hand…

…and (well, you know the end of this crude statement!)

The Firearms Blog posted a rather in depth wish, with regard to the following:

Top 5 Guns That Are Banned (That We Wish Weren’t) (link)

Of course. if many of us had our wishes…
I suppose they had to begin somewhere.
As for me, since I cannot afford anything, this is a moot argument.

 

There Is No Joy In Mudville

Associate Supreme Court Justice Scalia has passed away.

R.I.P. Sir!

Having said this (from The Wall Street Journal)…

Justice Antonin Scalia

Associated Press

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, will be remembered as one of the court’s most influential, trenchant and controversial voices. Below are a few outtakes from some of the more influential and notable opinions from his storied, 30-year career on the court.

D.C. v. Heller (2008) By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns, ruling for the first time that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms in one’s home. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion.

There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.

• Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) The court ruled that the government couldn’t use thermal imaging technology to detect a suspected marijuana-growing operation without a warrant. Justice Scalia wrote that the use of sense-enhancing technology not in public use to gain information within the home constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

We have said that the Fourth Amendment draws “a firm line at the entrance to the house…That line, we think, must be not only firm but also bright which requires clear specification of those methods of surveillance that require a warrant. While it is certainly possible to conclude from the videotape of the thermal imaging that occurred in this case that no “significant” compromise of the homeowner’s privacy has occurred, we must take the long view, from the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment forward.

• Printz v. U.S. (1997) The court held, 5-4, that a federal law requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun purchases was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote that the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer federal programs.

Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

• Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) The court ruled 6-3 that public schools could randomly drug test student athletes. Justice Scalia wrote that the privacy interests compromised by giving urine samples under the district’s policy were negligible.

 Just as when the government conducts a search in its capacity as employer (a warrantless search of an absent employee’s desk to obtain an urgently needed file, for example), the relevant question is whether that intrusion upon privacy is one that a reasonable employer might engage in, see O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); so also when the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake. Given the findings of need made by the District Court, we conclude that in the present case it is.

• RAV v. City of St. Paul (1992) Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in which the court struck down St. Paul, Minn.’s crime banning “hate-crime,” for violating the First Amendment’s free-speech guarantee.In so doing, the court tossed aside charges against a group of teenagers that burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family.

The dispositive question in this case, therefore, is whether content discrimination is reasonably necessary to achieve St. Paul’s [p396] compelling interests; it plainly is not. An ordinance not limited to the favored topics, for example, would have precisely the same beneficial effect. In fact, the only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases thus singled out. [n8] That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility — but not through the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however benightedly) disagree.

* * * *

Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone’s front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire.

The Internet is rife with both praise and derision for this Justice.  I shan’t post the hateful texts here.  There is Great Fear amongst the conservative and libertarian elements of society that without his swing vote, and Constitutionally-measured opinions, that ‘we’ (civil libertarians, gun owners/carriers, and American Society at large) are doomed.  Doomed to the progressive, post-Constitution era of further governmental intrusion on rights, and final loss of the America in which we were raised.

His body wasn’t even cold, when The President announced he would find a suitable replacement, and (some) Republicans suggested The Senate block ANY appointment for the next eleven months (until the next President could be sworn in)!

In other words, politics as usual.

God Save The United States Of America (while I’m still allowed to post this!)

The Social Contract – Endgame

lockeThose of you who have read (political) History are familiar with John Locke, and his concept of the Social Contract(?)  You remember, the idea that ‘We The People’ make a Contract with those we ‘choose’ to govern us(?)

The basis for The Declaration of Independence.

Well, here is a prime (negative) example.

(courtesy of Joel)

Hey, remember last month when Virginia’s Attorney General threw CCW holders under the bus?

Well, good news, everyone! Governor Terry McAuliffe and “republican leaders” have concluded a series of backroom agreements that restores reciprocity, sort of, and all the repubs and the NRA had to give away was any hope of Virginia gun owners ever feeling safe from the state…

In exchange, Republicans softened their stances on issues that have long been non-starters in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Under the deal, the state would take guns away from anyone who was under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses. And State Police would have to attend all gun shows to provide background checks for private sellers if they requested the service.

So everything’s cool, Virginia, except that you better never get your wife mad at you and there’ll be armed goons looking over your shoulder any time you think it might be fun to pop into a gun show. But other than that, yay! Say hey for the beauties of compromise, I guess…

Of course, there’s that pesky (federal) Lautenberg Amendment thing, too.

When we make a contract with government, there is ALWAYS the other side to the contract.  Their codicil spelling out our duties and responsibilities under the ‘agreement’.

Because they never just give us anything – not when they can use a hook!

It’s A Trust Issue

(copied in full from my friend Old NFO)

The rest of the story… On how badly BO’s executive orders on gun changes are…

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is moving forward with more gun restrictions under President Obama’s new executive action. The ATF’s latest regulations would affect trusts and legal entities seeking to make or transfer a firearm.

The new rules would define who is the “responsible person” at these organizations that must comply with background check requirements. The current regulations target individuals who apply for guns. But the new rules would expand these regulations to an estimated 231,658 “responsible persons” at these trusts and legal entities. The ATF estimates the rule could cost industry as much as $29 million each year to comply with.

Such trusts have typically been used by collectors, to reduce NFA processing time. This rule change does replace the requirement for prior endorsement by a jurisdiction’s Chief Law Enforcement Officer for transfers to individuals with one for the CLEO to be notified of all NFA transfers.)

The FEDREG link is HERE. The official title is: Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm.

It’s read it and weep time… Pretty much obviates most of the existing trusts. I’m having mine re-written to bring it more in line (if possible) with the new rules.

So, there we have it.  Further obfuscation by the Administration with regard to EVERY CITIZEN’S CIVIL RIGHTS.

Can you imagine the outrage if such restrictions had been placed by government fiat on Freedom of the Press or Speech?

Sickening.

They’re Dropping Like Flies!

…but some are returning! :-)

I’ve been reviewing my blog roll, TGBBL, and other lists of blogs, and have noticed many people are no longer blogging, or have not blogged in some time, or have died, or whatever…

And that makes me sad.

BUT, Peter wrote today that LAWDOG has been convinced to begin blogging again, AND plans on a BOOK regarding his adventures!

HUZZAH!

Please go welcome him back!

The LawDog Files

How To Buy A Gun From The CMP!

Well, part one, anyway.

How to qualify…

(courtesy of The Firearm Blog)

How to Buy a Firearm From The CMP? Part 1: Becoming Eligible

Ever since the news broke that the CMP would be able to sell M1911 handguns to the shooting public, thanks to a provision in the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, I have received a lot of emails and comments asking me “how do I qualify for the CMP?” Well, you’re in luck: Not only will I be walking our readers through the process, but it’s easier than you think!

My regular readers will know that I’m a fan of long, multi-part series that go in-depth into a historical or technical subject. However, don’t be fooled by the “Part 1” in the title; I intend to keep this series as short and sweet as possible, while still adding the detail you need to get qualified for the CMP. I’ve broken it into parts for your convenience, and so that those who want to buy rifles now do not have to wait for my full review of the CMP Service Grade M1 I have ordered. This first post will cover how to put together eligibility. I have already completed this process from top to bottom, and received on the day that I write this an email confirming that my eligibility has been validated and I am now on the list to receive a rifle.

The CMP does have on their website a list of requirements, but their explanations of what counts and does not count, and how to order can be vague, and much of the information you need is buried behind links on the CMP’s home page. You can follow the hyperlink here to reach the page you’ll need, but if navigating the website itself, scroll down and click the link called “SALES & SERVICES”, and once that page has loaded, scroll down again and click the link called “RIFLE SALES”. Then, scroll down that page to reach the tab labeled “ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS”.  Now, you should be presented with a page with this text:

REQUIREMENTS FOR PURCHASE

By law, the CMP can sell surplus military firearms, ammunition, parts and other items only to members of CMP affiliated clubs who are also U.S. citizens, over 18 years of age and who are legally eligible to purchase a firearm.

PROOF OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP:

You must provide a copy of a U.S. birth certificate, passport, proof of naturalization, or any official government document (When using a military ID to prove citizenship, must be an E5 or above) that shows birth in the U.S. or states citizenship as U.S.

PROOF OF AGE:

You must provide proof of age. Usually proof of citizenship also provides proof of age. In those cases where it may not, a driver’s license is sufficient.

MEMBERSHIP IN CMP AFFILIATED ORGANIZATION:

You must provide a copy of your current membership card or other proof of membership. This requirement cannot be waived. The CMP currently has over 2,000 affiliated organizations located in many parts of the country. CMP Club Member Certification Form- If your CMP affiliated club does not issue individual membership cards, please have the club fill out the CMP Club Member Certification Form and return it with your order.

Membership in many of these organizations costs $25.00 or less and can be accomplished online. A listing of affiliated organizations can be found by clicking on our Club Search web page at http://ct.thecmp.org/app/v1/index.php?do=clubSearch. If you have any difficulty in locating a club, please contact the CMP at 256-835-8455 or by emailing CMP Customer Service. We will find one for you. In addition to shooting clubs, the CMP also has several special affiliates. Membership in these organizations satisfies our requirement for purchase. These special affiliates include: Congressionally chartered veterans’ organizations such as the VFW, AL, DAV, MCL, etc. U.S. Military services (active or reserves), National Guard, to include retirees. Professional 501(c)3 law enforcement organizations and associations such as the FOP, NAPO, NSA, etc. The Garand Collector’s Association is a CMP Affiliated Club. You can download a Garand Collector’s Association Application Form.

Note: Club membership IS required for purchase of rifles, parts, and ammunition.

Club membership is NOT required for instructional publications or videos or CMP memorabilia.

MARKSMANSHIP OR OTHER FIREARMS RELATED ACTIVITY:

You must provide proof of participation in a marksmanship related activity or otherwise show familiarity with the safe handling of firearms and range procedures. Your marksmanship related activity does not have to be with highpower rifles; it can be with smallbore rifles, pistols, air guns or shotguns. Proof of marksmanship participation can be provided by documenting any of the following:

  • Current or past military service.
  • Current or past law enforcement service
  • Participation in a rifle, pistol, air gun or shotgun competition (provide copy of results bulletin).
  • Completion of a marksmanship clinic that included live fire training (provide a copy of the certificate of completion or a statement from the instructor).
  • Distinguished, Instructor, or Coach status.
  • Concealed Carry License.
  • Firearms Owner Identification Cards that included live fire training. – FFL or C&R license.
  • Completion of a Hunter Safety Course that included live fire training.
  • Certification from range or club official or law enforcement officer witnessing shooting activity. Complete the CMP Marksmanship Form to certify your range firing and the required marksmanship related activity for an individual to purchase from the CMP.

No proof of marksmanship required if over age 60. Proof of club membership and citizenship required for all ages. NOTE: Proof of marksmanship activity is not required for purchase of ammunition, parts, publications or memorabilia.

BE LEGALLY ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE A FIREARM:

The information you supply on your application will be submitted by the CMP to the FBI National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS) to verify you are not prohibited by Federal, State or Local law from acquiring or possessing a rifle. Your signature on the Purchaser Certification portion of the purchase application authorizes the CMP to initiate the NICS check and authorizes the FBI to inform CMP of the result. IMPORTANT: If your State or locality requires you to first obtain a license, permit, or Firearms Owner ID card in order to possess or receive a rifle, you must enclose a photocopy of your license, permit, or card with the application for purchase.

IMPORTANT:

If your State or locality requires you to first obtain a certificate, license, permit, or Firearms Owner ID card in order to possess or receive a rifle, you must enclose a photocopy of your certificate, license, permit, or card with the application for purchase. Rifle shipments to NY and NJ must be made to a state licensed dealer. You must provide a copy of the dealer’s license with your order form. Rifle shipments to CA must be made to a State licensed dealer or may be made to individual homes, providing that a CA Certificate of Eligibility and a Curio and Relic License are provided. Rifle shipments to CT must be made to licensed or dealer or may be shipped directly to the customer if a C&R license is provided.

As a result of CT Bill 1160 and Bill 13-220 , which revised CT Bill 1160, all CT customers purchasing rifles to be delivered in CT must have the rifle shipped to a CT licensed dealer or must provide us with a copy of their current Type 3 (C&R) FFL license. We can ship directly to a customer’s home if they possess a C&R license.

NY, NJ and CT customers who have already mailed their rifle orders to CMP should provide custserve@thecmp.org with dealer information or order cancellation instructions. Information can also be faxed to 256-835-3527 or mailed to CMP Customer Service, (Attn: FFL Order), 1401 Commerce Blvd., Anniston, AL 36207.

This page tells you everything you need to know to achieve eligibility for the Program, but even once I had read this, I still had many questions. In my case, I had a copy of my birth certificate, a couple of ways to achieve the third qualification that would require a little legwork, and nothing to meet the club requirement. In 2011, I had completed an Appleseed course, but I over the course of two moves, I had lost the green slip that certified my completion. I also had completed a handgun course for my concealed carry license, but, likewise that paper was in another state (safe and sound, but still a week away by mail, and I wanted to put in the order as soon as possible). Fortunately, I remembered the name of my Appleseed instructor, and was able to get in touch with him via the Appleseed Forums. He emailed me my green slip, which I printed out immediately and put together with my growing packet of information. I could equally have had a scan of the handgun course certificate emailed to me, or, if push came to shove, I could have had a range officer at the local range certify me via the CMP’s online marksmanship certification form. My understanding is that almost any shooting course will suffice for this requirement, but if you’re unsure you can always call the CMP before 4:00 PM Eastern Time on a weekday to check.

Many believe that joining a CMP-affiliated club will be one of the most difficult steps in the process; it’s actually one of the easiest. In my case, I used the CMP’s club search function to find the Louisiana Shooting Association, which allowed me to join online for the princely sum of ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50). I called up the club’s treasurer to inquire what sort of documentation I would need, and he told me that while they do issue membership cards via email, I could simply use my receipt of payment to the club for the CMP. Bingo, I was in business.

It’s as simple as that! In Part 2, we’ll look at how to actually order from the CMP!

– See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/12/04/how-do-you-buy-a-rifle-from-the-cmp-part-1-putting/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2015-12-08&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter#sthash.FyoARwqb.dpuf

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 394 other followers