Talk:Firearm Owners Protection Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Repeal 2 Prohibited Persons 2.1 "Mental defective" 3 Unlawful user or addicted... 4 The use of the word "gun lobby" 5 when? 6 Edit 7 Machine Gun Ban 8 Registry prohibition

[edit] 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 If not how would it be repealed?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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] The use of the word "gun lobby"

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

[edit] 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] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)