Gungnir
Member
Yeah I know, had to jump through many hoops for my Green Card.
NRA Lawsuit against Washington State
- Thread starter Sinixstar
- Start date
- Status
MD_Willington
Member
Here's how I received my original background check form Canada, follow me here, as this was the phone call..
Me "Hey Stu, I need a background check" <-- Stu = RCMP officer married to my wife's aunt...
Stu " What do you want me to send you, a blank piece of paper?"
Me " Sure, as long as it has your RCMP letterhead and you explain I have no criminal record anywhere in Canada" <-- Because I have absolutely NO criminal record in Canada...
Stu " Alright, where do I mail it to"
And that was pretty much it... back in 2002. In life it tends to be WHO you know and not WHAT you know...
Fast forward to 2006, I mailed a letter certified to the Canadian consulate in Seattle, and they send back a letter stating, "We don't do that"... but that is all I need from them...
DOL says, "We cannot process.. blah blah blah..."
Me "Hey Stu, I need a background check" <-- Stu = RCMP officer married to my wife's aunt...
Stu " What do you want me to send you, a blank piece of paper?"
Me " Sure, as long as it has your RCMP letterhead and you explain I have no criminal record anywhere in Canada" <-- Because I have absolutely NO criminal record in Canada...
Stu " Alright, where do I mail it to"
And that was pretty much it... back in 2002. In life it tends to be WHO you know and not WHAT you know...
Fast forward to 2006, I mailed a letter certified to the Canadian consulate in Seattle, and they send back a letter stating, "We don't do that"... but that is all I need from them...
DOL says, "We cannot process.. blah blah blah..."
Gungnir
Member
Actually, what's funny from the UK side, is if they give ANY information at all, they're in breach of the UK data protection act, and I can sue them 
I suspect that the response I'll get from San-Fran UK Consulate is, I'm sorry we don't do that.
I suspect that the response I'll get from San-Fran UK Consulate is, I'm sorry we don't do that.
MD_Willington
Member
That is all you need... so just "Get r Done" !!
I'm going to send mine off ASAP... I mean even if I get the sod'd piece of paper from DOL and the HB's go through and the other court case go's our way, I've still covered my butt and can go get my stuff from my friends place and bring it back to my house.
And I can pick up a little something my friend has been holding for me.. Russian SKS!
I'm going to send mine off ASAP... I mean even if I get the sod'd piece of paper from DOL and the HB's go through and the other court case go's our way, I've still covered my butt and can go get my stuff from my friends place and bring it back to my house.
And I can pick up a little something my friend has been holding for me.. Russian SKS!
Gungnir
Member
ROFL... The mail's already sent, I can just see some confused Brit Diplo, looking at it, and saying, we don't do this, and how do we know who this person is?
Oh and no just for the record I don't have any criminal record, the NIS (Scotland yard) report on me is totally clean. Well I have a green card, so the FBI and US intelligence has already cleared me, so you probably guessed that.
Oh and no just for the record I don't have any criminal record, the NIS (Scotland yard) report on me is totally clean. Well I have a green card, so the FBI and US intelligence has already cleared me, so you probably guessed that.
MD_Willington
Member
That is perfectly legit and it says so on the form, my letter from the Canadian consulate says just that, "Sorry we do not do that"... and that is just fine.
Gungnir
Member
Any further news on this, I meant to call the SAF about this today, but work got in the way.
Mortech
Member
About damn time you guys were cut some slack , I think its totally wrong that WA would deny your guys the right to protect yourselves (my wife is lucky she has dual citizenship)
Gungnir
Member
I'll be naturalized probably before this is sorted out, on the plus side, it beats the heck out of reading the USCIS guide to civics.
MD_Willington
Member
Yeah I can wait to if need be, there are those however that need this fixed ASAP as it affects their profession and the natural born citizens they are married to, as they quite possibly be charged as some kind of accessory if their non-citizen spouse gets a hold of stored firearms in their home.
In other words it removes the rights of a natural born citizen too, it is in fact an underhanded version of gun control if you think of it in that regard.
In other words it removes the rights of a natural born citizen too, it is in fact an underhanded version of gun control if you think of it in that regard.
Gungnir
Member
My wife agree's with you, on the Gun Control front. Weighing self protection with protection of herself and her husband to comply with an illegal law.
Of course she's rapidly approaching preferring FL to WA and she hates bright sunshine, heat, and humidity
Of course she's rapidly approaching preferring FL to WA and she hates bright sunshine, heat, and humidity
Gungnir
Member
Hmm, just a thought, we could en-masse send messages to the Govenor. She could fix the AFL deadlock with a stroke of her pen.
Especially since there are some of us who have S.O. US Citizens who are having their rights infringed because of the risk to their Alien spouse.
Its possible that lobbying to her on WA State infractions of the Constitution might have an impact
There are others who previously held an AFL that ran out after the DOL stopped issuing. Who had to do some tricks to avoid conflict with the law too.
I'd like the RCW to go away entirely, but if we can work around the problem, then it gives us a better case to eliminate it.
Or maybe I'm just an optimist.
Especially since there are some of us who have S.O. US Citizens who are having their rights infringed because of the risk to their Alien spouse.
Its possible that lobbying to her on WA State infractions of the Constitution might have an impact
There are others who previously held an AFL that ran out after the DOL stopped issuing. Who had to do some tricks to avoid conflict with the law too.
I'd like the RCW to go away entirely, but if we can work around the problem, then it gives us a better case to eliminate it.
Or maybe I'm just an optimist.
Gungnir
Member
Nope, just called SAF to find out.
I'll update when they reply.
I'll update when they reply.
Gungnir
Member
Ok NRA response
Judge is bogged down and hasn't yet signed the injunction.
It's no contest, so I don't know what the hold up is. Expectation is it will be signed this week. At worst early next week.
Judge is bogged down and hasn't yet signed the injunction.
It's no contest, so I don't know what the hold up is. Expectation is it will be signed this week. At worst early next week.
Gungnir
Member
SAF confirmed just waiting on the Judge.
MD_Willington
Member
Well you still need to contact your consulate, so this would be the time to fire off a letter to your Consulate.
Update for Canadians.
The address for the Canadian Consulate in Seattle has changed:
New Address.
Canadian Consulate General
Consular Affairs
1501 - 4th Ave., Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-4328
Letters are here for Canadians LPRs
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5285809&postcount=42
Update for Canadians.
The address for the Canadian Consulate in Seattle has changed:
New Address.
Canadian Consulate General
Consular Affairs
1501 - 4th Ave., Suite 600
Seattle, WA 98101-4328
Letters are here for Canadians LPRs
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5285809&postcount=42
http://dol.wa.gov/business/firearms/faalien.html not responding all morning.
could it be a sign it is being updated?
could it be a sign it is being updated?
Gungnir
Member
Also could be a sign that they have site troubles.
Since the DOL didn't contest this injunction, they have no rational reason to delay issuing AFL's since the Judge signature is a given. Yet Friday, and Monday both had DOL employees denying any change in the status of the AFL.
Thus my suspicion that the AFL will only begin to be reissued once the Judge has signed.
Since the DOL didn't contest this injunction, they have no rational reason to delay issuing AFL's since the Judge signature is a given. Yet Friday, and Monday both had DOL employees denying any change in the status of the AFL.
Thus my suspicion that the AFL will only begin to be reissued once the Judge has signed.
MD_Willington
Member
Yep, pretty much...
Just had an interesting phone call with an ICE agent at the USICE Law Enforcement Center in VT...
I mentioned I was looking for background check info as I was a green card holder and I explained WA was the only state with the AFL for green card holders...
The ICE agent expressed that the law & license was "Bologne!" and that the FBI saying DOL could not have NLETS information was... wait for it... "Bologne!"... LOL
Also, check with your local law enforcement agencies, they "haven't got the memo" either regarding AFLs..
I'm going to call my Sheriff directly and not a deputy and give him the 411 on the situation...
Once again, its not what you know but WHO you know... I know the Sheriff, he's friends with some of my friends...
Good Luck!
Just had an interesting phone call with an ICE agent at the USICE Law Enforcement Center in VT...
I mentioned I was looking for background check info as I was a green card holder and I explained WA was the only state with the AFL for green card holders...
The ICE agent expressed that the law & license was "Bologne!" and that the FBI saying DOL could not have NLETS information was... wait for it... "Bologne!"... LOL
Also, check with your local law enforcement agencies, they "haven't got the memo" either regarding AFLs..
I'm going to call my Sheriff directly and not a deputy and give him the 411 on the situation...
Once again, its not what you know but WHO you know... I know the Sheriff, he's friends with some of my friends...
Good Luck!
I still say wait off on applying for the AFL if we all bow down and apply they may just leave it at that HB1052 needs to pass then we are free from this scurge for good , or at least until everyone has to be licenced .
P.S that link to the "sorry we are incompetent" page seems to be working
P.S that link to the "sorry we are incompetent" page seems to be working
cubanitojr
Member
The judge knows his signature will have an impact on Olympia and will put WA on the news headlines, besides there may be a risk of DOL issuing licences without checking federal background, for the case of LPR is low, but considering the paranoia around firearms it has some merit. The point is that federal law outweights state's, WA legislature does not have the right of infringing 2nd amendment to LPR's or married US citizens to Aliens.
Gungnir
Member
Actually MD it's not really Bologne on the AFL FBI check.
If I remember the facts:
DOL Issued through WSP an FBI Background Check.
WSP initially supplied a Summary of the FBI information.
The Director of the DOL demanded to see the full FBI reports (which under Federal law can't be issued to a non-LE agency, I suspect it's either a privacy thing, or there's more to the report than might be considered appropriate, I've never seen one so I don't know) since the Summary didn't give the information they felt they required for the permit.
WSP Complied.
The FBI found out this was happening, and refused any background checks for the purpose of the AFL. I assume the FBI have a purpose field in their background check input.
Washington State then is a fit of pure logic then defined the DOL as a LE organization.
The FBI failed to recognize this (I guess if it's a pig, calling it an Elephant doesn't make it and elephant), since it was a very Naive attempt to get around the situation.
And here we are.
I could be wrong, this might be hearsay, but considering the current situation, it might be close to the truth. Ultimately this is a failure of Washington State, for having a totally discriminatory law on the books, that collectively gives aliens (regardless of status) the same firearms rights as convicted Felons (in direct contravention of Civil Rights legislation and the 14th Amendment). At the same time as restricting US Citizens who are married to those aliens from exercising their right to self defense with a firearm.
If I remember the facts:
DOL Issued through WSP an FBI Background Check.
WSP initially supplied a Summary of the FBI information.
The Director of the DOL demanded to see the full FBI reports (which under Federal law can't be issued to a non-LE agency, I suspect it's either a privacy thing, or there's more to the report than might be considered appropriate, I've never seen one so I don't know) since the Summary didn't give the information they felt they required for the permit.
WSP Complied.
The FBI found out this was happening, and refused any background checks for the purpose of the AFL. I assume the FBI have a purpose field in their background check input.
Washington State then is a fit of pure logic then defined the DOL as a LE organization.
The FBI failed to recognize this (I guess if it's a pig, calling it an Elephant doesn't make it and elephant), since it was a very Naive attempt to get around the situation.
And here we are.
I could be wrong, this might be hearsay, but considering the current situation, it might be close to the truth. Ultimately this is a failure of Washington State, for having a totally discriminatory law on the books, that collectively gives aliens (regardless of status) the same firearms rights as convicted Felons (in direct contravention of Civil Rights legislation and the 14th Amendment). At the same time as restricting US Citizens who are married to those aliens from exercising their right to self defense with a firearm.
Just curious (I joined this late, so not sure if this has already been covered - if so, my apologies)...
Has anyone done a FOIA request to get the official communication from the FBI to the DOL that states they will not provide BG checks to DOL for AFL? There should be one.
I ask because an earlier post seems to indicate there may not have been one.
I would hope DOL wouldn't change their policy on issuing AFL's based on a phone call or other such informal communication.
Has anyone done a FOIA request to get the official communication from the FBI to the DOL that states they will not provide BG checks to DOL for AFL? There should be one.
I ask because an earlier post seems to indicate there may not have been one.
I would hope DOL wouldn't change their policy on issuing AFL's based on a phone call or other such informal communication.
Gungnir
Member
Oh this is from the DOL themselves
In May, 2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an audit and found local law enforcement agencies were using the Immigration Alien Query, National Criminal Information Center and Interstate Identification Index, as part of the background check process for approving alien firearms licenses. The FBI informed those agencies that federal law prohibits the use of these databases for secondhand dissemination of the criminal history to a non-criminal justice agency (i.e. Department of Licensing) for license issuance.
Without these checks, law enforcement is unable to meet the requirements of state law to determine if an applicant is lawfully present in the United States and may lawfully possess a firearm. Without this approval from local law enforcement, the Department of Licensing is unable by law to issue the license.
In May, 2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted an audit and found local law enforcement agencies were using the Immigration Alien Query, National Criminal Information Center and Interstate Identification Index, as part of the background check process for approving alien firearms licenses. The FBI informed those agencies that federal law prohibits the use of these databases for secondhand dissemination of the criminal history to a non-criminal justice agency (i.e. Department of Licensing) for license issuance.
Without these checks, law enforcement is unable to meet the requirements of state law to determine if an applicant is lawfully present in the United States and may lawfully possess a firearm. Without this approval from local law enforcement, the Department of Licensing is unable by law to issue the license.
- Status
