FBI refuses background checks for CCW NICS exemption

Status
Not open for further replies.

musher

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
586
Location
Fairbanks, AK
In Alaska, you've been able to obtain two flavors of CCW permits in the last few years. The first does not exempt you from the national instant check system (NICS) background check when purchasing a firearm. The second, requires fingerprints and incorporates an FBI background check. That version is labeled NICS-exempt and does not require you to have a NICS check for every firearm purchase.

Apparently, the FBI has informed Alaska that they don't have the time to handle background checks for CCW permits anymore. Accordingly, at the present time you cannot renew or obtain a new NICS-exempt CCW permit in Alaska.

My question is whether folks are seeing this happen nationwide. Are we seeing the end of CCW permits exempted from the NICS system or is this a temporary glitch for Alaska?

Edited to add a link to the notice on the state's web page about this: AK CCW program
 
Well, in TX, the permit still exempts us from the check - God, I hope that change doesn't hapen here...
 
My question is whether folks are seeing this happen nationwide. Are we seeing the end of CCW permits exempted from the NICS system or is this a temporary glitch for Alaska?
Actions by BATFE indicate that they do not like this "loophole" and are doing all they can to eliminate it from states that use it.
 
Georgia's was just

added back to the list of NICS-exempt licenses after the legislature made some changes to the law.

In my day job I take calls from gun owners all over the country whop are experiencing different kinds of problems, from arrests to NICS denials to CCW issues. None have mentioned problems with the FBI portion of the background check.
 
Hmmmmm

I'm relatively sure that BATFE would rather not want to exempt anyone from a NICS check for every firearm purchase and its no skin off their nose as they have nothing to lose by not exempting CCWs.

The FBI will then have to perform a NICS check everytime one purchases a firearm.

I'm sure its just their way of showing Congress that they need more money for their increased workload.
 
I've never figured out what qualifies a CCW for NICS exemption. New Mexico has complete background checks/fingerprints/etc. and doesn't qualify. Does anyone know the criteria?
 
I've been aware of troubles that other states have had with nics-exempt permits. Those problems were based on ATF determinations that the state procedures were inadequate to qualify the permit for exemption.

In some states, the state process was adjusted to bring them into compliance with what ATF demanded. ATF then found that the permits were (or could remain) nics-exempt. Other states didn't comply with ATF demands, and ATF declared their permits as not nics-exempt.

This situation is a bit different. Alaska's permits qualify for nics-exemption based on the permit requirements and limits put in place by the state. Alaska WANTS nics-exempt permits and has set up the permitting process specifically to maintain elegibility for nics-exempt permits. The FBI is apparently refusing to process the NICS check required during the permit background investigation. Without that check, the permit cannot be nics-exempt, according to ATF.

If the FBI issued a blanket refusal to process nics checks in association with CCW permit background checks nationwide, this would eliminate nics-exempt permits nationwide at a single blow.

I'm curious if this has happened (or maybe is happening) elsewhere in the country. It would seem strange to have the FBI tell Alaska that they're too busy to process our applications properly, when they have time to process florida permits.

Also, sistema, the brady law which establishes the nics requirement also sets out the requirements for exemption from the nics check. That, together with ATF's interpretation of what the law means.
 
Last edited:
So, the FBI and ATF don't want to cooperate with Alaska. I wonder what would happen if Alaska suddenly passed a law mandating (with objections for conscience) that all of its adult citizens (defined in the law as members of the "Alaska Militia") own a full auto rifle...and then licensed a manufacturer to make them?
 
I wonder what would happen if Alaska suddenly passed a law mandating (with objections for conscience) that all of its adult citizens (defined in the law as members of the "Alaska Militia") own a full auto rifle...and then licensed a manufacturer to make them?

Hehe, 70% or so of US Gun Owners would Probably move to AK:evil:
& the BATFE & Feds would probably try to start some BS war over it...:rolleyes:
 
the BATFE & Feds would probably try to start some BS war over it

Thus eliminating the problem when their aircraft fall, out of fuel, into the Pacific after fruitlessly searching for Alaska in it's map location off the Southern coast of California. :evil:
 
I am sure that I will get flamed for my opinion , but being the contrary sort that I am here it is anyway .

I don't agree with the " Brady checks " to start with , but if we are going to have them personally I feel that NO ccw should exempt the check . My primarily reason for feeling this way is that exemption will bypass a check on any current restraining orders ( which is one of the better grounds for denial ) that are checked on a current check . IMHO its only a matter of time before this leads to an incident that gives the anti's something to hang another hat on so to speak .

edited to spell check as best i can lol
 
" current restraining orders"

should be amended to read: " I'm tired of ...... and I want to make sure he can't have fun with his toys I want half of , and don't want to worry that he might have the ability to make my new boy friend feel uneasy" Which is routinely filed , without any justifacation these days in about every divorce case!:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
My primarily reason for feeling this way is that exemption will bypass a check on any current restraining orders ( which is one of the better grounds for denial ) that are checked on a current check .

Oh? Perhaps you are not aware that some states (Utah is one) run a check DAILY on permit holders for restraining orders, etc.
 
redneck,

If there were a system of due process set up, where the restrainee was notified of the charges against them, and was given the ability to present evidence to the contrary, I might have more sympathy for your point.

But, since all it takes in many jurisdictions to get a restraining order (and thus deprive a legally innocent person of a fundamental right) is a sob story and a willing judge with a bad case of CYA, I can't agree.

In many places there is no requirement for actual proof and no notification prior to the order being given. To get the order removed, again, removed by the same judge who now feels even MORE liability attaches if the restrainee does turn out to deserve the order and acts out violently, can, in practice, require that the restrainee prove their innocence rather than the accuser prove the threat is real.

And the order itself is, in the end, just a piece of paper a real threat will summarily ignore, if not be further enraged by.

Restraining orders as they exist now are a joke as far as real protection goes and are often simply (and callowly) used as just another lever in divorce / custody cases.
 
Sorry redneck, the only argument for the NICS on CCW holders is that we don't pay the $25 or $35 fee and that makes the state mad. They re-instituted the check on us this year and then took it away again. I don't like paying another fee for no reason at all.
 
I purchased a Glock 26 on July 1st here in GA and did not have to go through the NICS background check due to a new law that went into effect the same day. All they did was make a copy of my drivers license and my Georgia Firearms License (CCW).
 
I don't agree with the " Brady checks " to start with , but if we are going to have them personally I feel that NO ccw should exempt the check . My primarily reason for feeling this way is that exemption will bypass a check on any current restraining orders ( which is one of the better grounds for denial ) that are checked on a current check . IMHO its only a matter of time before this leads to an incident that gives the anti's something to hang another hat on so to speak .
Think about the (lack of) logic in that for a minute ... CCW holder is already going to own one or more guns, so stopping him/her from buying another one is going to prevent a crime ...? :rolleyes:


My own expectation is that someday the FBI is just going to be "too busy" to do NICS checks for gun purchases period - and thus (new) guns are effectively banned without any legislation :(
 
well the FBI doesn't have the right to say you can't carry a gun . neither does the state . you don't need a state issued CCL . i live in Texas and i carry a 1911 on my thigh and i don't have a Texas CCL . yeah i get harassed sometimes but i know my rights and the law . if they ask for my permit i show them a NRA card with the second amendment on the back . most are dumbstruck when they see it , some don't care . others try to push it , so i push back . the 2nd says we can have, carry and and use deadly force to defend ourselves and the state . the 10 amendment says they state has no right to alter the nine that came before it . people tell me im crazy . i tell them i am free and they are not . i just ask myself , What Would Jefferson Do . remember people the 4th of July is not about fireworks and BBQ . i buy my guns at gun shows . in Texas thats a free zone , the way our forefathers intended it to be everywhere

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
 
Darthlung, you have a big spirit, but I believe that you are going to need to start enjoying wearing and orange jumpsuit, and living like a zoo animal as an inmate in your jurisdictions correctional facilities. The fact of the matter is that the laws where you live prohibit your actions, and you give gun owners and users a black eye.

You should fight the good fight, and encourage your representatives to make legislation that supports your position. If you can not get anywhere, consider running yourself. But sitting in the lock-up won't help you or your cause.
 
Actions by BATFE indicate that they do not like this "loophole" and are doing all they can to eliminate it from states that use it.
:rolleyes: The FBI, not the ATF, manages NICS.
 
Matters not who manages it. I belive that F-Troop doesn't like it and is doing what they can to eliminate it through technicalities, whenever possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top