Discussion in 'Legal' started by Sinixstar, Nov 11, 2008.
And the timer starts as soon as you application comes to the firearms desk at DOL in Olympia...
Ok 32 days...
[email protected] A$$
Once we get the AFL, I am assuming we do not have to fingerprint & check records again for the CPL since they already did it and maybe there is no extra charge. Currently I believe the CPL is $55.
I wonder if after the August trial we could comeback and sue the state for making us pay for exercising a constitutional right, discriminatory practice based on nationality and for the $74.25 fee refund.
I actually wonder whether we'll see the FBI charge remitted, since they can't get the FBI to perform a background check for the AFL.
I'm not holding my breath
If they can't do the background check they still have to issue the license - that's in the order.
No unfortunatelly the same fingerprint check can't be used twice. You'd have to do it again
Sure they have to issue the license, but shouldn't they remit the payment for the FBI check since its the worst kept secret in at least this crowd, that the DOL can't get an FBI background check.
the current $74.25 fee covers
So the remittance of $19.25 should be coming my way (but I'm not going to hold my breath).
Well, the sheriff will not share the info. with DOL, it'll just give them the Ok to issue license or not. You will get FBI checked by your LE, so we can forget about the Federal background check refund.
user3214 is correct.. if you get a CPL you need to pay again.
I got my CPL after my green card, like I said before, If I had known about the trouble I would have got a new AFL the day after my Green card and I'd be good until citizenship day...
Trial Dates Set by Judge
Same as before with a few tweaks... of course you can feel free to write your own version.
probably stating the obvious here, but since the checks are presumably largely the sane for AFL and CPL (I would bet that the AFL checks are actually deeper), wouldn't it make sense to have an additional check box on the AFL "Also process me for a CPL" so both authorizations could happen concurrently?
Heck, they could even charge both fees at once, and since they basically do the same checks, it would increase their revenue by using the same results and charging for them twice.
nah, that would be too easy, make way too much sense and save too much time avoiding redundant processes and needless paper pushing.
Government policy's are not rational. If it makes sense, then obviously the local government is going to refuse to do it.
I expect in this situation though they might consider joining the two forms, as an implicit "invitation" for AFL applicants to also apply for a CPL (if they did this I'd expect 90+% of AFL holders to also have a CPL). Considering the current situation here in WA I don't think that they'd like to do that, since they've entirely blocked our rights for 4-5 years, up to now on an administrative error, in a statute that is non-constitutional in the first place.
Anyway it's only another 4 weeks or so to wait. Then apply for the CPL.
I saved a guy at work from getting in deep you know what, today he just went in and did the application at the Sheriffs office... probably be a few more people here at work doing it too.
Now I'm the "ask that guy" at work.. LOL
On each background check there is box, what the check is for:
So the purpose is to keep track of the checks and why there were done.
Cross posting from activism
Feb 10 Scheduled for public hearing in the House Committee on General Government Appropriations at 8:00 AM. (Subject to change)
General Government Appropriations Committee
Darneille, Jeannie (D) Chair [email protected]
Takko, Dean (D) Vice Chair [email protected]
McCune, Jim (R) [email protected]
Hinkle, Bill (R) [email protected]
Armstrong, Mike (R) [email protected]
Blake, Brian (D) [email protected]
Crouse, Larry (R) [email protected]
Dunshee, Hans (D) [email protected]
Hudgins, Zachary (D)
Kenney, Phyllis Gutierrez (D) [email protected]
Pedersen, Jamie (D) [email protected]
Sells, Mike (D) [email protected]
Short, Shelly (R) [email protected]
Van De Wege, Kevin (D) [email protected]
Williams, Brendan (D) [email protected]
Bulk Mail Address here
Anyone receive any reply letters, we've had a few so far.
Nothing here yet.
Nothing yet. What did you or them receive?
A couple of them, they said they supported 1052...
I guess we find out tomorrow....
The bill was read only DFW had a beef with it.
On the other side of the spectrum, apparently I'm the very first LPR in WA State to have their AFL application completed and the license is being printed and sent off ASAP !!
good for you MD
How did you find out they are printing it, did you call them?
The 9/11 hijackers were not resident aliens with green cards. They were people who came on student visas. Some of them had overstayed their visas and were here illegally. People on visas are not eligible to purchase firearms in the United States.
So we're agreed that the State of Washington is wrong, right?
RE 9/11 NON-IMMIGRANT Aliens
It boils down to this:
People hell bent on doing harm will never go through the hoops we are willing to go through to stay legal, they will chose to do things that are illegal, that is their prerogative.
Their ability to get away with overstaying their welcome here in the USA has nothing to do with us legal permanent residents.
user3214, yes I just phoned the DOL at about 16:15 today, and that is all it took to get the info.
Separate names with a comma.