Permit to Purchase Passes Amended Version, Heads to Senate
Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 2 with House Amendments 2, 6, 10, and 11 passed the House with 23 YES, 16 NO, and 2 Absent. Since it was amended in the House it will return to the Senate for a vote.
Here are the PASSED Amendment details:
Amendment 2: Removes the firearm training voucher program entirely.
Amendment 6: Exempts qualified LE and retired LE, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, CCDW permit holders, FFL’s and deadly weapons dealers, armored car guards and security personnel, constables, correctional officers, active military, certified NRA instructors, persons holding valid hunter safety certification card, competitor shooters holding certification card issued by NRA, IDPA, IPSC, or USPSA.
However, Amendment 11 says those persons are only exempt IF their training meets all requirements of training listed under permit to purchase, which is:
a. Instruction regarding knowledge and safe handling of firearms.
b. Instruction regarding safe storage of firearms and child safety.
c. Instruction regarding knowledge and safe handling of ammunition.
d. Instruction regarding safe storage of ammunition and child safety.
e. Instruction regarding safe firearms shooting fundamentals.
f. Live fire shooting exercises conducted on a range, including the expenditure of a minimum of 100 rounds of ammunition.
g. Identification of ways to develop and maintain firearm shooting skills.
h. Instruction regarding federal and state laws pertaining to the lawful purchase, ownership, transportation, use, and possession of firearms.
i. Instruction regarding the laws of this State pertaining to the use of deadly force.
j. Instruction regarding techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution.
k. Instruction regarding suicide prevention.
Amendment 10: " (n) (1) After a permit has been issued or a denial has become final, SBI may not retain any records relating to the application or permit other than the name and date of birth of the applicant, the date the permit was issued or the denial became final, and the date of the firearms training course completed by the applicant.(2) Applications and any other information gathered under this section are not “public records” for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, Chapter 100 of Title 29. "
Dirty Details
The House discourse over permit to purchase was charged with hostility and opposing parties went hard when debating the details entailed within the bill.
As the bill supporters made claim after claim, Republican House members went to work dismantling the supposed benefits of permit to purchase.
The perfect example of how little this bill has to do with the safety of children or the public is this…
Moms Demand Action and supporters claim permit to purchase will reduce the number of juveniles who commit acts of violence using firearms. Firearms purchasing and possession is prohibited for anyone under the age of 21 and has been for a very long time. The point is moot. Juveniles and persons prohibited are not legally obtaining guns. Rather, as criminals do, they find other methods of securing deadly weapons. AKA the black market, which will be empowered by the passing of permit to purchase. Let’s all take a moment to understand that women are often beaten and, at times, intentionally drugged to create an addiction that aids in the trafficker’s control of their victims. Victims of traffickers are then used to legally purchase firearms for the purposes of turning those guns over to the trafficker/abuser and entering them into the black market.
One question that was asked of Attorney General Kathy Jennings was…
What percentage of law abiding gun owners are committing gun crimes?
Jennings did not answer the question. Instead, Jennings stated that individuals who attend training for their concealed carry deadly weapons permits are not the ones committing crimes.
Although she meant this to be a good thing to support permit to purchase, she avoided the question altogether and denied knowing that her own data shows the majority of weapons violations are being committed by a very small percentage of repeat offenders.
Still, her chosen statement does raise several questions. For example; When passing legislation that banned ccdw permit holders from school grounds/buildings in the first half of the legislative session, why did they claim permit holders to be too unstable to carry on school property and in schools? Why did they prohibit teachers with ccdw permits from carrying while working? Why did they disarm those who went the extra mile to get their ccdw permit if permit holders are not committing crimes? And why did they disarm responsible ccdw permit holders in places where mass shootings tend to happen?
This hypocritical and agenda driven type of lawmaking is incredibly negligent when it comes to public safety and the rights of the people. It is especially damning to the states most vulnerable populations. Women being at the top of that list.
During last night’s debate over permit to purchase, yet another “expert witness” stood at the pulpit exclaiming what women REALLY need for personal protection….. Shot guns.
Good. Lord. Perhaps our ability to defend ourselves is strictly limited to our homes?? Or are we supposed to tuck a 12 g shotgun in our thongs while we grocery shop?
Some of the other agencies who spoke as expert witnesses, like McQueen from the Department of Homeland Security, stated the opposite of what the bill sponsors claimed. McQueen stated…
If a permit was revoked then ALL firearms in the home would be removed
The bill did allow for and create a registry of all guns owned and by who
They have had staffing issues and technology issues, which aren’t completely resolved so that this can be implemented
Officers will not be pulled off their duties to run the permitting process
This is very concerning and confusing considering the testimony from previous “expert witnesses” brought forth by those who support the bill over the last several years, who said…
Only the guns issued under the revoked permit would be confiscated from homes, leaving guns purchased under prior permits in the home
The bill did not create a registry of guns and/or gun owners
Staffing was not an issue
Officers who are currently working WILL be pulled from duty obligations to run the permitting scheme
It’s all so contradictory and who knows what the real facts are when it comes to what’s in SS 1 for SB 2 with HA 2, 6, 10, and 11.
Rep. Speigleman brought up some excellent points with several amendments, especially when pointing out that this bill would require even those who are certified to carry a firearm for official purposes to attend the training and go through the process to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. Including the instructors who are approved by the state to teach the permitting class.
Rep. Valerie Giltner proposed an amendment for victims of DV and individuals with valid orders of protection or no-contact orders in place. She falsely and mistakenly claimed that the Women’s Defense Coalition supported this amendment. To be clear, Rep. Giltner never spoke with a representative of WDC but may have been told by an individual who claimed to be with our organization that they supported the amendment personally. Rep. Giltner did call the WDC President and issue an apology for not verifying our stance on the amendment prior to making that claim. Rep. Giltner assured us she would communicate with us directly in the future. The Women’s Defense Coalition does NOT support any amendments to permit to purchase or any bill that is in direct violation of our constitutionally protected rights.
The problem with the amendment proposed by Rep Giltner is 2 fold
Often, when a no-contact order or PFA is issued, it is issued against both parties to prevent contact being initiated between the pair/group. This is especially true when it comes to neighbor disputes and some other circumstances. The amendment would have barred victims from being issued a permit to purchase a handgun. We are 100% opposed to this amendment.
We do not support amendments to bills that are in direct violation of our constitutionally protected rights and are adamant supporters of standing strong against any infringement of the rights of the people. #seeyouincourt
