DOCSLIB.ORG

Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligble to Purchase

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligble to Purchase --~- - -----------~ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Identifying Persolls, Other Than Felons, Ineligible tOI Purch,ase Firearms: A FeasibilitJT Study n May 1990 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase Firearms: A Feasibility Study May 1990 123050 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exa(;Uy as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinionG stated in this document are those of the ,,-u!h()rs and do not necessarily represent the official position ~~ poliCies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this e"" . 1 L"i material has been granted by Public Domain/OJP/BJS U.S. Department of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the~ owner. James M. Tien, Ph.D. Thomas F. Rich ENFORTH Corporation Copyright © May 1990 ENFORTH Corporation Cambridge, Massachusetts NCJ-1230S0 Report of work perfonned under BJS Contract No. OIP-89-C-006, awarded to ENFORTH Corporation, 432 Columbia Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02141. Contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. 922(g» states that "it shall be unlawful for any person: 1. who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; 2. who is a fugitive from justice; 3. [who] is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802»; 4. who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution; 5. who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; 6. who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or 7. who, having been a citizen of t.he United States, has renounced his citizenship, to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Foreword The Attorney General, ill consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and others, was required by Congress to develop a system for the immediate and accurate identification of felons attempting to purcbase firearms which, under Federal law, most felons are ineligible to do. Pursuant to this congressional mandate [§6213(a) of the Anti­ Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (the Act), 102 Stat 4360], the Attorney General appointed a Task Force on Felon Identification in Firealm Sales. After a thorough inquiry and analysis, the Task Force published its Report to the Attorney General on Systems for Identifying Felons Who Attempt to Purchase Firearms in the Federal Register on 25 October 1989. Subsequently, as required in §6213(b) of the Act, the Attorney General reported these findings to Congress and made four compre­ hensive recommendations on the issue of felon identification. Section 6213(c) of the Act provides the next stage of this process. The Attorney General, again in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and others, is required to conduct a study to determine if an effective method exists for tht~ immediate and accurate identification of other persons who attempt to purchase firearms but are ineligible to do so because they fall into other ineligible categories created by the Gun Control Act of 1968 [18 U.S.C. 922(g)]. As with the felon identification project, the Attorney General called upon the Office of Justice Programs and its Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to oversee this project. BJS selected the ENFORTII Corporation to conduct the necessary research which has been compiled in this report, Identifying Persons, Other Than Felons, Ineligible to Purchase Firearms: A Feasibility Study. This Study is, indeed, a feasibility study. It does not directly address such issues as the development or implementation of systems, nor does it discuss, other than very roughly, estimates of costs involved. Unlike the earlier report on identifying felons attempting to purchase firearms, where the Attorney General was directed to "develop a system for immediate and accurate identification," here he was directed only to "conduct a study." Nonetheless, the two studies are complementary in that they both address the issue of how to identify persons ineligible to purchase firearms. In addition to a felon or fugitive [18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) and (2)], a person is ineligible to possess or receive a firearm in interstate commerce who: (3) is an unlavvful user of or addicted to a.t'1Y controlled substance; iii {4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has !been committed to a mental institution; I IcS) being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; (6) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or (7) having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or ber citizenship. In addition, it is unlawful for anyone to sell or dispose of a firearm to a person in these ineligible categories. Even the casual reader of the two studies will immediately note that two quite different sets of circumstances are involved. In the felon identification study, the Federal Government as well as the governments of the States, have developed over the years extensive sets of records of persons within the ineligible felon class and indeed are expected to have this data and, generally, to have them readily retrievable. That, of course, is not true with most of the categories of ineligible persons in the second study. While it probably comes as no particular surprise that a governmental agency has virtually a complete set of data, fully automated at that, of those in the renunciate category, most people would be surprised, many even offended, if a similar agency were to have a complete set of da.ta for those who are users of controlled substances or who are or ever had been adjudi­ cated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. In fact, it is a violation of Federal law to disclose the medical records of persons who have been engaged in a drug rehabilitation program funded by the Federal Government. Medical record disclo­ sure is also prohibited by many State laws. Additionally, for example, the Departments of State and Defense interpret the Federal Privacy Act to prohibit the routine dissemination of data about individuals in the renunciate and dishonorably discharged categories. These are just a few illustrations of the challenges of placing into operation a system or systems to identify those in the non-felon categories of persons ineligible to purchase firearms. If a comprehen­ sive verification system for identifying these persons is to be put into pI , bro . ive package and necessary financial resources 1 be Richard B. Abell Assistant Attorney General Office of Justice Programs U. S. Department of Justice iv Preface Section 6213(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) requires the Attorney General to "develop a system for [the] immediate and accurate identification of felons who attempt to purchase one or more firearms but are ineligible to purchase firearms by reason of section 922(g)(1) of title 18, United States Code." To comply with this provision, the Attorney General convened a task force, chaired by the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs, and with representatives from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the National Institute of Justice, and the U.S. Marshals Service. The task force was charged with developing alternative methods of identifying felons who attempt to purchase firearms. On June 26, 1989, the task force -issued a draft report on systems for identifying felons. A public review period followed, with comments received through the following September 6th. The final report was issued on October 22, 1989 and transmitted by the Attorney General to Congress on November 20, 1989. Section 6213 also requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, to "conduct a study to determine if an effective method [exists] for [the] immediate and accurate identification of other persons who attempt to purchase one or more firearms but are ineligible to purchase firearms by reason of Section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code." This inclu(k~$ any person who: • is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802»; • has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution; • being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; o has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; • or having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship. v For this study, the BJS, acting on behalf of the Attorney General, decided to seek the assistance of an outside contractor. The BJS subsequently selected ENFORTH Corporation to conduct the necessary research on methods for identifying ineligible persons. Work began on July 11, 1989. The results of this research are contained in this report; it should be viewed as an addendum to the former felon system study -- in particular, it is assumed that the reader has read the felon system report.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thursday April 6, 1995
    4±6±95 Thursday Vol. 60 No. 66 April 6, 1995 Pages 17433±17624 Briefings on How To Use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, and Salt Lake City, UT, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by Online: the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Telnet swais.access.gpo.gov, login as newuser <enter>, no Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register > Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the password <enter ; or use a modem to call (202) 512±1661, login as swais, no password <enter>, at the second login as regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register > > (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of newuser <enter , no password <enter . Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Assistance with online subscriptions 202±512±1530 20402. Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 512±1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Senior Honors Projects Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island 2009 The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Babat, David, "The Discriminatory History of Gun Control" (2009). Senior Honors Projects. Paper 140. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Babat [email protected] The Discriminatory History of Gun Control Introduction Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic discrimination in many gun control laws. Gun control may be portrayed as a measure to reduce crime,1 but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands.
    [Show full text]
  • From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988
    From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Kai Hinton Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2012 Elizabeth Kai Hinton All rights reserved ABSTRACT From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Hinton The first historical account of federal crime control policy, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” contextualizes the mass incarceration of marginalized Americans by illuminating the process that gave rise to the modern carceral state in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. The dissertation examines the development of the national law enforcement program during its initial two decades, from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which established the block grant system and a massive federal investment into penal and juridical agencies, to the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which set sentencing guidelines that ensured historic incarceration rates. During this critical period, Presidential Administrations, State Departments, and Congress refocused the domestic agenda from social programs to crime and punishment. To challenge our understanding of the liberal welfare state and the rise of modern conservatism, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” emphasizes the bipartisan dimensions of punitive policy and situates crime control as the dominant federal response to the social and demographic transformations brought about by mass protest and the decline of domestic manufacturing. The federal government’s decision to manage the material consequences of rising unemployment, subpar school systems, and poverty in American cities as they manifested through crime reinforced violence within the communities national law enforcement legislation targeted with billions of dollars in grant funds from 1968 onwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy February 3, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Control Legislation Summary Congress has debated the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. The tragic shootings in Tucson, AZ, on January 8, 2011, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, could prompt the 112th Congress to examine issues related to the shooter’s mental illness and drug use and his use of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) (see H.R. 308 and S. 32), as well as a proposal to ban firearms within the proximity of certain high-level federal officials (see H.R. 496). This report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress and selected legislative action in the 110th Congress that involved issues revisited in the 111th Congress. The report concludes with a discussion of other salient issues that have generated significant congressional interest in the past, including the 1994-2004 LCAFD ban. During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was colored by two key Supreme Court findings. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found that the District of Columbia (DC) handgun ban violated an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy November 14, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Control Legislation Summary Congress has debated the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. In the wake of the July 20, 2012, Aurora, CO, theater mass shooting, in which 12 people were shot to death and 58 wounded (7 of them critically) by a lone gunman, it is likely that there will be calls in the 112th Congress to reconsider a 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that expired in September 2004. There were similar calls to ban such feeding devices (see S. 436/H.R. 1781) following the January 8, 2011, Tucson, AZ, mass shooting, in which 6 people were killed and 14 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was grievously wounded. These calls could be amplified by the August 5, 2012, Sikh temple shooting in Milwaukee, WI, in which six worshipers were shot to death and three wounded by a lone gunman. The 112th Congress continues to consider the implications of Operation Fast and Furious and allegations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) mishandled that Phoenix, AZ-based gun trafficking investigation. On June 28, 2012, the House passed a resolution (H.Res. 711) citing Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt for his failure to produce additional, subpoenaed documents related to Operation Fast and Furious to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998
    T O EN F J TM U R ST U.S. Department of Justice A I P C E E D B O J C S F A V Office of Justice Programs F M O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice Research Forum Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research 1998: Bridging the Gaps: Collaborations on Lethal Violence Research, Theory, and Prevention Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noël Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 May 1999 NCJ 175709 Jeremy Travis Director Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Table of Contents 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research......................................1 Discussion 1997 Keynote Kick-Off: What Works? David Kennedy...............................................................3 Building Bridges Between Research and Practice: Youth Violence Prevention Rich Rosenfeld and Troy Miles Anthony Braga, David Kennedy, and Tito Whittington Don Faggiani and Colleen McLaughlin.............................................4 Bridging the Gaps for the Virginia “Cradle-to-Grave” Homicide Project Colleen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal No. 101 Proposal No
    Proposal No. 101 Proposal No. 102 Name: Arrion Azimi Name: George Zhang Delegation: Albany YMCA Delegation: South Valley/SV YMCA 1 TOPIC OF CONCERN: 1 TOPIC OF CONCERN: 2 Federalizing and reforming education 2 This proposal calls for mandatory fact checking by a third party for all 3 3 commercial media outlets. 4 JUSTIFICATION: 4 5 The education system in America, one of the most prosperous and powerful nations 5 JUSTIFICATION: 6 in the world, is broken. According to a study from Newsweek, the U.S. ranks #26 on 6 It’s undeniable that people assume the news they watch is factual. 7 the List of 100 Countries with the Best Education. This is due to lack of a steady 7 Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. There have been many cases where 8 curriculum, which allows certain districts to teach biased curriculum and private 8 the breaking news of the day is blatantly incorrect, with the usual victims being 9 schools with religious agendas to ignore certain material (according to a study by 9 the new media, politicians, and whatever’s popular among the current 10 TIME, private school test scores are on the same level as public school ones, and the 10 generation. Perhaps the most well-known example among teenagers is the 2008 11 education from public schools is usually less biased). The US also lacks the effective 11 Fox News report on the Mass Effect “sex scandal”, where it was alleged by an 12 trade school system of Europe, which benefits both the economy and students 12 invited speaker that there was“full digital nudity and sex” and that players 13 uninterested in higher learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations and Related Legislation
    Gun Control: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations and Related Legislation October 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45970 SUMMARY R45970 Gun Control: National Instant Criminal October 17, 2019 Background Check System (NICS) Operations William J. Krouse and Related Legislation Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers a computer system of systems that is used to query federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial criminal history record information (CHRI) and other records to determine an individual’s firearms transfer/receipt and possession eligibility. This FBI-administered system is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS, or parallel state systems, must be checked and the pending transfer approved by the FBI or state point of contact before a federally licensed gun dealer may transfer a firearm to any customer who is not also a federally licensed gun dealer. Current federal law does not require background checks for intrastate (same state), private-party firearms transactions between nondealers, though such checks are required under several state laws. In the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed three bills that would expand federal firearms background check requirements and firearms transfer/receipt and possession ineligibility criteria related to domestic violence. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8), a “universal” background check bill, would make nearly all intrastate, private-party firearms transactions subject to the recordkeeping and NICS background check requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). For the past two decades, many gun control advocates have viewed the legal circumstances that allow individuals to transfer firearms intrastate among themselves without being subject to the licensing, recordkeeping, and background check requirements of the GCA as a “loophole” in the law, particularly within the context of gun shows.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 18, folder “Gun Control (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 18 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library '. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON March 10, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: ylPHIL BUCHEN JIM CANNON FROM: JACKMA~ As mentioned early in the senior staff meeting this morning, the question of gun control legislation is receiving increased attention. This is becoming evident in three principal areas: namely, the Congress, the media, and in organizations that support and oppose gun control legislation. As you are aware, this is a subject with highly emotional interest on both sides of the issue. It is important to know that the President, as a member of Congress and as Minority Leader, had occasion to take position>on this subject, and you might make an effort to establish more precisely what those positions were, particularly by reviewing his public statements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Racist History of Gun Control Policy and Rhetoric in the United States
    The Racist History of Gun Control Policy and Rhetoric in the United States From the Colonies to the Present, How African Americans’ Right to Own and Use Firearms has Been Restricted by the White Population By: Alexandra Lanzetta Defense Date: March 29, 2021 Thesis Advisor: Phoebe Young, History Department Defense Committee: Myles Osborne, History Department (Honors Council Representative); Peter Hunt, Classics Department Lanzetta i Table of Contents: Acknowledgements ii Introduction 1 Prologue: The Defense of White Superiority 10 Chapter 1: The Dichotomy Between Black Freedom and White Preferences 18 Section 1: The Civil War 21 Section 2: The Black Codes and the Reconstruction Era 23 Section 3: The Jim Crow Era 34 Conclusion 39 Chapter 2: Black Power Versus the White Institution 41 Section 1: The History 44 Section 2: Gun Use by African Americans 46 Section 3: Police and State Response 51 Section 4: Legal Response 56 Conclusion 61 Chapter 3: White Lives and White Preferences Over Black Lives 63 Section 1: The History 66 Section 2: Police Brutality, Mass Incarceration, and Gun Control 71 Section 3: The Importance of the Second Amendment Over Black Lives 79 Section 4: Gun Control Laws Passed from the 1980s to the Present 84 Conclusion 89 Conclusion 92 References 100 Lanzetta ii Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my parents, Joe and Lisa, for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement. I would be nowhere today without having you two in my life. Lanzetta 1 Introduction: “The stranglehold of oppression cannot be loosened by a plea to the oppressor’s conscious. Social change in something as fundamental as racist oppression involves violence.”1 Say their names: George Floyd.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance of a Defendant's Subjective Intent in Defining a “Destructive Device” Under the National Firearms Act
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 2 Article 6 November 2011 Just a Soul Whose Intentions Are Good? The Relevance of a Defendant's Subjective Intent in Defining a “Destructive Device” Under the National Firearms Act Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Just a Soul Whose Intentions Are Good? The Relevance of a Defendant's Subjective Intent in Defining a “Destructive Device” Under the National Firearms Act, 79 Fordham L. Rev. 563 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss2/6 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUST A SOUL WHOSE INTENTIONS ARE GOOD? THE RELEVANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S SUBJECTIVE INTENT IN DEFINING A “DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE” UNDER THE NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT Elliot Buckman* This Note addresses the three-way circuit split among the U.S. Courts of Appeals over when, and to what extent, a court may consider a defendant’s subjective intent in defining a “destructive device” under the National Firearms Act. The circuit split centers on the Act’s ambiguous reference to intent in its definition of a destructive device, which is a statutorily prohibited firearm. After discussing the Act’s legislative history and development, this Note considers the role of mens rea in National Firearms Act cases.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election November 6
    VOTERS’ PAMPHLET WASHINGTON STATE ELECTIONS GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 6 YOUR BALLOT WILL BE MAILED BY OCTOBER 19 2018 (800) 448-4881 | vote.wa.gov OFFICIAL PUBLICATION 2 A message from Secretary of State Kim Wyman Welcome to your 2018 General Election Voters’ Pamphlet! This important election will decide local, state, and national races and issues. All 10 of Washington’s congressional seats and a statewide race for the U.S. Senate are on the ballot in this election, as are all 98 seats in the state House of Representatives and 25 of 49 seats in the state Senate. City and county elections will select judges, council members, and other officials who administer day-to-day government functions locally. Several statewide initiatives are on the ballot this year as well, with the potential to significantly affect public policy and Washingtonians’ lives. For more than a century, citizens have used petitions to place issues directly before the state’s voters, and the Voters’ Pamphlet has provided valuable information about what each proposal would do. Inside this edition of the Pamphlet, you’ll find explanations of each initiative, the impact each would have on state government finances, and arguments for and against. To participate in this election, you must be registered to vote in Washington. You may check your registration status anytime online at MyVote.wa.gov. If you are not yet registered to vote in this year’s General Election, you have until October 29th to register at your county’s elections office. This year, you and voters throughout the state will be able to return ballots by mail without using a stamp.
    [Show full text]