Delaware: Firearm Purchase Delay Legislation Signed as “Terrorist Watchlist” Bill is Tabled

by NRA-ILA  |  published on June 24, 2016

On Tuesday, June 21, the Delaware Senate passed an amended version of House Bill 325, introduced by state representative Edward Osienski (D-24), which goes beyond federal law and extends the 3-day transfer period for NICS delays to 25 days. Unfortunately on the same day, the Delaware House of Representatives concurred on House Bill 325, and Governor Jack Markell (D) signed the measure into law shortly after its passage.

Previously, the law allowed a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to release a firearm after 3 business days if they have not received any additional correspondence from NICS after receiving a “delay” when conducting the initial background check for the firearms transfer. This safeguard prevents the potential shutdown of sales via endless delays and allows law-abiding individuals to take possession of a firearm in a timely manner.

In other news, the Delaware Senate was set to consider the “Terrorist Watchlist” legislation that was reintroduced as Senate Bill 289. In a procedural move to fast track the legislation without public input, the rules were suspended to bring it to the Senate floor for a vote. However, after vigorous opposition from your NRA-ILA and pro-gun Senators, the measure was tabled indefinitely.

Senate Bill 289 sought to remove the right to due process of those on the “Terrorist Watchlist” when taking away their firearm rights. Individuals may be added to the watchlist without being charged or convicted of any crimes, and those on the list are never notified if, how, or why they are on the list. There is no process in place to have your name removed from the list, and mistaken identities are common. In every other case in which a person is deprived of their firearm rights, they are afforded a judicial proceeding. Due process of the law must be followed before depriving anyone of their Constitutional rights.

  • carpkiller

    I wonder if dem.,apeman Lewis is off the list now.He found out he was on it but no news after that.

  • Rodney Steward

    Seems that Delaware doesn’t care about the Constitution either, and this is exactly why the house voted down this same Sh$t! They can and will put people on the list that don’t belong there, but that was the Dem. socialist and Opey’s GOAL!!

    • Liberal in CA

      This clearly violates the 12th amendment. Interestingly, the 12th amendment is often abused by politicians, media “experts’, and courts to extend federal authority over state jurisdictions far beyond the words in the amendment, yet in this case it is clear that this is an infringement of constitutional protections EXACTLY prohibited by the 12th amendment, as written, without creative interpretation. How many media outlets will point out this clear violation?

      The problem with the “liberal” media and politicians is that they are not liberal at all, they are in fact quite closed minded and intolerant, quick to abuse the power of government to suppress potential opposition with general disdain for civil liberties. Some people think we can pick and choose: they decry as “not civil” those liberties that do not fit their narrative, without concern for the consequence. Gun owners do not deserve civil rights they argue, usually with reference to invalid assumptions like the core (proven wrong) assertion that civil disarmament reduces violence, or dishonest arguments like “the people” means individuals everywhere in the constitution except in the 2nd amendment.

      Failing to see the interconnections between the liberties they consider “civil” and those they deem expendable is how we lose it all. TO put it in simple terms: who do you trust to decide what freedom you are allowed and which are restricted? What happens when that power is abused?

      • Rodney Steward

        The Constitution tells us what to do, and the politicians that ABUSE their power everyday work for ME, YOU, EVERYONE, and it is not their place to re-right gun laws, PERIOD!! This last terrorist attack was not a lone-wolf attack, it was a known-wolf attack! He didn’t slip through the cracks, under this administration he was let through the cracks to keep from profiling muslims! This man had a troubled life from the start, and if the Gov. had been able to do their job to start with we wouldn’t have had this attack, and the man was a life long thug! The trouble we have as a country, is that the Gov. has become to big, and most believe they are above the law even to the point that they don’t even pay their TAXES! They feel no one needs protection other than themselves! I’ve never seen so many people that have now opened their eyes to what is going on in this country and with our Gov., and all it took was the work of one mad man that hates it!

        • Liberal in CA

          Good points, Rodney. I feel the frustration that you capture in your comments. The Constitution defines limits on government for good reasons: the prohibitions enumerated are based on abuses of power, and the abuse of human rights, perpetrated by the crown. To understand the words in the Constitution is simple if you look at the period in history (the context) during which they were crafted. Those words stand clearly wihtout need for explanation or interpretation: it is a dishonest argument to assert that “the people” means anything other than individuals, that “shall make no law”, and “shall not” are anything other than clear prohibitions on federal government power.

          Those who today argue that we NEED to interpret the constitution in the context of today are either dishonest or ignorant of the constitution. Those words are clear, establishing limits on branches of government to protect the god given rights of the people (that is, every individual person). Within the constitution are processes for changing the constitution. If there is consensus of the people to change something, it can be done. By design, it takes consensus of the several states, each in control of their own process, not a roomful of justices, or congress, or one man with “a pen and a phone”.

          “The people” is used consistently in the constitution, in the meaning of the English language, and is today, as always, every individual person. The “collective right” argument is a good example of intellectual and political fraud: Each individual person is equal under the law, and a collection of people is exactly the same as a collection of individuals. To suggest “the people” means an collection of people controlled by the government is beyond absurd.

          All of this is a distraction, though, from the core point Rodney makes: The federal government has expanded it’s power beyond what is sustainable and what enables us to sustain a free and open society. In many states we have seen the same expansion, growth and are functional collapse: too many people have accepted the fallacy that only through government action can problems be solved; as we an ever increasing amount of our resources are consumed by the overhead of government; as the dependence grows the ability declines. The distraction is necessary to prevent a massive reaction to what is, so clearly if you chose to look, a spiral of collapse of our national values.

          And yet the power remains with the people: every 2 years we have the opportunity to flush the House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. While some state governments have become corrupt in the process of filling those seats (look at the size of some districts in California for examples), we the people still have the option of ignoring their system: if a majority of voters abandoned party loyalty and voted “no” on every incumbent, we could rid Congress of the career politicians who have escalated the concentration of power. Send them home. We have the power to enforce term limits, every election: just say “no” to re-election!

          • Rodney Steward

            I completely agree, and why in the he$$ do so many of these people keep voting the same CROOKS back into office! These voters are either very uninformed, our take it for granted that everything is running smoothly and why change. People need to vote for the good of the country, and not for there party! And why is it that the elite feel that this country needs changing, why do they want to turn us into a 3rd world country, is it a must for their dream of a NWO? I think what England did really opened the eyes of many of the so called elite, and you know that Soros is very unhappy, he’s spent most of his life funding Chaos all over the world! But if Hillary Clinton becomes our next President, this country in finished, and it will be a very ugly ending my friend, and I’ve said that her foundation is the ground work for the NWO! Amazing how heartless and powerful GREED can be!! I’m like you, we could change this country, but to many choose to ignore to much!!!

          • Liberal in CA

            I think that many people are misinformed. The fundamental assumptions behind the arguments that “thing control” can make positive change are based on fallacies which have been so often repeated the absurdity has been lost in the noise. This leads otherwise reasonably well educated people to fall behind an irrational argument.

            Party alignments are IMO a means to keep many of the myths and fallacies alive. According to the BATF the vast majority of adults in American who can legally own firearms do own firearms. Taking that fact, in light of political demographics, that means both parties are full of gun owners. Apparently many of these people are staying home, perhaps because they feel completely alienated by both parties. The 2-party dominance has, at least on this issue, effectively silenced the majority. Something to think about.

            I also see parallels with the UK exit vote and our own politics. I read this really interesting editorial by Larry Kudlow. I frequently disagree with Kudlow, as I do with much of what he says in this article, though I have come to respect his knowledge of history and economics (another trait we’re losing in modern correctness – the ability to respect someone with whom we do not always agree). In this he makes the point that “BREXIT” (which he endorses) is a strike against “the establishment” by a people frustrated and fed up with what they perceive as injustice. Quite a different tone from the anti-exit editorials I’ve read which explain the outcome by asserting those voting for it are stupid.


Google Analytics Alternative