Bill providing regs for handguns prefiled
Senate floor leader Pete P. Reyes (Ind-Saipan) has prefiled a bill that will regulate handguns in the Commonwealth in anticipation of the U.S. District Court possibly shooting down the Commonwealth Weapons Control Act.
Reyes’ Senate Bill 18-69, prefiled last Oct. 16, is a measure “to provide for the possession and management of firearms in the Commonwealth.”
The Commonwealth Weapons Control Act has been challenged in the courts and Reyes said the CNMI is now faced with a difficult decision—whether to fight a costly legal battle with little or no prospect of success or move forward in conformance with the Second Amendment.
“The Legislature finds that it is not in the best interest of the Commonwealth to wage an expensive legal battle that cannot be won. Therefore, the Legislature finds that it is in the best interests of the Commonwealth to enact comprehensive legislation for the regulation and control of firearms ammunition in the Commonwealth,” SB 18-69 reads.
The bill seeks to amend some parts of the current statute as well as add new sections. For example, a new section will be created under “Firearms Excise Tax” that recognizes that “the Department of Public Safety will require a significant increase in its funding due to the proliferation of firearms in the Commonwealth.”
Under this section, a tax of $1,000 will be imposed upon the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any pistol, shotgun, and rifle save for any .410 shotgun and .22 caliber rim fire rifle.
Under the section “Weapons Control,” the bill details the Firearms Owner’s Identification Card requirement and its exceptions.
It states that no person can “acquire or possess” any firearms or ammunition within the Commonwealth without having a Firearms Owner’s Identification Card that is issued by DPS.
Those exempted from the Firearms Owner’s Identification Card requirement include, among others, U.S. Marshals, members of the U.S. Armed Forces and National Guard, and members of bona fide veteran organizations.
Under the bill, applicants for the Firearms Owner’s Identification Card must be 21 years old or older, not addicted to narcotics, not been a patient of a mental facility within the past five years, not intellectually disabled, not an alien unlawfully present in the U.S., not been convicted of violating an order of protection or not a subject of an existing order of protection, not currently facing charges for an act of violence or an act involving a firearm, and had not been convicted within 10 years prior to the application, among others.
The bill also calls for would-be gun owners to undergo a background check, safety training requirement, and a written safety test. The bill states that the Firearms Owner’s Identification Card will be valid for five years.
David J. Radich, a U.S. Navy Gulf War veteran, and his wife have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the constitutionality of the CNMI Weapons Control Act after Radich’s wife suffered serious injuries during a home invasion on Saipan in 2010.
The CNMI Weapons Control Act prohibits all residents from obtaining handguns for self-defense purposes.
Guns are poor therapy for physical assault. Unleashing handguns on the local citizenry isn’t going to change what happened to the Radich couple. It certainly hasn’t helped things where they come from.
Except for the $1000 fee all the requirements outlined by Reyes are already in effect, but if the article is accurate Radich can bypass all ownership permit requirements simply by joining VFW?
A tax on an absolute Constitutionally guaranteed right? I doubt a $1,000 tax on owning a gun under this bill will be constitutional under the 2nd Amendment.
The reporter fails to make it clear if the so-called import tax in this bill is per gun or per person or ????. Why not simply print the bill as written?
“Under this section, a tax of $1,000 will be imposed upon the
manufacturer, producer, or importer of any pistol, shotgun, and rifle
save for any .410 shotgun and .22 caliber rim fire rifle.”
I highly suspect that this “tax” infringes on the 2nd Amendment rights of us all and will be challenged and thrown out.
This bill, once again, tramples on the legal gun owner, whereas the real problem will always be the illegal gun owners.
Unless the reporter simply failed to write a complete outline of this bill, I don’t see a provision for substantial penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. The goal being to thwart crime, especially with the use of firearms.
The issue of concealed carry should also be addressed. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have approved concealed carry under pressure of 2nd Amendment rights. There are some restrictions, but as a whole, the CNMI should know that this is coming also.
Hand in hand with this matter, the dark tinting of vehicle glass must be addressed. The Department of Public Safety should be the first to demand that “blacked out” glass be prohibited. There are simple hand-held meters available such as the Tint Meter Model 100 ($79.00) available for this purpose.
While considering vehicle window tinting and the testing thereof, it occurs to me that putting this testing into the hands of the vehicle inspection stations is somewhat of a joke. Experience has proven that the local vehicle inspection is largely a wink-of-the-eye joke. No rear brakes…never mind, green headlights…no problem, broken lens…manana, etc.
Buenas,
No need for the $1,000 fees, there are many hand guns and high power rifles (AKs, 30-30, etc.) circulating in the CNMI. Also, those weapons which were buried with thousands of rounds for future use, can be obtain in an emergency basis in the future.
Our government needs to wake up and smell the coffee, because if the Chinese Mafia can own this so call illegal weapons, it would be no brainer for another group to match such fire power.
As for the tinted windows, it would be a political suicide for anyone to legislate such bill. Imagine, to tell thousand of motorists to conform to such law would be costly for them.
Si Yu’us Ma’ase