The Firearm Due Process Protection Act aims to protect individuals' Second Amendment rights by ensuring due process in firearm-related determinations, allowing legal action for Brady Act violations, and mandating transparency in NICS record challenges.
Tom Emmer
Representative
MN-6
The Firearm Due Process Protection Act aims to protect individuals' Second Amendment rights by ensuring due process in firearm-related determinations. It allows individuals affected by Brady Act violations to seek legal action, mandating quick court hearings and requiring the government to prove ineligibility to possess a firearm by clear and convincing evidence. The Act also requires annual reports to Congress on NICS record challenges and affirms the importance of due process in protecting the right to bear arms.
Bill Proposes Faster Court Hearings, Shifts Proof Burden to Feds for NICS Gun Purchase Denials
This bill, the Firearm Due Process Protection Act, tackles the process for challenging a denial from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) when trying to buy a gun. It essentially gives individuals more legal firepower if they believe they've been wrongly flagged. The core change allows someone denied by NICS to take legal action, mandating that a court must schedule a hearing within 30 days of the case being filed.
Getting Your Day in Court Quicker
Under Section 2 of this act, if you're blocked by NICS and decide to sue, the system is designed to move faster with that 30-day hearing requirement. Perhaps more significantly, the bill flips the script on who has to prove what. Instead of the individual having to demonstrate their eligibility, the government (the respondent in the case) would need to show by clear and convincing evidence that the person is actually prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. Think about someone denied due to a case of mistaken identity or an old, expunged record that shouldn't count against them – this provision aims to put the onus on the government to definitively prove its case in court. Furthermore, if the person challenging the denial 'substantially prevails' – meaning they get the outcome they wanted through a court order, settlement, or even just the government changing its position – the government would be required to cover their attorney fees and court costs, provided the claim wasn't frivolous.
Shining a Light on the Appeals Process
Beyond individual court cases, Section 3 introduces an accountability measure. It requires the FBI Director to submit an annual report to Congress detailing the NICS appeals process. This report would have to include specifics like the total number of challenges received and processed, how many denials were overturned versus upheld (and the reasons why), and the average time it takes to resolve these challenges. This aims to bring transparency to a system that can often feel like a black box, potentially highlighting recurring issues or bottlenecks.
The Bigger Picture: Due Process and Details
The legislation emphasizes the idea that denying someone their Second Amendment right requires fair legal steps (due process). While Section 4 expresses this 'Sense of Congress'—which is more of a statement of principle than a binding rule—the concrete changes are in Sections 2 and 3. The practical effect is aimed at speeding up resolutions for potentially wrongful denials and making the government meet a higher legal standard when defending those denials in court. However, the expedited timeline could add pressure to court dockets, and the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard is a notable shift in the legal burden.