Democrats Reject Steube Amendment

Why do I get the idea that many politicians are more interested in controlling people than actually doing something that puts violent criminals in prison, or actually helping society in some way? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Am I being paranoid?

I agree with the Democrats on this issue. There are several reasons a buyer can be denied. The most common two are incomplete court records showing the deposition of a criminal charge and identity theft. NCIC is far from being very reliable.

Racially invidious gun controls are NEVER about disarming or punishing criminals, ALWAYS about punishing or disarming non-criminals. But then the proponents don't see violent criminals as their mortal enemies...

I am in agreement with the Steube ammendment.
When you fill out that form, you are certifying that your answers are true and correct.
If you fail the background check, there is a reason.
Being referred to law enforcement only means that there is something not right about the form and it should be investigated.
If you lied on the form, you should be held accountable, if you didn't and it is a background mistake, it can be cleared up.
Too many people, today, believe that the law means nothing and you can lie, committ perjury, do whatever you want, violate the law, and not be held accountable.
I'm not one of those people.

Didn't this fail back in Feb and this is a rather old subject.

However, back on course.....
If this short paragraph was removed, it most likely would have passed, or so stated a few who voted against it....
"The Steube Amendment also required Immigration and Customs Enforcement be notified if an illegal immigrant attempts to purchase a firearm..."

I agree with BSA1 but only to a point. Same thing with Red Flags. Where is the due process. However, I strongly feel that those who try to purchase a firearm when they clearly know that they are breaking the law should be prosecuted. I feel it was voted down not because of its merits, but because of who submitted it for consideration. No invented here mentality.

Deanimator said:

Racially invidious gun controls are NEVER about disarming or punishing criminals, ALWAYS about punishing or disarming non-criminals. But then the proponents don't see violent criminals as their mortal enemies...

Click to expand...

And, when not IF that new gun law in particular fails it is NEVER the end of it. It's a pheonix project. A ''new law to fix the old'' or, amendment to the current bad law, arises.

Control
Control
Control

rb288 said:

Too many politicians, today, believe that the law means nothing and you can lie, commit perjury, do whatever you want, violate the law, and not be held accountable.

Click to expand...

FIFY

Here is something I found while doing a Google is my friend search

Nationwide in 2017, about 25.6 million firearm-related backgrounds checks were processed through the FBI's National Instate Background Check System and about 181,000 or about 1 percent of the attempted purchases were denied because the individual was prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law.

Maybe these people should be prosecuted? Could it be the resistance is about money or at least partly about money needed to prosecute these people in an already over loaded court system. The link below is for info and for people to learn.



https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/n...inal-background-check-system-nics-appeals-vaf

BSA1 said:

I agree with the Democrats on this issue. There are several reasons a buyer can be denied. The most common two are incomplete court records showing the deposition of a criminal charge and identity theft. NCIC is far from being very reliable.

Click to expand...

This is why police ought to investigate the reason for the denial (investigate is something they ought to do for any crime before arrest) to assure there isn't some records error or identity theft.
It isn't difficult for police to determine if a person has a record and is a denied person.
As it is now, while apparently few excons try to buy guns from an ffl, most who do are denied and nothing happens, despite the fact they commited a crime, and will probably get their weapon from another source, rather than join a seminary ....

I strongly feel that those who try to purchase a firearm when they clearly know that they are breaking the law should be prosecuted.

Click to expand...

I’d go one step further and shorten the sentence.

I strongly feel that those who are breaking the law should be prosecuted.

We know that is not what they want. They just want more laws so they can selectively enforce the ones they want and ignore the ones they don’t like.

Almost all denials are the result of mistaken identity, and are overturned if appealed. This would be a colossal waste of law enforcement resources. The answer is to enforce the laws already on the books, not to create more laws.

rule303 said:

Almost all denials are the result of mistaken identity, and are overturned if appealed. This would be a colossal waste of law enforcement resources. The answer is to enforce the laws already on the books, not to create more laws.

Click to expand...

Not for nothing, but isn't that the same database through which police are running your name during a traffic stop? Wouldn't it behoove society to make sure that the data in that base was as correct as possible before someone has to appeal a denial or sue a police agency for false arrest?

rule303 said:

The answer is to enforce the laws already on the books, not to create more laws.

Click to expand...

OK, but part of the issue is that the law regarding attempted purchases by prohibited persons is not enforced. This measure would merely have prompted more enforcement of that already-existing law. Your other points are potentially valid.

I also get some sinister vibes off this. I’m ok if it stops some one who has pretty violent criminal history, or at least gives a heads up. But this could be easily twisted .....

drk1 said:

So you agree with the Democrats? That's nice. When do you plan to turn in all of your firearms?

Click to expand...

Based on your totally off topic comment it is obvious that you do not understand what and how NCIC works.

NCIC is garbage in and garbage out system. The arresting agency is responsible for entering into NCIC when a person is arrested. In general they do a pretty good job of it.

Where the system breaks down is getting the disposition of the arrest entered into NCIC. The Court is responsible for doing this or having the Police do it. The problem is this is inconsistently done. Also another agency cannot change the original arresting department entry.

What this means is if you have a arrest where the charges were either dismissed or lowered to a misdemeanor but the Court / Department never entered the final disposition you are a prohibited person. So you will probably end up hiring a lawyer and spending time and money to get the record corrected.

Oh if Police Chief / Sheriff is anti-gun well it might be a long process before it is done.

But since you want everyone that is denied arrested I guess you have no problem with the Police coming to your door arresting you for attempting to buy a gun as a prohibited person and seizing all of your guns.

Now you have two problems;

1. Getting the original arrest record corrected.

2. Fighting your arrest as a prohibited person which will not be dismissed until you prove #1.
.
But what the heck. You should not have a problem with it since you want everyone that is denied and arrested and charged.

I could also go into detail about how your identity is stolen when someone is booked into jail but I am not sure you will understand how that happens.

Not all of the Democrats ideas are bad for gun owners. (Most of them are bad but not this one).

The party in control of the house didn't want the amendment for the same reasons as you BSA1. Someone already guessed it, it was due to the problem of people in the country illegally. I see your points BSA1, its not always as simple as black and white if you are denied. Due process might be lacking. One should never have to prove themselves innocent. On the other side, those attempting to purchase that are clearly and knowingly are not allowed, already committed a crime when they filled out the form.

BSA1, those are all valid concerns. But I don't think (I haven't read the text of the bill) it made being denied a crime, nor required an arrest by LEO's for anyone denied... just that some referral to LE take place. One might hope that the referred-to agency would take a look at the record and consider whether further action was needed. If, for instance, there was an arrest from 8 years ago, but no entry of any criminal conviction, one might hope they wouldn't exactly call out the SWAT team.

I can also see why people would question whether appropriate restraint would, in fact, be used.

Deanimator said:

Racially invidious gun controls

Click to expand...

I am sorry, sir, but your overuse of this phrase has earned another spot on my ignore list. There may be a history of racism in gun control, but the proposals we fight affect all of us, regardless of color.

ATLDave said:

BSA1, those are all valid concerns. But I don't think (I haven't read the text of the bill) it made being denied a crime, nor required an arrest by LEO's for anyone denied... just that some referral to LE take place. One might hope that the referred-to agency would take a look at the record and consider whether further action was needed. If, for instance, there was an arrest from 8 years ago, but no entry of any criminal conviction, one might hope they wouldn't exactly call out the SWAT team.

I can also see why people would question whether appropriate restraint would, in fact, be used.

Click to expand...

1. If it is not a crime then why the referral to the Police?

2. Since the 4473 is a Federal Government form and approval must be given by the Federal Government why would local
Police be notified as they have no authority in Federal Law?

3. Hoping the Police will show restraint is a very thin thread to hang onto. In Wichita, Kansas the Police murdered a unarmed home owner standing on the front porch of his home with no idea why the Police were there and the Police Officers are giving conflicting orders to the home owner. The D.A. covered for the Police and rubber stamped the murder.

4. Sorting out the disposition of a criminal charge can be very difficult. We on occasion contacted the Court ourselves and got a certified copy of the disposition so we could hire the individual. To expect the Police to make the same effort likely will cause great disappointment.

BSA1 said:

1. If it is not a crime then why the referral to the Police?

Click to expand...

Because it is suggestive that a crime has been committed. It's not a crime to be in the same room with someone shouting "Help, help, call the police, I'm being murdered." But such calls will usually result in a referral to law enforcement for investigation. If there was, in fact, no murder, then you haven't committed a crime, notwithstanding the referral.

BSA1 said:

Since the 4473 is a Federal Government form and approval must be given by the Federal Government why would local Police be notified as they have no authority in Federal Law

Click to expand...

Setting aside frequent overlap in state law prohibitions, I think you are incorrect that local law enforcement has no ability to investigate federal crimes. They are not obligated to do so, but they can investigate and cooperate.

BSA1 said:

Hoping the Police will show restraint is a very thin thread to hang onto.

Click to expand...

This is a legitimate concern, as I think I have plainly acknowledged in prior posts.

BSA1 said:

Sorting out the disposition of a criminal charge can be very difficult.

Click to expand...

As someone who has frequent professional occasion to deal with court clerks, I have no doubt that this can be somewhat challenging at times. The difficulty pales in comparison to many other tasks that we (perhaps unreasonably) thrust onto law enforcement agencies.

On the larger topic, if the NCIS system is as thoroughly a joke as you contend (and you may be correct), then perhaps bringing its absurd failures and unreliability to the fore is the best course of action. Perhaps it would take some of the steam out of the eternal cry to have "universal background checks" for every firearm transfer.

I'm reminded of the episode (perhaps a repeated one) wherein a new sheriff was elected in a dry (no-booze) county. Not a fan of hypocrisy, he promptly raided the country club where the other county authorities were enjoying a boozy, happy, and illegal cocktail hour. Within a month, the county went wet. Which suited that sheriff just fine, as he no longer had to waste time arresting the plebes for their six packs of cheap beer.

One problem I have ran into is the individual does not know he plead guilty to a felony offense. Our criminal justice system functions on the offender pleading guilty to the crime. The D.A. sweetens the deal by offering a reduced crime if he agrees to plea to it. The offender is told something like “if you accept the plea bargain you will get probation and a fine and you walk out of the Courtroom a free person.” No jail time sounds pretty good since he gets to keep his job and money coming in to feed his family and keep the house.

His overworked court appointed attorney pushes him to accept the offer and either does not explain to the offender what the consequences of his guilty plea means or the defendant doesn’t ask what level of crime it is. In the short term the Court is happy, the lawyer is happy and the defendant is happy until he finds out he can not own a gun.

Aren’t some Police & Sheriff Departments sending officers out with the sole purposes of taking guns out of the homes of people convicted of felonies? I not saying that is bad except when they come to your door because of a 10 year old conviction you had long laid aside.

I am currently reading “Unintended Consequence” by John Ross and after I finish reading it I am planning on reading “1984” again. Old novels that are truer today that when they were written.

BSA1 said:

What this means is if you have a arrest where the charges were either dismissed or lowered to a misdemeanor but the Court / Department never entered the final disposition you are a prohibited person. So you will probably end up hiring a lawyer and spending time and money to get the record corrected.

Oh if Police Chief / Sheriff is anti-gun well it might be a long process before it is done.

Click to expand...

Easy solution... Keep your nose out of trouble. Don’t have anything on your record higher than a moving vehicle violation, and you have nothing to worry about. Don’t depend on someone else’s actions to preserve your rights. Depend on your own actions to preserve your rights.

I may be in the minority on this... But if you made a conscious decision that resulted in you being arrested for a felony. Then you plea it down to a misdemeanor, I have no sympathy for you having a difficult time buying a gun. Yes, you have the right to own that gun. But that doesn’t mean it has to be without hardship in doing so.

Not long after I showed an interest in firearms, maybe 11 or 12 years old, my dad showed me and had me read a 4473. He made sure I understood that answering ANY question incorrectly I would loose my right to own a firearm. And that lying on the form was a Federal offense, and would mean jail time. Guess what, it worked perfectly.

Another solution is to have your state laws changed so that any person with a concealed weapons permit can show that in lieu of the NCIC call. This is how Georgia is. I have 1 background check done every 5 years (or is it 3, I can’t remember), and buy as many guns as I want to on it. And a bonus, many dealers will charge less for transfers if they don’t have to waste time making the call.

Wyman