El Tejon
Member
If we can abolish all "sporting" clauses in Ttitle 18 and nationwide reciprocity, along with federal preemption for gun laws--I'll agree without hesitation.
Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks
- Thread starter Connecticut Yankee
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
First of all, the NRA has been backing this bill since 2004 so this isn't a new thing or a response to Virginia Tech.
Second, the bill has been written various ways at various times and the current version McCarthy proposed has some serious problems that GOA has already pointed out.
As it stands right now, Printz v. United States means that state officials cannot be commandeered into reporting data for the NICS system. Congress must rely on bribing or extorting the states via federal funds to get compliance (or rely on the good will of the states). This bill is essentially setting aside federal funds to bribe states into reporting data to NICS according to federal laws instead of state laws.
There are two major areas where this can benefit gun owners if the legislation is written correctly:
1) In states that have a stricter definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" than the federal standard, you currently get reported to the NICS system even though you don't meet the federal standard. This means you can get out of NICS with the appropriate trial by paperwork; but probably not a pleasant experience.
2) If the funds are there to update information more quickly and report it more accurately, it should mean less delays and less false denials, especially for gun owners who have a common name or a name similar to someone on the restricted list.
And of course, to the extent the bill prevents people like Cho from obtaining firearms without burdening peacable citizens, it helps all gun owners.
The major opposition to the bill so far has come from the mental health profession itself. They are concerned that if this area is tightened, people will simply not seek treatment at all and the situation will be worse rather than better.
Second, the bill has been written various ways at various times and the current version McCarthy proposed has some serious problems that GOA has already pointed out.
As it stands right now, Printz v. United States means that state officials cannot be commandeered into reporting data for the NICS system. Congress must rely on bribing or extorting the states via federal funds to get compliance (or rely on the good will of the states). This bill is essentially setting aside federal funds to bribe states into reporting data to NICS according to federal laws instead of state laws.
There are two major areas where this can benefit gun owners if the legislation is written correctly:
1) In states that have a stricter definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" than the federal standard, you currently get reported to the NICS system even though you don't meet the federal standard. This means you can get out of NICS with the appropriate trial by paperwork; but probably not a pleasant experience.
2) If the funds are there to update information more quickly and report it more accurately, it should mean less delays and less false denials, especially for gun owners who have a common name or a name similar to someone on the restricted list.
And of course, to the extent the bill prevents people like Cho from obtaining firearms without burdening peacable citizens, it helps all gun owners.
The major opposition to the bill so far has come from the mental health profession itself. They are concerned that if this area is tightened, people will simply not seek treatment at all and the situation will be worse rather than better.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Likely to be the case.
With all due respect, Bart...
I realize this is easy for me to say, but I want my rights over safety. I would rather Cho or anybody not locked up to be able to exercise all of their rights -- without prior restraint or chilling effect, just like the 1A rights -- than to give up some of my rights in the mere prospect of safety.
To really achieve safety, we would have to give up our 1st, 4th, 5th, and 7th Amendment rights. Giving up (infringing) the 2A create only a misguided illusion of safety. Safety will not be achieved and the controllers will keep coming back to the well for more until they are all gone.
Freedom is not safe. I realize this is an extremist view point. Freedom -- liberty -- is extreme. This country was founded on extreme liberty. Just at the time when we are ready to give up some right or freedom (think 9/12/2001), that is often when we need it the most. Occasional danger from a Cho-type person is the price of freedom. Freedom is not paid for only by men and women in uniform who fight in wars that have a beginning and an end. It is a price we must pay -- or risk having to pay -- every day. In exchange, we get the ability, the freedom, the right , to protect ourselves and each other. If we first give up or continue curbing our ability for self-protection, especially in exchange for ineffective laws that merely intend or provide the "feeling" of security, we will be continuing to make a bad deal.
Despite all of that, El Tejon's proposal would be pretty tempting.
We should be getting rid of NICS, not strengthening it. How many crimes has NICS prevented? None? It's the neoliberal philosophy to "strengthen" laws when they aren't working. Don't fall for that trap. Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms for their and the mutual defense. What they don't have the right to do is go on shooting rampages. Who many laws did Cho break? Does anyone believe that just one more would have made a difference?
When they came for the felons,
I remained silent;
I am not a felon.
When they came for those with restraining orders,
I remained silent;
I am not subject to a restraining order.
When they came for the mentally ill,
I remained silent;
I am not mentally ill.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
(apologies to Martin Niemöller)
My view is the whole philosophy that individual actions can be controlled by a central authority is the bankrupt product of insecure, passive, frightened minds.
The NRA cooperation in support of this myth by going along with this legislation looks foolish to me. Looks to me like they don't get the 2nd amendment. How was it that this nation survived for centuries without background checks and now we need the approval of government before we can arm ourselves?
You might need to be more insane than Cho to think that another massacre will be avoided in the future. Someone will get a gun legally, or illegally and shoot up another bunch of kids; it is just a matter of time, and it will happen again and again.
The NRA cooperation in support of this myth by going along with this legislation looks foolish to me. Looks to me like they don't get the 2nd amendment. How was it that this nation survived for centuries without background checks and now we need the approval of government before we can arm ourselves?
You might need to be more insane than Cho to think that another massacre will be avoided in the future. Someone will get a gun legally, or illegally and shoot up another bunch of kids; it is just a matter of time, and it will happen again and again.
Of course that isn't possible. For every Cho, there are how many peaceable gun owners? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? 80,000,000? Even if the ratio is only 1:10,000, a 1% false positive rate means that law abiding gun purchasers will be "burdened" one hundred times more often than the real prohibited persons. And that competely ignores the false negative problem...
Malone LaVeigh
Member
The problem most people have with NICS is in the implementation. How about including language that mandates an appeals process for denials? And a fair process for restoration of rights?
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
It seems your comment is analogous to the idea that you pay a thief $50 and he doesn't steal your TV. See? It's win/win. He gets the fifty and you get to keep your TV. After all, it's only the smart way to prevent theft.
For now, perhaps.
Oh wait. It'll make the regular Joe feel good? Never mind, I retract all my opposition to any further gun-control legislation. How selfish I've been!
Um. I don't understand this last statement. More laws now equal less infringement in the future?
I would accept a bill that prevents mentally defective people from purchasing handguns if an accompanying bill stating that states must grant reciprocity for carry permits and that it is illegal to refuse citizens the rights to carry (ie, college students with a CCW could carry on campus) passed with it.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Who crafts the definition of 'wrong'? How do you ensure that the definition of 'wrong' doesn't keep moving the goalposts over time until we're all 'wrong'?
More fundamantally, the effort to make the Brady check more stringent has only one possible end-game; to preclude the possibility of private firearm sales (aka 'the gun show loophole'). Once they have mandated the states to update NICS more fully, do you think they'll stand still for folks not USING the NICS checks? No way. Mandatory background checks and FFL-only transfers will be just the next step in the 'reasonable controls' placed upon the object.
Guys - a gun is an object. It's just an object. If Cho should not have been trusted with a firearm, he should not have been trusted with a car or any other object capable of causing death or serious injury.
Let's not get sucked into 'reasonable' again - we've been down that road a whole bunch and it never ends well.
If the NRA is involved in this - they are dead wrong.
Sad to see gun owners even discussing the points of a new gun laws when what should be being said is " what can we do to fight this one and repeal or lighten laws already in place".
I'd say, from what I read here, we are in trouble, but that is nothing new.
Ever hear "united we stand divided we fall"?
Sadly we, the firearm community, are very divided
I'd say, from what I read here, we are in trouble, but that is nothing new.
Ever hear "united we stand divided we fall"?
Sadly we, the firearm community, are very divided
romma
Member
Let society clean up it's ills as they come along.... GIVE THEM NOTHING!
This isn't compromise, this is appeasement.
My fear with this, as with all new laws and regulations, is that it'll eventually warp into something else. Like the WMD legislation being used against meth cooks, and more recently against a kid who was wrongly fingered for felony count of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction over a school bomb threat (hint: a pipe bomb isn't equivalent to nerve gas or a nuke).
We'll see this expand to anyone who's ever taken anti-depression medication, anyone who ever worried she might have postpartum depression (however minor), anyone ever required by a judge or employer to undergo anger management counseling, anyone who ever voluntarily checked into a rehab center, and so on and so forth. Not right away, give it decades.
And we'll have the NRA to thank for it. Who does this help? Do we honestly believe rules that prohibit a schizoid delusional dude from buying a gun at the local pawn shop will keep him disarmed? Who thinks so?
This is a PR move by the NRA, and it's cost is another tiny piece of our rights, and another chink in our collective armor that will be exploited by the enemies of freedom at some later date.
Say it won't happen? Remember the Lautenberg Amendment? You know, that ex-post-facto law that disarmed anyone who'd ever been convicted of domestic violence? In spite of the whole No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed language in the Constitution?
Yeah. That's my concern. Thanks NRA for helping justify the bias I've shown against you in other threads today...
My fear with this, as with all new laws and regulations, is that it'll eventually warp into something else. Like the WMD legislation being used against meth cooks, and more recently against a kid who was wrongly fingered for felony count of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction over a school bomb threat (hint: a pipe bomb isn't equivalent to nerve gas or a nuke).
We'll see this expand to anyone who's ever taken anti-depression medication, anyone who ever worried she might have postpartum depression (however minor), anyone ever required by a judge or employer to undergo anger management counseling, anyone who ever voluntarily checked into a rehab center, and so on and so forth. Not right away, give it decades.
And we'll have the NRA to thank for it. Who does this help? Do we honestly believe rules that prohibit a schizoid delusional dude from buying a gun at the local pawn shop will keep him disarmed? Who thinks so?
This is a PR move by the NRA, and it's cost is another tiny piece of our rights, and another chink in our collective armor that will be exploited by the enemies of freedom at some later date.
Say it won't happen? Remember the Lautenberg Amendment? You know, that ex-post-facto law that disarmed anyone who'd ever been convicted of domestic violence? In spite of the whole No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed language in the Constitution?
Yeah. That's my concern. Thanks NRA for helping justify the bias I've shown against you in other threads today...
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
I agree 100%.
David
JohnBT
Member
Well folks, that what lobbyists do, lobby. They have to talk to the other side.
I am disappointed that very few posters on this thread appear to be aware that these talks have been going on for years.
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=474
McCain was talking about the need to fix NICS in 2002.
"Washington, DC - Calling for an overhaul of America's faulty gun background check system, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today introduced legislation to improve the accuracy and speed with which these records are used to stop criminals from acquiring guns. The 'Our Lady of Peace Act' is co-sponsored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Edward Kennedy (D- MA). The following is the statement Sen. McCain entered into the Congressional record:
"Mr. President, along with Senators Schumer, Craig, and Kennedy, I rise today to introduce the Our Lady of Peace Act' that has the strong support of major organizations across the political spectrum.
"This legislation fixes a huge hole in our system - a hole that delays legitimate firearms purchases and allows criminals and other prohibited buyers to obtain guns. The hole is the faulty records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Based on a report released by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation in January 2002, Congress has learned that millions of records are missing from the NICS database. Over a 30-month period, 10,000 criminals obtained a firearm despite a background check because the records couldn't be checked properly within the 3 days allowed by federal law. In addition, thousands of other prohibited buyers will never be stopped because very few restraining order, drug abuse or mental disability records are kept at all. This report makes it clear that if we are to be serious about stopping criminals, wife-beaters and illegal aliens from slipping through a background check, we had better fix this broken system.
"Mr. President, better records mean more accurate background checks - checks which stop prohibited buyers while allowing legitimate buyers to be approved. And better records put the 'instant' back into instant check, because delays occur when records have to be searched manually. In fact, the only reason why criminal background checks sometime take several days is because records have to be checked by hand instead of computer.
"Mr. President, the figure is astonishing. There are over 30 million missing records.
"For felony records, the typical state has automated only 58% of its felony conviction records. The FBI estimates that out of 39 million felony arrest records, 16 million of them lack final disposition information. Without final disposition records, background checks must rely on time consuming manual searches of courthouse files to approve or deny firearms purchases.
"On the issue of mental health, 33 states keep no mental health disqualifying records and no state supplies mental health disqualifying records to NICS. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that 2.7 million mental illness records should be in the NICS databases, but less than 100,000 records are available (nearly all from VA mental hospitals). States have supplied only 41 mental health records to NICS. Combined with the federal records, the GAO estimates that only 8.6% of the records of those disqualified from buying a firearm for mental health reasons are accessible on the NICS database.
"In the case of drug abusers, the GAO estimates that only 3% of the 14 million records of drug abusers are automated (not including felons and wanted fugitives). States have supplied only 97 of those records to NICS which the GAO estimates as representing less than 0.1% of the total records of those with drug records that would deny them a firearm.
"On the issue of domestic violence, 20 states lack a database for either domestic violence misdemeanants or temporary restraining orders or both. 42% of all NICS denials based on restraining orders come from one state 'Kentucky' which does the best job of automating TRO's from the bench. The Department of Justice estimates that nearly 2 million restraining order records are missing from the database.
"In the case of illegal Aliens/non-immigrant status records, the GAO estimates that over 2 million illegal alien records are absent from the NICS database. Through 2001, NICS had no records of non-immigrants in the United States making it impossible to stop visitors to the U.S. on tourist or student visas from purchasing firearms.
"Mr. President, the benefits of better records are simple and important. They lead to accurate and instant background checks. Better records mean we would be able to stop far more prohibited buyers from obtaining a gun than we do now. When a restraining order, drug abuse or mental health record is missing, nothing in the NICS system indicates a reason to delay the sale and search records. NICS simply approves the transaction - usually within 3 minutes.
"Poor records are why and this legislation will fix the system. This bill requires federal agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the VA to provide all records of those disqualified from purchasing a firearm to NICS. For INS, it would mean sending millions of records of those here on tourist visas, student visas, and all other non-immigrant visas to NICS. Each state would be allowed to receive a waiver for up to 5 years of the 10% matching requirement for the National Criminal History Improvement Grants (NCHIP) when that state automates and makes available to NICS at least 95% of records of those disqualified from purchasing a firearm. This bill also requires states to automate and send to NICS all disqualifying records under federal and state law, including domestic violence misdemeanors, restraining orders, criminal conviction misdemeanors, drug abuse and other relevant records to NICS.
"We also provides grants of $250 million per year for three years to states to improve background check records, automate systems, enhance states capacities to perform background checks, supply mental health records and domestic violence records to NICS. We also give grants of $125 million per year for three years to states to assess their systems for rapidly getting criminal conviction, domestic violence records and other records from the courtroom into the NICS database and for improving those systems so as to eliminate the lag time between conviction and entry into NICS.
"Mr. President, better records mean instant checks. 72% of background checks are approved and completed within minutes, but 5 % take days to complete for one reason onlyfaulty records force law enforcement into time consuming searches to locate final disposition records for felony and domestic violence convictions. It is our hope that this legislation will finally make our records system complete and totally stop prohibited buyers from gaining access to firearms while allowing legitimate buyers to be approved." "
I am disappointed that very few posters on this thread appear to be aware that these talks have been going on for years.
http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=474
McCain was talking about the need to fix NICS in 2002.
"Washington, DC - Calling for an overhaul of America's faulty gun background check system, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today introduced legislation to improve the accuracy and speed with which these records are used to stop criminals from acquiring guns. The 'Our Lady of Peace Act' is co-sponsored by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Edward Kennedy (D- MA). The following is the statement Sen. McCain entered into the Congressional record:
"Mr. President, along with Senators Schumer, Craig, and Kennedy, I rise today to introduce the Our Lady of Peace Act' that has the strong support of major organizations across the political spectrum.
"This legislation fixes a huge hole in our system - a hole that delays legitimate firearms purchases and allows criminals and other prohibited buyers to obtain guns. The hole is the faulty records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Based on a report released by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation in January 2002, Congress has learned that millions of records are missing from the NICS database. Over a 30-month period, 10,000 criminals obtained a firearm despite a background check because the records couldn't be checked properly within the 3 days allowed by federal law. In addition, thousands of other prohibited buyers will never be stopped because very few restraining order, drug abuse or mental disability records are kept at all. This report makes it clear that if we are to be serious about stopping criminals, wife-beaters and illegal aliens from slipping through a background check, we had better fix this broken system.
"Mr. President, better records mean more accurate background checks - checks which stop prohibited buyers while allowing legitimate buyers to be approved. And better records put the 'instant' back into instant check, because delays occur when records have to be searched manually. In fact, the only reason why criminal background checks sometime take several days is because records have to be checked by hand instead of computer.
"Mr. President, the figure is astonishing. There are over 30 million missing records.
"For felony records, the typical state has automated only 58% of its felony conviction records. The FBI estimates that out of 39 million felony arrest records, 16 million of them lack final disposition information. Without final disposition records, background checks must rely on time consuming manual searches of courthouse files to approve or deny firearms purchases.
"On the issue of mental health, 33 states keep no mental health disqualifying records and no state supplies mental health disqualifying records to NICS. The General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that 2.7 million mental illness records should be in the NICS databases, but less than 100,000 records are available (nearly all from VA mental hospitals). States have supplied only 41 mental health records to NICS. Combined with the federal records, the GAO estimates that only 8.6% of the records of those disqualified from buying a firearm for mental health reasons are accessible on the NICS database.
"In the case of drug abusers, the GAO estimates that only 3% of the 14 million records of drug abusers are automated (not including felons and wanted fugitives). States have supplied only 97 of those records to NICS which the GAO estimates as representing less than 0.1% of the total records of those with drug records that would deny them a firearm.
"On the issue of domestic violence, 20 states lack a database for either domestic violence misdemeanants or temporary restraining orders or both. 42% of all NICS denials based on restraining orders come from one state 'Kentucky' which does the best job of automating TRO's from the bench. The Department of Justice estimates that nearly 2 million restraining order records are missing from the database.
"In the case of illegal Aliens/non-immigrant status records, the GAO estimates that over 2 million illegal alien records are absent from the NICS database. Through 2001, NICS had no records of non-immigrants in the United States making it impossible to stop visitors to the U.S. on tourist or student visas from purchasing firearms.
"Mr. President, the benefits of better records are simple and important. They lead to accurate and instant background checks. Better records mean we would be able to stop far more prohibited buyers from obtaining a gun than we do now. When a restraining order, drug abuse or mental health record is missing, nothing in the NICS system indicates a reason to delay the sale and search records. NICS simply approves the transaction - usually within 3 minutes.
"Poor records are why and this legislation will fix the system. This bill requires federal agencies such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the VA to provide all records of those disqualified from purchasing a firearm to NICS. For INS, it would mean sending millions of records of those here on tourist visas, student visas, and all other non-immigrant visas to NICS. Each state would be allowed to receive a waiver for up to 5 years of the 10% matching requirement for the National Criminal History Improvement Grants (NCHIP) when that state automates and makes available to NICS at least 95% of records of those disqualified from purchasing a firearm. This bill also requires states to automate and send to NICS all disqualifying records under federal and state law, including domestic violence misdemeanors, restraining orders, criminal conviction misdemeanors, drug abuse and other relevant records to NICS.
"We also provides grants of $250 million per year for three years to states to improve background check records, automate systems, enhance states capacities to perform background checks, supply mental health records and domestic violence records to NICS. We also give grants of $125 million per year for three years to states to assess their systems for rapidly getting criminal conviction, domestic violence records and other records from the courtroom into the NICS database and for improving those systems so as to eliminate the lag time between conviction and entry into NICS.
"Mr. President, better records mean instant checks. 72% of background checks are approved and completed within minutes, but 5 % take days to complete for one reason onlyfaulty records force law enforcement into time consuming searches to locate final disposition records for felony and domestic violence convictions. It is our hope that this legislation will finally make our records system complete and totally stop prohibited buyers from gaining access to firearms while allowing legitimate buyers to be approved." "
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
I agree with Derek. This is appeasement. Law-abiding gun owners are not obligated to "compromise" with anyone, we have not done anything wrong.
What if Cho had not had mental problems and did what he did anyway? What would we, as people who merely happen to own firearms, be "obligated" to do after that?
I'm less interested in appeasing someone's knee-jerk reaction to something that happens statistically infrequently in our society and more interested in helping people not end up in situations where they want to kill each other in the first place. I don't think it does justice to the victims of last Monday to follow any other route.
What if Cho had not had mental problems and did what he did anyway? What would we, as people who merely happen to own firearms, be "obligated" to do after that?
I'm less interested in appeasing someone's knee-jerk reaction to something that happens statistically infrequently in our society and more interested in helping people not end up in situations where they want to kill each other in the first place. I don't think it does justice to the victims of last Monday to follow any other route.
River Wraith
Member
This makes me sick. I am waiting for the outcome, but if it is what I perceive as a negative one I will be cancelling my life membership to the NRA and obtaining a life membership to GOA. I just wish they gave refunds.
JohnBT
Member
The NRA is your friend. They are doing everything they can to hold back the sweeping forces of those who would abolish private gun ownership in the U.S.
I understand those folks who think the way to do this to draw a line in the sand and refuse to talk to the other side as they attempt to pass the bills, limit our ability to own guns and then confiscate our guns, but I don't think that's the way to fight the battle.
You draw a line and stand there and you'll find a runaway train coming to flatten you.
John
I understand those folks who think the way to do this to draw a line in the sand and refuse to talk to the other side as they attempt to pass the bills, limit our ability to own guns and then confiscate our guns, but I don't think that's the way to fight the battle.
You draw a line and stand there and you'll find a runaway train coming to flatten you.
John
Ratzinger_p38
Member
scares me...
Guys as I mentioned in another thread, this scares me that I will be disqaulified.
Here is my situation:
~When I was 16, they diagnosed me with 'obsessive compulsive' disorder, and I was on zoloft.
~When I was 17, I switched to Prozac but only took it briefly.
~When I was 20, I was having trouble sleeping and took Trazadone for about 8 months
~When I was 22, I applied for SSI as I was, as I claimed "too depressed to work". They made me an appointment with a local pyshcologist, (no, not the in OR out patient situation, no court or judges, just some local shrink, and I walked to his office which was near my apt in Auburn, CA) and about 1 month later I got a letter back saying basically "While you do seem depressed in social situations, in our opinion you are good enough to find employment" - IE Shut up and get a job. "You may appleal (I didnt)". (I am unsure if a judge was involved in this)
What do you think? Is this what they are trying to knock out? What about people who are on SSI for being "too depressed to work" (now i think this is a load of BS). Seriously this is making me shake thinking that I could lose my rights when I have passed my NICS several times over.
Guys as I mentioned in another thread, this scares me that I will be disqaulified.
Here is my situation:
~When I was 16, they diagnosed me with 'obsessive compulsive' disorder, and I was on zoloft.
~When I was 17, I switched to Prozac but only took it briefly.
~When I was 20, I was having trouble sleeping and took Trazadone for about 8 months
~When I was 22, I applied for SSI as I was, as I claimed "too depressed to work". They made me an appointment with a local pyshcologist, (no, not the in OR out patient situation, no court or judges, just some local shrink, and I walked to his office which was near my apt in Auburn, CA) and about 1 month later I got a letter back saying basically "While you do seem depressed in social situations, in our opinion you are good enough to find employment" - IE Shut up and get a job. "You may appleal (I didnt)". (I am unsure if a judge was involved in this)
What do you think? Is this what they are trying to knock out? What about people who are on SSI for being "too depressed to work" (now i think this is a load of BS). Seriously this is making me shake thinking that I could lose my rights when I have passed my NICS several times over.
ATW525
Member
Ratzinger, you do not meet the definition of mentally defective under Federal law, so you should have nothing to worry about.
- Status
