"nics Improvement Amendments Act" Not Gun Control!

Status
Not open for further replies.

camacho

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
735
Location
Florida
This is the from an NRA email. Pretty much reiterates what some of us have been saying all along about this bill, i.e., does not add anything new that is not already in the books.

"NICS IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT"
NOT GUN CONTROL!

Last week, when the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, "The NICS Improvement Amendments Act," by a voice vote, some gun owners were confused as to the exact scope and effect of this proactive reform bill. Let's look at the facts.

H.R. 2640 provides federal funds to states to update their mental health records, to ensure that those currently prohibited under federal law from owning a gun because of mental health adjudications are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For many years, NRA has supported ensuring that those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent are screened by the NICS.

In several ways this bill is better for gun owners than current law. Under H.R. 2640, certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving a firearm. Examples are adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required. Also excluded are federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. The latter provision addresses very real concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. Remember that one of the Clinton Administration's last acts was to force the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list. H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored. H.R. 2640 will also require all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.

This legislation will also ensure -- as a permanent part of federal law -- that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check -- a NRA priority for nearly a decade! While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire. H.R. 2640 will also mandate an audit of past spending on NICS projects to determine if funds were misused in any way.

It is also important to note what H.R. 2640 will not do. This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment.

So why the confusion?

First and foremost, the national media elite is irate that NRA has been able to roll back significant portions of the Clinton Administration's anti-gun agenda and pass pro-active legislation in Congress and in many states. They are desperate to put a "gun control" spin on anything they can. The only real question here is -- given the media's long-standing and flagrant bias on the gun issue -- why are some gun owners suddenly swallowing the bait?

Second, some people simply do not like the NICS. In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act, including a mandatory five-day waiting period, over strong NRA opposition. Due to NRA's insistence, that waiting period was allowed to sunset in 1998, once the NICS was up and running nationwide. Now that the NICS is in place, it makes sense to ensure that this system works as instantly, fairly, and accurately as possible.

Also troubling to many is the fact that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) is a cosponsor of the bill. Carolyn McCarthy is among the most anti-gun Members of Congress. She has introduced another bill, H.R. 1022, which represents the most sweeping gun ban in history. But Rep. McCarthy is not the only co-sponsor of H.R. 2640. She was joined by some of the most pro-gun members of the House of Representatives in crafting this bill, including John Dingell (D-Mich.), Rick Boucher (D-Va.), and Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). A few years ago, when Congress passed a bill allowing airline pilots to be armed, one of the lead sponsors was anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.). Sen. Boxer's support of that legislation did not cause gun owners to oppose it.

Finally, some people have asked why the bill passed on a voice vote. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Even so, the House rules allow any House member to request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

H.R. 2640 is now pending in the Senate. Rest assured that if the anti-gunners use this legislation as a vehicle to advance gun control restrictions, NRA will pull our support for the bill and vigorously oppose its passage!

(For additional information, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018.)
 
BULL****!

It legitimizes a bad law and opens the door for Congress to tack on even more regulation.
 
Generally, I agree with the NRA position. I understand others have reasons for not doing so.

I'm sure the vast majority of those who are going along with it will do a 180 if any new restrictions are added along the way.

K
 
This law in and of itself is not bad in my opinion.

But we need to keep a sharp-lookout for laws that categorize anyone wishing to purchase a firearm as insane.
 
If the only objection the NRA had to the Brady law was that waiting period, then I joined the wrong group way back when. That's certainly not the impression they gave at the time.

The Brady law is gun control.

This law seeks to make the Brady law more effective. To help it to catch people who might otherwise slip through the net, and continue to exercise their 2nd amendment rights when Brady doesn't want them to.

Ergo, this law is gun control. QED. And all the supporters' parsing can not change that. The simple fact is, the NRA likes some kinds of gun control.

inally, some people have asked why the bill passed on a voice vote. The reality is that there's nothing unusual about passing a widely supported bill by voice vote. Even so, the House rules allow any House member to request a recorded vote on any issue, and in practice, those requests are universally granted. Despite having that option on the floor, no representative asked for a roll call on this bill.

It is indeed true that voice votes are routine. Despicably true, because that doesn't change the fact that they're used to subvert democracy and accountabilty by hiding both who voted for a bill, AND the fact that a quorum was not present to make the vote constitutional. And the NRA knows this quite well; They're not shy about noticing this when the bill that gets snuck through is one they oppose.

and in practice, those requests are universally granted.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
 
To help it to catch people who might otherwise slip through the net, and continue to exercise their 2nd amendment rights when Brady doesn't want them to.

I do not think it is about Brady here. Try to convince vast majority of Americans that guys like Cho, should be able to exercise their rights. It is hard to convince even half of us here let alone folks who are not gunnies.
 
How long before we are all labeled crazy? :uhoh:

Don't think it WON'T happen... The politicos just can't help pushing the envelope more and more and more... Also, they have an affinity for breaking their own so called laws and getting away with it ...

They are exempt from their very own legislation...
 
This law seeks to make the Brady law more effective. To help it to catch people who might otherwise slip through the net, and continue to exercise their 2nd amendment rights when Brady doesn't want them to.

So you're saying people like Cho should be able to waltz into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon? :confused:
 
How long before we are all labeled crazy?

I dont know.. you tell us how long. If "they" could simply label us all crazy, how come they havent done it already? NICS isnt a new thing. If "they" had the power to simply label everyone crazy and keep us from buying guns, why havent they did it yet?
 
Try to convince vast majority of Americans that guys like Cho, should be able to exercise their rights.
So you're saying people like Cho should be able to waltz into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon?
No law could prevent Cho from doing what he did. It is because others were unable to exercise their rights that he was able to continue doing what he did until he chose to stop.

There is no upside to this law. It will not and cannot prevent anyone intent on doing evil. It can, however, have many unintended consequences.
 
If it keeps people like Cho from having easy access to firearms, I dont see what the problem is. It doesnt stop anyone here from getting guns and keeps crazy people from just going to the store and buying them. Sure, we can sit here and think of 1000 situations in which something could be twisted to screw over Joe Gun Owner, but let's be honest, this isnt an attack on the average gun owner.
 
So you're saying people like Cho should be able to waltz into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon?

I hate to speak or add to anothers comments but if Cho had not had a gun then all he would have needed to do was wait outside until a bunch of students were gathered and RUN them over! Or any number of other things. The real issue is that IF Cho was known to be such a threat to himself or others that he should not be allowed to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights then he should not have been on the street! Further more if all of those poor souls had been allowed to exercise theirs then the event would not likely have happened, or at the least the end result would not have been as it was!

NICS is a pc of Kleenex on a gaping wound! Covers up the spot but will do very little to fix the problem. As long as truly dangerous individuals are on the street, and law abiding citizens are disarmed, events like this will continue!
 
Personally the legislation seems to be about as reasonable as it could get. If a dam has a leak in it, you plug the leak rather than build a new dam. The NRA email was pretty comprehensive and addressed many of the concerns brought up here in past threads.
 
I'm not going to condemn the NRA over this, even though I am a "2A absolutist". It seems to me like they had a choice between working with Congress to get a somewhat benign bill passed, or fighting the process and maybe ending up with something much worse.

So you're saying people like Cho should be able to waltz into a gun shop and walk out with a weapon?
"Should" and "there oughta be a law" are two different things. I don't think a lot of people should have children, but I don't want a law requiring a background check and govt permission to have sex. How would you enforce something like that - arrest couples at the maternity ward if they don't have their permits ???

Maybe there should be a law prohbiting 3/4 time music at gun stores ...? :D
 
It is gun control plain and simple.

I don't like the idea of keeping felons who served their time from owning guns.

I also don't like making a group of second class citizens that are denied rights because they tried to seek help or were depressed or suicidal at one time in their life.

Watch they will say being given ADHD medication or Prozac will disqualify you because they are mood altering prescribed by a doctor. You're mentally defective, if you weren't why did you need those drugs?

This is just letting them tighten the noose a little bit more. Anyone that supports this supports gun control period.

I love how some of the same people here that would spout "Anyone that would give up liberty for safety deserves neither" then turn around and say "If this stops another Cho I am all for it."

Good to know RKBA is fairweather.
 
I also don't like making a group of second class citizens that are denied rights because they tried to seek help or were depressed or suicidal at one time in their life.

Watch they will say being given ADHD medication or Prozac will disqualify you because they are mood altering prescribed by a doctor. You're mentally defective, if you weren't why did you need those drugs?

I dont think that's how the bill works. Did you see the part where it said:
"This bill will not add any new classes of prohibited persons to NICS, and it will not prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital for treatment"

This is just letting them tighten the noose a little bit more. Anyone that supports this supports gun control period.

Not everyone is an absolutist. Personally, I have no problem with background checks. I've bought six guns.. never been denied. I have many friends who have bought several guns and never been denied. Background checks are the absolute least of my worries when it comes to gun control. Being in CA, I'm more worried about AW Bans, Ammo restrictions, virtual no-issue CCW, etc. Those are things that really infringe on my RKBA.

I love how some of the same people here that would spout "Anyone that would give up liberty for safety deserves neither" then turn around and say "If this stops another Cho I am all for it."

How does this bill stop me or anyone here from getting a gun?
How does this bill take away any of your liberty?

Good to know RKBA is fairweather.

How does this bill keep you from excercising your RKBA?
 
This was not a fight worth fighting by the NRA. It was already law. The bill mostly funded states to fullfill the terms of the orginal Brady law. How much money do you donate to the NRA to fight every bit of gun legislation?

As an aside, it seems that states can pick and choose their obligations under existing law. The federal government does not give me, a private citizen, the same choice without the threat of prosecution, fines, or imprisionment.

I don't particularly like the NICs check when I purchase a firearm. I have never been denied or slowed significantly in my purchase of a firearm. I much prefer the NICs check to a mandatory waiting period between the purchase and taking possession of a handgun. Some states still have waiting periods. Some never did. I preferred the "never did", but I live in a state that had a waiting period.
 
How does this bill stop me or anyone here from getting a gun?
How does this bill take away any of your liberty?
Would you tolerate the same rules for buying a book, attending church, or posting a blog? It wouldn't keep you or anyone here from doing those things, so what's the big deal?
The bill mostly funded states to fullfill the terms of the orginal Brady law.
First, the original Brady Law was (is) a bad law. An unnecessary, unjustified, unConstitutional regulation. Second, where do you think "federal money" comes from?
 
Yet the NRA was all for it?
The big media like to say the NRA is out of the "main stream" and try to shock us with their "extremist" views with which their own membership does not agree. I find that I disagree with them most of the time because they are extremely moderate.
 
"First, the original Brady Law was (is) a bad law. An unnecessary, unjustified, unConstitutional regulation."

And yet it IS a law/regulation. And much like our immigration law/regulations, it needs to be enforced evenly throughout the country or done away with.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top