Pro-Gun Groups Disagree on Bill Improving Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.

rev214

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
195
Location
"Land of Landfills",New Jersey
Pro-Gun Groups Disagree on Bill Improving Background Checks
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
August 30, 2006


(CNSNews.com) - A Second Amendment group is warning gun owners that a "massive gun control bill" is now working its way through Congress -- and is surprisingly close to becoming law.

Gun Owners of America also admits that it is the only national pro-gun group to oppose the "NICS Improvement Act of 2005" (H.R. 1415).

Introduced by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, H.R. 1415 is intended to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which screens would-be gun buyers for mental problems or criminal convictions that would bar them from buying guns.

Most background checks are processed through NICS in seconds, but some are delayed if the FBI lacks complete, updated, and automated information from the states.

The bill notes that approximately 24 million criminal records are not automated or not accessible to NICS; and another 16 million criminal records are not up to date. Some lack information on whether an arrested person was convicted or acquitted, for example.

Many states have failed to computerize the necessary information and make it available to NICS in a "usable format," and that's what the McCarthy bill would address.

But Gun Owners of America warns that the bill would give the states hundreds of millions of dollars to "further prop up the unconstitutional Brady Law." GOA argues that the federal government lacks the authority to conduct background checks on gun buyers under the Second and Tenth Amendments.

Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Charles Schumer, both New York Democrats, first introduced this bill in 2002 after a double murder at a Long Island Catholic church. The gunman had passed an instant background check because the NICS did not have information about his mental health problems and a restraining order that should have prevented him from buying a gun.

The bill passed the House in 2002, but was killed in the Senate.

"There are many good pro-gun members on the committee who are being fed misinformation," Gun Owners of America said. "They're being told that this is a harmless bill that will simply make the Brady law work more efficiently."

According to Gun Owners of America, the bill is "anything but harmless" because it will make available to the federal government millions of state records "that could include state tax returns, employment records, library records, DMV, hospital, mental health and some misdemeanor records -- all in the name of making sure you're not prohibited from owning a gun."

GOA argues that the bill will allow for an enormous data dump from the states to the federal government -- "laying the infrastructure for even more gun control in the future."

"H.R. 1415, perhaps the most massive expansion of gun control since the Brady bill passed in 1993, is not a bill that should be supported by pro-gun conservatives," GOA said. It warns that the bill's strongest supporters include anti-gun lawmakers and gun control groups.

"If you don't act quickly, your representative will hear only voices of support for this monstrosity," Gun Owners of America said.

Okay with NRA

The National Rifle Association takes a less ominous view of the bill.

"This bill...would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers," says an analysis on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action website.

The NRA said the bill, among other things, also prohibits the FBI from charging a user fee for background checks on gun buyers.

The NRA agrees that NICS records are inadequate -- and it notes that inaccurate or incomplete records can delay firearm purchases and result in "wrongful denials" of law-abiding gun-buyers.

"This bill would help fix those problems," the NRA-ILA said. "Importantly," the NRA noted, H.R. 1415 also requires removal of records that are incorrect or irrelevant in determining a person's eligibility to buy a firearm.

For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was later found not to be mentally ill, that record should be removed from instant check databases, the NRA said.

The bill requires federal agencies and states to provide "all relevant records" to the FBI for use in the NICS system.According to the NRA, "This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens."

It also includes records of people who have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

H.R. 1415 passed of a House crime subcommittee in May and is slated to come before the full Judiciary Committee in September.
 
When is the EnAreAy gonna get Congress to do away with the NICS check and the 4473?I didn't vote Republican to see them *strenghthen* NICS.Maybe voting Democrat is "08 will send them a message?
 
The NICS is not going away.

We were lucky to get the NICS in the first place over the actual waiting limit.

Feinstein, Brady et al were pizzed.
 
Maybe voting Democrat is "08 will send them a message?

No. The most likely outcome of voting for Democrats is more gun grabbers in office. Though, if you throughly check out the history of the candidate, and find that the Democrat is very pro-gun owner rights, vote for him. It might send a message to both the Democrats and Republicans.
 
GOA's concerns:
According to Gun Owners of America, the bill is "anything but harmless" because it will make available to the federal government millions of state records "that could include state tax returns, employment records, library records, DMV, hospital, mental health and some misdemeanor records -- all in the name of making sure you're not prohibited from owning a gun."

OR the NRA view:
The bill requires federal agencies and states to provide "all relevant records" to the FBI for use in the NICS system. According to the NRA, "This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens."

I'm with the GOA on this particular bill because of the privacy concerns listed above...
 
Last action = June 14, 2006.

This is "...now working its way through Congress..." ? :confused:

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1415

Introduced: Mar 17, 2005
Last Action: Jun 14, 2006: Introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3979-3980)
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]

I like the part of the bill that ties funding to the accuracy of the database and requires removal of inaccurate/outdated info.

John
 
Okay with NRA
If the gun club I belong too didn't require membership in the NRA I wouldn't be a member. And until I get my own land and can build my own shooting range if I want to shoot on a decent range I've got to belong to a gun club.

The NRA may be the big kid on the block but that doesn't make them any less the wishy-washy, compromising, to get along go along, politician appeasers that they are.
 
But Gun Owners of America warns that the bill would give the states hundreds of millions of dollars to "further prop up the unconstitutional Brady Law." GOA argues that the federal government lacks the authority to conduct background checks on gun buyers under the Second and Tenth Amendments.

They're right. And the whole NICS must go also. But in no way should it ever be strengthened.
 
no way should it ever be strengthened.
Agree.

It should not matter if someone has a felony on their record... as long as they're not in jail, they have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. We do not have the authority to strip them of this right.

Unfortunately we have gun owners who think otherwise. They're a disease within the Gun Culture.
 
hmm

the whole NICS must go

I can envision some crimes for which you would not necessarily spend the rest of your days incarcerated, but I would not want them in possession of a weapon again - strong arm robbery, forcible rape, murder that doesn't result in a jury issued life or death sentence... I am not in any way advocating that the perpetrators of these acts ever see the light of day again, but if the jury sees fit to release them, or the judge as the case may be, they should have to be pardoned for their rights to be restored.

OTOH, if you're convicted of felony check kiting, or misdemeanor mopery with intent to creep, that should in no way inhibit you for the rest of your life... But without NICS, we can not draw any kind of distinction. Like it or not, judges and juries don't subscribe to my (and I'm sure some others) view of criminal sentence sufficiency and considering a freed prisoner to have served his / her debt to society.

Does NICS enable gov't abuse? Absolutely. Is it worthless? Absolutely not.

We didn't lose all this ground in a day and it won't be gained back in a day either.

That said, I do have concerns about this bill. If it's truly limited to mental health searches, what if you took happy pills for clinical depression? Does that mean you're now unable to own firearms because you have a mental illness? Alcoholism? substance dependency? And the "problem" this addresses is a failure of the respective government agencies to DO THEIR JOBS that the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS PAY them to do. They don't need another law to do it, except one that penalizes everyone who works at the respective .gov agencies for misappropriating our money...
 
I can envision some crimes for which you would not necessarily spend the rest of your days incarcerated, but I would not want them in possession of a weapon again - strong arm robbery, forcible rape, murder that doesn't result in a jury issued life or death sentence...
Likewise, I do not want a violent felon to possess weapons. But it doesn't matter what I think, because I am just a man. I do not possess the authority to strip him of his inalienable rights. Are you saying you have the authority to strip him of his inalienable rights?? Yes? No? If not, please tell me who has the authority to strip a man of his inalienable rights (assuming he's not in jail)?

It is the ultimate in arrogance to believe one man has the authority to strip another of his inalienable rights, as it implies rights originate from man and not from our Creator.
 
persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders

In other words, it's to assist in the enforcement of the Lautenberg amendment, a gun control bill the NRA opposed, by making it difficult for states to keep the federal government from knowing that your ex-wife accused you of slapping her during your divorce 30 years ago.
 
Are you saying you have the authority to strip him of his inalienable rights??
As much as I want to agree with you for all practical purposes it is not a question of authority but one of power.
 
Some of you obviously haven't learned the art of politics. One common ploy is to issue a press release about a bill saying "Oh this and oh that and maybe this and maybe that" BUT meanwhile working behind the scenes to stomp it down while the group supporting the bill thinks you're more or less neutral on it.

So, when does it start "working its way through Congress"? Anybody?

John
 
"If not, please tell me who has the authority to strip a man of his inalienable rights (assuming he's not in jail)?"

What does being in jail have to do with it? Either a man's got rights or he don't. Right? What part of inalienable don't you understand?

John
 
What does being in jail have to do with it? Either a man's got rights or he don't. Right? What part of inalienable don't you understand?
Pretty words...

But for all practical purposes a right one cannot exercise is no different from not having the right at all.

There's a need though for pretty words. Quite often when directed at those who's rights have been restricted they will spur those same folks to take action to recover those rights.

But not in America, not today, probably not ever again.
 
I do not possess the authority to strip him of his inalienable rights. Are you saying you have the authority to strip him of his inalienable rights?? Yes? No? If not, please tell me who has the authority to strip a man of his inalienable rights (assuming he's not in jail)?


Well, if you sit or sat on a jury and convicted someone of a crime for which there is a mandatory prison sentence, then you just denied someone their inalienable right to liberty.

So, is that the height of arrogance? Should we scrap the criminal code altogether since people are endowed by their creator with these inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Let's not get too carried away in the 'inalienable rights' bluster (and I don't mean this to sound personal, it's not). The founders decided upon a governmental form which empowered the legislative branch to create laws by which men(and women) are restrained. Or at least they're supposed to be, apparently the folks on Cops don't think so... Anyway, those laws are presumed constitutional by the courts and if a jury of a person's peers convicts them of a crime, they are depriving that person of their liberty as punishment. However, due to the "evolving legal system", sometimes a murderer or other thug is freed unusually early. Should this person be considered to have "paid his/her debt to society"?

I'm not saying misdemeanor here, I'm talking hard core, violent felons ONLY.
 
National Shooting Sports Foundation is for it...

and GOA points out that 31 of the 32 sponsors are rated "F" by the GOA and one is rated "D".

I can't believe this is a good bill.
 
Hey folks. Do you want your medical records in the hands of the Feds. Come on now. Do you. That is what this bill allows. Your medical records in the hands of the government. They will know everything you have told your doctor or other health care offical in confidence. To get such information usually takes a court order and a dead patient but this bill drops it in the feds lap.
 
What she said.

Medical records are private. As well they should be.

Ever seen a mental health professional? You do realize that to treat you they must first diagnose you, right? Well, my diagnosed "mental defective," care to see just how far the powers that be will stretch the definition of "adjudicated?"

See the GCA of 1968 if you don't understand what I'm referring to.

Kill the bill.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top