Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act

[Dallas239]

What is funny in reading all these comments is that the NRA is blamed for selling out or praised for making the bill better when many of the improvements were made by GOA's 2004 "Most important election to win this year": Senator Tom Coburn.

He really gets a big nod for making this a better bill. I think the NRA would have settled for worse than this. The really funny thing though is as a result he also deserves credit for most of the "sellout" accusations being made here as well since it was his willingness to compromise on those issues that got them included in the bill.

I was vocally opposed to the NRA-supported House version of this bill, but this one is considerably better. I haven't spent enough time with it to know if I like it better than the status-quo, but the "no action" == denial, and attorney's cost provisions look good at first glance. If they applied to all firearm disabilities it would have been even better.

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit" - Harry Truman

 

[ServiceSoon]

That means the bill doesn't count in GOA or NRA ratings for Congress. It's a game.

Freedom, liberty & RKBA is a game?

No one knows who voted how. That is as opposed to a "recorded vote".

Voice vote = Tyranny

 

[Green Lantern]

What's this I read on page two about this bill only affecting veterans????

So, if us "civvies" get hosed by the system somehow, we're just spit out of luck forever, as now?

 

[alan]

NRA Alert, Senate passes NICS Improvement bill on voice vote, conference committee?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act
After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following:


Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.

Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.

Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.

Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.

Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:


Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.

Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.

Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.

Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.

Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.

Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.

Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.

-------------------

The following items/questions jump to my mind upon a quick read of the above.

1. Re the award of attorney's fees to the "injured party" arising out of court action brought against a Federal Agency that improperly denied "relief from disability", how about PUNATIVE DAMAGES AWARDS levied against the INDIVIDUALS responsible as well as against the agency.
2. Have monies to operate this relief from disabilities business been included or will that be open to obstruction by Senator Charles Schumer and others of his ilk, as has been the case in the past, and still is today?
3. Seems that there is a hellish long "time lag", 1 year is mentioned, allowed to federal agencies to drag their feet re relief from disability, before the individual can take the thing to federal court. This business has the sound and the smell of another of those congressional Dog and Pony Shows. I could be wrong re this conclusion, I suppose.
4. Once again, on important legislation, legislation on which there is significant argument, part of the national legislature, (Senate) passes important, disputed and otherwise questionable legislation on a "voice vote", presumably unrecorded. What is going on here seems an all to reasonable question.
5. Finally, there are seemingly significant differences between the House passed version, a voice vote there too, and the Senate version. There seems however, no mention of or references to the seemingly required House-Senate Conference Committee, out of which in the past, have come some rather strange pieces of legislation. Is something here being "glossed over"? Has the NRA blown it, some would add here AGAIN, re their support of this legislation?

 

[e5i5o]

Well I am confused.
Both side are calling it a victory for them. (NRA and Brady Campaign)

Below are the two email I received from each group:

From: "NRA-ILA_Alerts" <[email protected]>

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following:

* Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.

* Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.

* Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.

* Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.

* Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.

* Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.

* Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.

* Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.

The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:

* Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.

* Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.

* Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.

* Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.

* Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.

* Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.

* Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.

############

From: "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" <[email protected]>

Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System
Bill Now Moves to President's Desk: Please Call Today

Dear e5i5o,


Great news! Last night, Congress passed a bill that will strengthen the Brady background check system. It will help ensure that fewer guns end up in the hands of dangerous people like felons and those who have been found to be a threat to themselves or others because of mental illness.

After the Virginia Tech tragedy, with your help, we asked our national leaders, "What are YOU going to do about gun violence?"

The tide is turning. Yesterday, Congress passed the first major piece of legislation to reduce gun violence in over a decade — and congratulations are in order: you, our donors and activists, helped make this victory possible. Thank you!

The "National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640) was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and House, and now goes to the President's desk for signature.

PLEASE CALL PRESIDENT BUSH TODAY AT 202-456-1111
Urge Him to Sign the NICS Improvement Act Immediately
Give the Virginia Tech families this victory before the New Year

This legislation was passed in response to the Virginia Tech massacre. The killer was able to arm himself because the court order that should have blocked his gun purchase was not reported to the national Brady background check system.

We deeply appreciate the courage and strength of the Virginia Tech victims. On October 16, many of the Virginia Tech families joined Brady President Paul Helmke and me on Capitol Hill calling for passage of this legislation — the efforts of all the families involved were crucial to this victory.

Our special thanks go out to Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) for their work on this legislation.

Much work lies ahead with the implementation of this legislation and our efforts to make the Brady background check system as strong as it can and should be. I know I can count on you to help us make future victories possible.

Click here for more information on the NICS Improvement Act.

Thank you again and happy holidays.
Sincerely,
Sarah's Signature [image]
Sarah Brady, Chair

 

[Michael Thomson]

Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill

Josh Sugarmann| BIO |
Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill
Posted December 20, 2007 | 04:22 PM (EST)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/trojan-horse-gun-control_b_77754.html

Last night Congress passed the "NICS Improvement Act," a bill that in prior incarnations was designed to improve the records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)--the national system used to screen gun buyers.


Much has been made of the bill's bi-partisan, triangulating support: Democrats! Republicans! The National Rifle Association! The Brady Campaign! Beyond this cheery bon temps, little public attention has been paid to what the bill actually does beyond its title. And that's because if you start looking at the details of the bill--especially after NRA-backed changes made by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn--it becomes clear that the measure is nothing less than a pro-gun Trojan Horse. That's why my organization, the Violence Policy Center, and other national gun control groups, have voiced their strong concerns about the version of the bill that was passed by Congress. Concerns that have been validated by none other than the NRA which, after the bill's passage issued a press release which crowed:

"After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners. Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within."

So why's the NRA so in thrall with an alleged gun control bill? Here are some of the reasons why.

The bill would resuscitate a failed government program that spent millions of dollars annually to allow persons prohibited from buying guns to regain the ability to legally acquire firearms. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a "relief from disability" program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have "been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed. As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply. States would also be required to establish such "relief" programs to restore the gun privileges of those with mental health disabilities in order to be eligible for potential grant money to upgrade records submitted to the NICS.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) used to run a similar program that, in addition to those with mental disabilities, even allowed felons to apply for "relief." Annual costs for the ATF program ballooned to more than $4 million in 1991, with an average cost of $4,800 per applicant and 43 full-time employees dedicated to processing the applications. Congress shut down the ATF program in 1992 because of its high cost, inefficiency, and threat to public safety (among those re-armed with your tax dollars: kidnappers, rapists, and terrorists).

The bill also sets an arbitrary time limit for the VA to act on applications for "relief." If the agency fails to act within 365 days, applicants can file a lawsuit asking a court to restore their gun privileges--even if Congress fails to provide the VA with the appropriate resources to process these investigations. Some prevailing applicants would be entitled to attorneys' fees.
This provision is contrary to a unanimous 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ATF's failure to act on a relief application from a felon (because of a lack of appropriations) did not constitute a denial that would entitle the applicant to judicial review. The decision noted that courts are ill-equipped to make decisions on individual applications for "relief" under the standards that would apply under the "NICS Improvement Act," stating: "Whether an applicant is `likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety' presupposes an inquiry into that applicant's background--a function best performed by the Executive, which, unlike courts, is institutionally equipped for conducting a neutral, wide-ranging investigation. Similarly, the `public interest' standard calls for an inherently policy-based decision best left in the hands of an agency."

The bill significantly narrows the category of records of people with mental disabilities that would be submitted to the NICS by the federal government. The current permanent bar on persons with certain mental health disabilities would be replaced with temporary restrictions.
Once a solution, the bill--hijacked by the gun lobby--is now part of the problem. Intended as Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech by focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others.

Yes, the bill does authorize $200 million dollars a year for five years to improve the submission of mental health records to the NICS (even the Brady law, authorized at the same level, has never come anywhere near such a level of actual funding). But does anyone really believe that the NRA is going to lobby the appropriations committees to fully fund the measure? They'll be spending their time ensuring that there's just enough money to fund the components of the bill they really care about--like the federal and state "relief from disability" programs--and that no one else seems to want to talk about. The bottom line: the known "bad" in this bill far outweighs the hoped-for "good."

The concerns over these aspects of the bill are not abstract. According to research published earlier this year, male U.S. veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service and are more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. The men with a military background were 58 percent more likely to have used a firearm to kill themselves than non-veterans who committed suicide. Add to this the fact that veterans are more likely to own guns than the general population.

Veterans with mental health problems may present special risks for gun violence. In 2000, the New York Times examined 100 rampage shootings and found that the majority (52 percent) of such killers had been in the military. The Times' review also found that 47 percent of rampage killers had a history of mental problems, with 42 percent having been seen by mental health professionals.

When the inevitable tragedies occur as a result of this bill, and veterans with mental health disabilities--given guns instead of help--turn these weapons on themselves, their families, or the public, the inevitable question will be, "How did this happen?" When that question is asked, who will be willing to answer it?

Bio: Josh Sugarmann is the founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a national 501(c)(3) educational foundation working to reduce violence in America (www.vpc.org). He is the author of two books, National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear and Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns. His articles and op-eds have appeared in numerous publications, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, The Nation, and Washington Monthly.

 

[Robert Hairless]

e5i5o:

Well I am confused.
Both side are calling it a victory for them. (NRA and Brady Campaign)

Yeah, aren't compromises awful? Nobody gets Total Victory. All sides wind up feeling that they won something. Terrible. We don' wan' no steenkin' compromises. We want to fight, all-or-nothing, until the glorious end when one side wins everything and the other side loses everything. It doesn't matter what other people think or fear. Who cares about them? We are the only people who matter. It doesn't matter if we keep our guns or lose them. What matters is whether we won or lost. And it also doesn't matter if what we got is more than we gave.

Dave Workman:

I know some hard-core gun cranks angry about GCA'68 who weren't even born then. ... The NRA didn't vote on it or sign it into law.

And I know a bunch of gun owners who attack the NRA for not meeting their expectations and won't do what they want. They aren't NRA members, won't spend a few dollars to support the work that benefits them, and complain constantly that they don't like what they get and don't get enough of it anyway.

I know someone like that. He hasn't worked for at least twenty years, maybe more. His family supports him: food, rent, clothing, car, and pocket money--everything. He complains constantly about not being able to live in the style he likes because his family doesn't love him and won't give him the money he needs to enjoy life.

Does anyone else know the old story about the guy who is invited to a free lunch, eats everything within reach, criticizes the food, and then complains that the portions were too small? I forget whether he was that fellow I know or a gun owner who doesn't belong to the NRA.


All:

It's bad enough that I and other NRA members have to carry a bunch of ingrates on our backs. I wish they'd stop the constant whining and complaining. It's distracting to the people who carry them while doing the work.

Besides, there's already an organization for them: Gun Owners of America has declared with its customary self-righteousness that in 2008 it will fight against the passage of this bill that passed in 2007. GOA explained that it has a close relationship with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, so it's a sure thing that they'll defeat this bill that passed already.

When GOA finishes that fight, which is already over, it will prevent Congress from passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the NFA of 1934, both of which were enacted decades ago. Don't think about what Larry Pratt says: just believe him, send him your money, and continue to undercut the NRA.

Some gun owners have some rights restored. Nobody has to exercise those rights. Don't use them if you don't want to use them.

 

[txgho1911]

I thing a positive step for honesty is what this bill does. As long as we have NICS I would like it to be honest. This version is much better than the first one the house passed.
The relief for medical determinations does not read like it is only for Vets.
How does honesty in gun control pass todays congress?
Without names for or against. They are all scared of gun legislation.

 

[Michael Thomson]

Interesting that GOA, which sent out several alerts over the last several days claiming to be the real power on Capitol Hill, had no clue that Senator Coburn (with whom they claimed to be working) had released his hold on the NICS bill the day before it passed. I'm surprised that they wouldn't have known that given their "close" working relationship.

On Dec. 18 (the day Coburn released his hold) GOA had this to say
in an alert (Grassroots Activism In 2008)

Gun Owners of America has emerged as the leader on Capitol Hill in
fighting to defend your gun rights. It was GOA that teamed up with
Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to stall the Veterans
Disarmament Act in the Senate.

We plan to keep mobilizing against the bill in 2008. Please help us
get more gun owners ready to muster in the fight for our liberties!

And again on Dec. 19th (the day the NICS bill passed) in another email (Gun Rights Threatened In 2008) GOA said the following:

"Next year, GOA will continue fighting the Veterans Disarmament Act.
That's where you will find GOA... on the front lines in the war to
defend our rights."

How is it that America's self-described voice for gun owners on Capitol Hill didn't even know that the NICS bill was no longer being held by their close friend and ally or that the Senate would even be considering the bill in the near future? Where was GOA's alert informing us of the pending "sell-out"? Presumably--though they didn't say so--Sen. Coburn is one of those who stabbed gun owners in the back since he withdrew his hold on the bill and didn't object to its passage, which is all it would have taken to delay a vote on the bill.

GOA spokesmen spend countless hours on Capitol
Hill and in the media.(End of the Year Report, Dec. 13)

Isn't it odd that such a lobbying and legislative powerhouse couldn't manage to get a single Senator or Representative in Congress to object to or cast a vote against HR 2640 --not a single one, not in June when it first passed the House or when it passed the Senate and the House again.

 

[RealGun]

Isn't it odd that such a lobbying and legislative powerhouse couldn't manage to get a single Senator or Representative in Congress to object to or cast a vote against HR 2640 --not a single one, not in June when it first passed the House or when it passed the Senate and the House again. - Michael Thomson

With a voice vote, you don't know if there were any nays or not. I found your post petty, but this point is too weak to let pass.

 

[stellarpod]

I found your post petty, but this point is too weak to let pass.

I found Michael Thompson's post most profound and completely appropriate.

stellarpod

 

[Michael Thomson]

With a voice vote, you don't know if there were any nays or not. I found your post petty, but this point is too weak to let pass.

Actually in the case of the Senate and Wed's vote we do. The Senate operates by something called Unanimous Consent. What that means is that any Senators objection can delay or prevent the consideration of a bill or nomination. If the Senate can't get unanimous consent on a bill or nomination, they must get 60 votes for cloture(basically shut down debate). That is why a "Hold" or filibuster on a piece of legislation or on a nomination can stall the consideration of a measure and vote. As has been reported frequently over the last several months, Sen. Coburn placed a Hold on the NICS bill so he could make additional changes to the legislation. Once he was satisfied, he released his hold on the bill. The bill was brought up under unanimous consent and was passed without objection(meaning no Senator said "NO", hence there were not any "No" votes).

Had a single Senator, objected to the consideration of the NICS bill on Wed, it likely would not have been brought up for a vote. If a Senator had objected(which none did), the Senate could have moved to get cloture on the bill, shut down further debate and proceed with a vote on the bill.

Likewise, the passage of the NICS bill in the House in June was also a case where there was little or no ojection. While the bill passed by a voice vote (which is actually pretty routine for measures about which there is little debate), any member of the House could have asked for a Roll Call on the bill. (none did, and that includes Dr. Paul).

 

[JohnBT]

Not a nay in sight. The Senate passed it with UNANIMOUS CONSENT. Here are the links. John

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640

"Dec 19, 2007: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent."

www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/unanimous_consent.htm

"unanimous consent - A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected."

 

[alan]

Notwithstanding media hype and My Father Can Beat Up Your Father type rhetoric, the claim by both pro and anti gun forces of this being "a winner" is curious to say the leas. Interesting also is the fact, claim or statement, seen elsewhere, that the text of whatever it was that passed is not yet available, and might not be till "sometime next week", possibly after it having been signed into law.

Perhaps I'm overly suspicious, but I smell that often mentioned dead rodent. For whatrever the following might bve worth, on the subject of NRA membership, I'm a LIFE MEMBER, and have been since 1973. Re other commentators, I cannot say.

 

[scout26]

Scout: "I think you'll find that this bill actually helps veterans, especially those 100,000+/- veterans that were put on the "naughty" list during the Clinton administration, with no way to get off the list. Now there will be a way for those veterans who who sought help with PTSD without be adjuticated to get off the list."

I don't care about giving vetrans preferential treatment under the law. I care about equal treatment.

This would have been a good opportunity to force the .gov to actually fund their own damn restoration program, so anyone who has been disenfranchised under Federal law could petition for redress.

But no, NRA capitulates again.

Hey, Dave. Read the bill. It doesn't just have a provision to restore veteran's rights, but ANYONE that had been adjudicated and lost their 2A rights.

The bill's text (unfortunately, not the final text) is in post 6 & 7 of this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=324595

Again, I urge everyone to read the acutal bill and not the GOA's "Chicken Little" press releases.

Oh, and regarding the NRA's "sellout" on this bill, did you happen to read the text of the bill before the NRA got involved ??? And keep in mind that this thing was going to pass a Democrat Congress in the wake of VT with or without the NRA's "Sellout".

The NRA took a bad bill, got rid of the bad parts and got a good thing (opportunity to get back 2A rights) put in. Obviously a new definition of "sellout" that I'm not familiar with.....

 

[JohnBT]

"Voice vote = Tyranny"

They used voice votes during the Constitutional Convention. Does that upset you or didn't you know?

John

 

[Davo]

How much is a NICS check now?

 

[jaholder1971]

BOTTOM LINE: The NRA and it's "Winning Team" group of wine and cheese eating beltway mercenaries took a pile of excrement in Congress and did nothing but added a little maple syrup. Yeah, it's sweeter but it's still excrement!

This isn't what I donate to NRA for! I donate to the NRA and the NRA-ILA to STOP this crap butt - cold, not to pretend it's something it's not.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I was vocally opposed to the NRA-supported House version of this bill, but this one is considerably better. I haven't spent enough time with it to know if I like it better than the status-quo, but the "no action" == denial, and attorney's cost provisions look good at first glance. If they applied to all firearm disabilities it would have been even better.

I'm interested in the language that says it does away with BATFE's current definitions of "adjudicated mentally ill" and "involuntarily committed" too. Those could both be very important points.

 

[Robert Hairless]

With a voice vote, you don't know if there were any nays or not. I found your post petty, but this point is too weak to let pass.

Huh? I've been at meetings where a voice vote was taken and even I could hear when anyone said "Nay." Are you saying that the Speaker of the House of Representatives needs a hearing aid?

Michael Thomson's analysis was right on target. It reflects clear thinking about clear evidence.

You've made the lamest attempt to excuse Gun Owners of America that I've ever seen anywhere. That's not an insult. Considering that we're talking about GOA it's quite a tribute.

Unfortunately your accomplishment will recede into the dim past when Gun Owners of America makes its own excuse. That one will be well worth reading.

 

[scout26]

BR,
Here's the text of the bill from Govtrack: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640

(c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, AND COMMITMENTS-

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A), the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

(d) Information Excluded From NICS Records-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nor may the Attorney General make available to such system), the name or any other relevant identifying information of any person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of paragraph (1) before such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Then there's the Open Letter from the Head JBT of the Evil (Boo, Hiss) BATFE to all the States Attorney Generals dated 9 May 2007.

http://www.atf.gov/press/2007press/050907open-letter-to-states-attourneys-general.htm

Which reads in part:

Each of these terms is defined by Federal regulation at 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as follows:

ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE
A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
The term shall include—
A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION
This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

ATF has historically interpreted these provisions as constituting two distinct prohibitions. Each prohibition represents a separate disqualification. For example, a “commitment” means a formal commitment, not a voluntary stay. Excluded are stays for observation only. Nor does the term include a stay in a mental institution that never involved any form of adjudication by a lawful authority. However, a stay that began as a voluntary stay may be subsequently transformed into a disqualifying stay if a court, board, or other lawful authority makes a determination that the person is a danger to self or others. Moreover, a voluntary stay that is by itself not disabling could be later converted into a formal commitment and therefore be disabling.

For purposes of a Federal firearms disability, ATF interprets “adjudicated mental defective” to include anyone adjudicated to be a “danger to him or herself,” “a danger to others,” or lacking “the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs.” For purposes of Federal law, “danger” means any danger, not simply “imminent” or “substantial” danger as is often required to sustain an involuntary commitment under State law. Thus, for example, adjudication that a person was mentally ill and a danger to himself or others would result in Federal firearms disability, whether the court-ordered treatment was on an inpatient or outpatient basis. This is because the adjudication itself (a finding of danger due to mental illness) is sufficient to trigger the disability.

It should be emphasized that whatever adjudication procedure a State employs, the Constitution requires certain guarantees of due process. In order for a particular commitment order to qualify as a prohibiting commitment, ATF historically has required that traditional protections of due process be present, including adequate notice, an opportunity to respond, and a right to counsel. Such protections are important because whether a person has been adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution, the firearms disability is permanent. (emphasis mine)

 

[Al Norris]

scout26, that's all well and good, but...

H.R. 2640 is not the bill that was passed.

When 2640 was brought out of committee, Sen Schumer, for Sen. Leahy, submitted S. Amdt. 3887 as a substitution for 2640. That was the bill that was passed. The language of S. Amdt. 3887 has yet to be published.

This info may be found in the Congressional record, S16024-16028.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Which reminds me of a story I heard from an old timer years ago. He was in a cavalry unit that fell into a German trap during World War II.

"There we were, a dozen Sherman tanks, moving peacefully through this peaceful valley road when suddenly the Germans were all around us. They came out of nowhere.

"There were Germans in front of us and Germans behind us. Above us the Germans were lobbing a hail of panzerfausts into us. Underneath us they had mined the road.

"My tank was in the middle. No way to go forward, no way to go backward. If anyone lifted the hatch cover to get out a sniper picked him off. If we stayed inside we'd be blown to bits or roasted. Terrible situation."

"What happened," I asked, "and how did you manage to survive?"

"Survive? Survive?," he replied angrily. "Ain't you been paying attention? No one could have survived. The Germans killed each and every one of us. It still brings tears to all our eyes whenever we get together and talk about it. Terrible situation."

And that's how I learned about the essential nature of hopeless situations. Because they're hopeless there's no way out of them.

This situation is hopeless. It's the end. We're all going to be committed to mental institutions, eat starchy foods, grow fat, grow old, and die. Terrible situation.

 

[Deavis]

Really? All of the listed changes (assuming correctly stated) significantly "dial back" the infringement of the original Brady Act, i.e., partially restoring our infringed RKBA. I can't agree that this is "whoring out" our rights.

Oh No, the NRA supported a bill bringing back some people's rights but since it doesn't conform to exactly your strict 100% 2A only interpretation of the law it must be BAD! Bad NRA, don't try to win the war, lose all the battles and we'll just revolt one day. The 2A is for revolution, oh, please, let me revolt over the egregious situation I live in while I sit in my comfoprtable chair typing on the Internet unlike 90% of the world's population that doesn't have time to wast on InternetfForums. It is so tough being a modern day Internet Kommando these days, heck just last Tuesday I spilled my triple mocha latte on my new Tactical 5.11 pants from Galls!

the Biggest Point missed is WE/ALL of us would not be here talking about this now of the NRA had held the LINE in 1968

Well, guess what, they didn't. So, let's all get over it and move forward. When people say that we sound like a bunch of Mohammed Ali Sharak Abulas blaming every white person alive today for the minority that owned slaves centuries ago. Wake up and smell 2008 gentleman. The NRA has changed since 1968 so either get with the program and help or sit here and whine. At least the former offers some hope of getting us to where we shouild be, even if it does offend the lunatic fringe who thinks that we can go from infringement to freedom overnight because it is the moral thing.

Join the NRA, GOA, JFPO, or the CCRKBA. Whichever one tickles your fancy. Just do something instead of bitching about how it WOULD HAVE been IF ONLY. If only I'd been born a millionare...

 

[RealGun]

With a voice vote, you don't know if there were any nays or not. I found your post petty, but this point is too weak to let pass.

Huh? I've been at meetings where a voice vote was taken and even I could hear when anyone said "Nay." Are you saying that the Speaker of the House of Representatives needs a hearing aid?

Michael Thomson's analysis was right on target. It reflects clear thinking about clear evidence.

You've made the lamest attempt to excuse Gun Owners of America that I've ever seen anywhere. That's not an insult. Considering that we're talking about GOA it's quite a tribute.

Unfortunately your accomplishment will recede into the dim past when Gun Owners of America makes its own excuse. That one will be well worth reading. - Robert Hairless

Why so snarky? All I did was overlook that it was not in fact a "voice vote", as referred to here, but a unanimous consent vote. Michael's explanation was perfect and completely civil.

In the absence of any confirmed facts, analysis of GOA's role is still petty IMO. There is a rush to judgment here that is a reflection of bias against GOA, the same old ugly my-Dad-can-beat-up-your-Dad thread as is revived here from time to time.