Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act

[stellarpod]

Snarky?

I found your post petty

Now THAT'S what I'd call snarky...

What we have from GOA is what we have - nothing more. If they don't see fit to explain their apparent statement inconsistencies, then it's hardly a "rush to judgement" to base personal opinion on their actions thus far.

Conversely, what IS IMHO a rush to judgement is the continuous bashing of the NRA over this issue.

stellarpod

 

[JohnBT]

GOA's role? What role? Misreading bills, sending out misleading error-filled e-mail alerts? How many do they have to send out before everyone catches on to their game?

John

 

[jaholder1971]

GOA's role? What role? Misreading bills, sending out misleading error-filled e-mail alerts? How many do they have to send out before everyone catches on to their game?

How many NRA-ILA alerts do you have to read before you realize they say one thing for donations and do another?

 

[rdhood]

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.

I agree. Justice delayed is justice denied. Why does it take a YEAR to fix an INSTANT background check? Is that year is above the amount of time it takes for the reporting agency to clear you? I.E. that portion of the bill is JUST the amount of time NICS has to twiddle the bits in their system AFTER some judge or doctor has declared you fit to own a weapon. You are not asking NICS to declare you fit. NICS is being asked to clear your record AFTER you have been declared fit. Folks, that is a 30 second fix to a database. They should be required to do it in less than 2 weeks.

Still, though, there is no time limit whatsoever now, and it generally takes months. It definitely needed to be codified, but it should be a much shorter time period. My prediction: whether these types of fixes get done in one week or one year will depend entirely on the political office holders at the time. Some will issue directives to wait until the plaintiff is ready to go to court (i.e. spends money on lawyer, makes court date) before NICS is updated, and then NICS database will be changed, case dropped, and plaintiff pays big unreimbursed $$$ because the case never went to court such that the plaintiff could receive court costs. In other words, this becomes a cat-and-mouse game to see how much the plaintiff wants his rights restored. IF a reporting agency says that a plaintiff is cleared for gun purchase, NICS must be compelled to make it happen quickly, and at no potential cost to the plaintiff. The plaintiff should never have to spend money to get the NICS database fixed for a Constitutional right that has been restored. Expenses experienced by the plaintiff after the year long wait, but before the court case has been won or lost, if NICS is fixed before the court date, should be paid by the Federal government.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This is just more unconstitutional law that needs to be repealed.

Woody

 

[RealGun]

GOA's role? What role? Misreading bills, sending out misleading error-filled e-mail alerts? How many do they have to send out before everyone catches on to their game? - John BT

GOA's positions are explained at length on their website. Check that out before using "misreading" and "misleading" and "error" and "game". No need to mock a mere difference in point of view. Go with whatever works for you.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here is the text of the new amended version:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/nics/HR2640_amendment.pdf

Definitely an improvement over the original; but still some problems. They did away with the ATF's regulatory definitions but instead of clarifying the vague definitions that caused ATF to create regulatory definitions in the first place, they just reiterated that the Congressional definitions (vagueness included) control.

However, they did add several provisions to address some of the concerns Phil Lee pointed out in several of our long debates on the subject.

 

[AndyC]

I'll take Congressional definitions over the BATF's any day

 

[JohnBT]

"GOA's positions are explained at length on their website. Check that out before using "misreading" and "misleading" and "error" and "game". No need to mock a mere difference in point of view. Go with whatever works for you."

I have read it off and on over the years and the GOA has slipped badly. I'm not mocking, I'm stating facts about GOA that have been demonstrated time and time again on this board and others. It's not a difference in point of view, it's the way GOA constantly twists and misstates the facts. Sad, but true.

John

 

[RealGun]

it's the way GOA constantly twists and misstates the facts - JohnBT

Sigh! Got any cites that demonstrate providing information other than what was believed factual, i.e. demonstrates an actual motive to be deceptive?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Title I, Section 101(c)(2)(A)(ii)

Process.- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.

Constitutionality aside, Judicial Review of such a case is far from "speedy" in the entitlement to a "speedy" trial in the Sixth Amendment in the light that you may have to wait one full year before you can bring your case to court if an agency or department decides to ignore your request. Come to think of it, there are instances where this wouldn't be a criminal trial where a mental issue is involved. No crime has been committed. Example: You go nuts due to a brain tumor. You get placed on the list. You have surgery and are cured. Your request for relief is ignored. You have committed no crime, but are not treated as a normal law abiding and sane person for not less than one year. You must go to court to "prove" you aren't nuts, that you are not a danger to yourself or anyone else. That could take months on top of the first year you waited patiently for some department or agency to not act, or because Congress decided not to fund this relief program. Kinda sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Now, tell me one more time why this is such a good bill. Tell me why this won't become like every other law infringing upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Tell me how this is better than the system currently in place that doesn't provide for relief when all it'll take is for Congress to "forget" to fund this - or prohibit the Court to spend any funds to provide relief - just like the unfunding of the border fence - just like the unfunding of the process to have your gun rights restored under current law...

Now, all of you who support this bill please step up to the mirror and face the truth. You are looking at someone who has been duped. You see someone who has partaken of the Koolaid. You are entitled to a piece of pie. We may never bake it, but you may salivate all you want. Enjoy.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now, tell me one more time why this is such a good bill.

Because right now you don't get any relief at all and there is no time limit period? Apparently the deal was good enough that Sen. Tom Coburn (a close ally of GOA and their most important election of 2004 if you believe their press releases) saw fit to vote for it after these changes had been added.

Of course, if you think we could have gotten a better deal from a Democrat-controlled Congress, I'm certainly interested in hearing how that would work.

 

[Robert Hairless]

RealGun:

Sigh! Got any cites that demonstrate providing information other than what was believed factual, i.e. demonstrates an actual motive to be deceptive?

Good, we make progress. You concede that Gun Owners of America was deceptive. The "actual motive" for GOA's deceptions is demonstrated in many "cites" similar to this: http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4009932&postcount=59.

For another clear statement of the GOA "actual motive" here's what GOA said today:

Please help us to get more members and activists. If you add $10 to your membership renewal this year, we can reach new gun owners in the mail and tell them about GOA.

Take a moment to think before you object that Gun Owners of America's own statements are not to be "believed factual." That's the point most people here are trying to explain. Whatever GOA says about anything should not be "believed factual."

On to more recent news.

I am sorry to say that you don't get the prize for the lamest excuse for Gun Owners of America's deceit and/or stupidity. As I predicted, that award goes to GOA itself. Here's what it posted on its web site on December 20, 2007:

Gun Owners of America and its supporters took a knife in the back yesterday, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) out-smarted his congressional opposition into agreeing on a so-called "compromise" on HR 2640 -- a bill which now goes to the President's desk.

Amazing. GOA has just committed political suicide in that one sentence:

1. GOA has just told the world that Sen. Chuck Schumer "out-smarted" Sen. Tom Coburn, Gun Owners of America's good buddy and man in the Senate, and all of the other Senators that opposed the bill.
   
   If you were GOA good buddy Sen. Tom Coburn and one of its numerous other Senate contacts, how would you like it if your good buddy GOA told the world you were not smart?
   
2. GOA has also just told the world that those Senators--presumably its friends in the Senate--stabbed Gun Owners of America in the back by agreeing to "a so-called 'compromise'."
   
   How would you like it if your good buddy GOA told the world that you are a backstabber.

So what rational person in the Congress would work with such an organization or even trust it?

It's political suicide to buddy with Gun Owners of America. GOA makes no secret of saying that it does not compromise: if you don't do what GOA wants, you are the enemy and a "backstabber."

How much can GOA possibly accomplish with that approach except to marginalize itself and its members more and more. And that's exactly what it has done and continues to do. GOA is on the fringe of the gun rights movement. The enemies of gun rights do not even bother to attack GOA or JPFO. They just don't matter.

You and other GOA apologists make a truly serious mistake of your own. You describe the many people--like me--who scorn GOA as "the NRA's cheerleaders." You don't see how that makes you look. This isn't high school all over again (the jocks and the nerds, the popular guys and the wallflowers, the guys who live there and the guys who live here) and this isn't a schoolyard rumble or a situation of "he's my best friend and you're not because you insulted my chihuaha."

What you don't get, and it looks as if you'll never get, is that the people who scorn GOA and JPFO aren't reliving childish rivalries. Many of us support the NRA and other gun rights organizations too. There would be no reason to repudiate GOA if it helped more than it hurt. We--certainly I--would support it too, just as vigorously as I support the NRA. But I don't. I scorn it.

GOA doesn't help at all. GOA only hurts and that is all GOA seems to know how to do: rally some kinds of people to attack whoever is its current enemy. GOA is negative and destructive.

GOA alienates people just as its recent statement must alienate the very people in Congress without whom nothing can be accomplished. GOA can't pass even one little gun rights law on its own: like any such organization it needs to build bridges with the people who can pass gun rights laws. But GOA burns bridges to those people.

How could anyone in his right mind think that the way to get favorable gun laws is to burn bridges with Senators and betray its legislative friends in public? No need to answer that question. Anyone in his right mind knows the answer already.

Go on with your defense of Gun Owners of America. Sorry to interrupt.

 

[alan]

ConstitutionCowboy writes
Quote:
Title I, Section 101(c)(2)(A)(ii)

Process.- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.

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

"...Shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application". Somehow, this does NOT sound anyplace near to the "speedy trial" that the constitution gurantees, though of course from the legal-bureaucratic point of view, no "trial" is involved. Maybe no trial, however there is most certainly a question of individual rights involved, and as offered by Senator Barbara Boxer, "rights delayed are rights denied".

While this observation was not offered re gun rights, it strikes me as germane. I wonder as to how the good senator would view it?

 

[RealGun]

Good, we make progress. You concede that Gun Owners of America was deceptive. - Robert Hairless

This lack of comprehension or the misrepresentation of what I wrote will make any further discussion pointless.

Professionally I served as an agent for change in industrial organizations. A mentor once said that "for anything to change, someone has to be the *******." GOA fills that useful role nicely and does it rather well. I support them. Everyone else is a "blissninny" by comparison.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

alan

The trial I'm talking about is the one that you may pursue after the default denial - after the "mandatory" one year wait for the bureaucracy to do nothing. Rights delayed are rights denied? No, you never lose the rights, but rights delayed are rights infringed. Ms. Boxer - or whomever coined the phrase - is supposing government has the power to deny a right. 'Tis not so under our Constitution.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[gc70]

A mentor once said that "for anything to change, someone has to be the *******." GOA fills that useful role nicely and does it rather well.

GOA has certainly helped previous fringe groups to appear more mainstream.

 

[scout26]

Can someone pooint out what legislation the GOA, et al. have proposed, and had passed ???

I guess to me the true value of any group or organization is what they've accomplished, not what their rhetoric is.

 

[Robert Hairless]

RealGun:

This lack of comprehension or the misrepresentation of what I wrote will make any further discussion pointless.

Professionally I served as an agent for change in industrial organizations. A mentor once said that "for anything to change, someone has to be the *******." GOA fills that useful role nicely and does it rather well. I support them. Everyone else is a "blissninny" by comparison.

What a twisted way to think and to argue. You hold me responsible for your failure to write comprehensible English.

Your "Sigh! Got any cites that demonstrate providing information other than what was believed factual, i.e. demonstrates an actual motive to be deceptive?" has almost no meaning.

In the two parts to what pretends to be a sentence there's no meaning at all to your "Got any cites that demonstrate providing information other than what was believed factual." The second part, your explanatory "i.e. demontrates an actual motive to be deceptive," does have some meaning. It means that you concede that GOA is deceptive but you want a demonstration of its "actual motive" for being deceptive. Maybe there are other ways to understand and interpret it but I don't see any.

You wrote that fog, I didn't. I've done my best to penetrate the fog you generate. But you accuse me of either being unable to understand what you wrote or of twisting it. I do have a hard time understanding what you write. I understand the words you use but they don't make sense the way you put them together. I've done my best. I'm not a mindreader though. If I'm a "blissninny," at least I'm a literate "blissninny" and not a semi-literate "*******."

I guess I see your point that GOA is the "*******" of gun rights groups. It's not the way I've been accustomed to thinking since I grew up. It is interesting to look at GOA and JPFO as highschool kids engaging in a rumble between the "a$$holes" and the "blissninnies."

The insights you allow could explain why their arguments and the arguments of their supporters make them seem like rebellious adolescents. They're not adults. Mature people don't do things like call an important bill "The Veterans Disarmament Act," because they know it's childish. GOA doesn't know. Neither do its members.

It also explains the utter stupidity of how GOA behaves. You throw a hissy fit about my "lack of comprehension or the misrepresentation of what I wrote" so you can ignore what I said about the GOA's public attacks on Sen. Tom Coburn and others who might have been trying to work with it. Adolescents do throw public tantrums, although I think it's usually younger kids who do that.

It's unwise for any lobbying group to publish a statement saying that its supposed friends in the Congress were outsmarted and are backstabbers. How could GOA justify a future call to support Sen. Tom Coburn and others for re-election?

"Help re-elect Tom Coburn. He's not smart and he is a backstabber" doesn't seem like much of an endorsement, but I guess that GOA members don't get it, won't remember, and might not even care. Adolescents often care more than anything else about being accepted by the gang, and rebellious adolescents like belonging to the bad boy gangs--the breakers instead of the makers.

As long as you enjoy identifying yourself with the a$$holes there probably isn't much else to say.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I'm glad this legislation passed and is in front of the Pres. for his signature.

I'm reminded of Pastor Niemöller's poem, one of the most common variations as follows:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Interestingly enough, on the strangely reviled Wiki (no one seems to trust Wiki even though it apparently has the same error rate as the Encyclopedia Brittanica) there is this bit if info:

Variation of second stanza

Most poems omit "the sick, the so-called incurables", (known today as the mentally ill) in Niemöller's original writings, a reference to Action T4. "Dann hat man die Kranken, die sogenannten Unheilbaren beseitigt."

Now, not to point out the obvious to some more astute members, but in order for one to stand up for the "mentally ill" and others denied, there must first exist the "mentally ill" and others denied.

There are thousands of people who have their rights denied right this moment who have no redress, period, as the laws now read.

If you are not one of these people whose right's have been denied unjustly, count yourself thankful, and please don't obstruct relief to those suffering, no matter how small the relief granted.




And to those NRA members who weary of the weight of 80 million gun owners on their tired shoulders, fear not, for I have heard your cry! I have pledged my time and money and have committed to joining the NRA! Rest easy with the knowledge that someone as uninportant as myself will contribute what little he has of value to continue to fight for our freedoms in the best, most effective ways possible!

I have not the youth as I once did -- a failing common to every man during his lifetime -- but I have the vigor of intelligence and perception of my beliefs and I look forward to honing them against the abrasiveness of those antithetical to freedom.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Scout26:...and the Black Panthers threatening to kill all the white folks.

Not true at all. I suggest you reread your history books.

 

[Autolycus]

Instead of passing new laws and compromises, I understand that we had a method in place to reinstate the rights of people who were denied the ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Why not just use that? Why do we need another law to establish this when we already have it? I believe it was a lack of funding. Why not just create a law that funds it?

 

[scout26]

Tecumseh,

At that time, that's what most of America thought the Black Panthers were advocating. A Marxist/Maoist Revolution for Blacks.

And as far as your second post. Sen Schumer each years blocks funding to the ATF's relief from disability program. That's the only one that currently "exists". This bill requires each state and government agency that can put you on the list have a process to for you to get off the list.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Instead of passing new laws and compromises, I understand that we had a method in place to reinstate the rights of people who were denied the ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Why not just use that? Why do we need another law to establish this when we already have it? I believe it was a lack of funding. Why not just create a law that funds it?

Precisely. This new law can be blocked just as easily by the likes of Chuck Schumer as the old relief law. "New" doesn't mean better or "fool proof". Look at it like this: "The more complicated the pluming, the easier it is to stop up the drain." (Scotty from Star Trek.)

Bart, all we need is the Second Amendment.

...Apparently the deal was good enough that Sen. Tom Coburn ... saw fit to vote for it ...

Of course, if you think we could have gotten a better deal from a Democrat-controlled Congress, I'm certainly interested in hearing how that would work.

Tom Coburn will hear from me, I assure you.

In response to what better deal we could have expected from a Democrat controlled Congress, we could have gotten nothing. What was passed in Congress required help from the Republicans. Without the capitulation or deal making the Republicans did with the Democrats, this bill would not have passed. Need proof? Look at the amendments to this bill it took to get it passed. Without those amendments, this bill, or anything remotely similar, would not have passed.

This bill, if signed by the President, will not stop any new violence. The law means nothing to these people. They will find whatever means they wish to perpetrate their crimes. All this bill has done is create more opportunities to infringe upon our RKBA, and place more people on the NICS list that can be permanently blocked at any one of these new "openings" by a simple lack of funding by Congress, or a command from Congress limiting any agency or other branch of government to spend funds on this program. One look at Congress's track record should be enough to expose what Congress really wants to do and the lengths Congress will go to in order to do it, and make it look like they've done you a favor.

Want to stop violent crime and these nut jobs? Arm yourself properly, and don't go anywhere without your arms.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[Robert Hairless]

Tecumseh, my understanding is that the NICS Improvement Act originated in the Congress. It did not originate with the NRA. So for answers to your questions about why the act did not pursue your own thinking you probably should ask the Congress.

It is clear, though, that the original intent of this act was not "to reinstate the rights of people who were denied the ability to exercise their 2nd amendment rights." Instead of providing ways for people to leave the net, as you suggest, its original intent was to tighten the net. You need to focus on this act instead of looking elsewhere or you can wander into a maze.

Perhaps the NRA could have opposed the act entirely and perhaps it might have succeeded. Only those who are far more capable than I in foretelling the future and reading the minds of other people can know for sure. Those are difficult arts for mere mortals.

It is at least equally possible that the act might have passed in something like its original form even if the NRA opposed it with the might of all its members and of course its more abundant non members. I can't know that either.

What all of us do know for sure is that GOA and JPFO mustered all their strength and opposed the act's passage at every stage. Their joint might was increased by the power of satellite organizations such as NRAwol and some local organizations such as Dudley Brown's Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Colorado's "No-Compromise Gun Rights Organization." All of the "No-Compromise" groups together fought this act with all the power they could assemble. GOA told us that even Sen. Tom Coburn was on that side. Impressive.

The act passed anyway. So, if just this once we can set aside rivalry between the Sharks and the Jets for a few moments, it seems obvious that in the real world members of both houses of the Congress felt themselves under great pressure to do something to "improve NICS" by tightening the net. There is no doubt that the well-publicized Virginia Tech shootings was the pivotal incident for that pressure and that the best-publicized issue was the shooter's ability to buy the murder weapons legally even though he was declared nuts by a judge. It was no secret.

The NRA could have followed the lead of GOA, JPFO, and the other groups by assuming the role of staunch defender for the Second Amendment rights of lunatics to buy firearms legally so the crazies could have just as much opportunity as anyone else to murder people with legally acquired firearms.

I suspect that such a stance--no matter how well it was disguised--would have backfired hard on legal gun owners. Even if the NRA had the wit to call it "The Veterans Disarmament Act, " the Senators, Representatives, the media, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, and the Million Moms would have told the public that, whatever anyone said and intentionally or not, the NRA was fighting for some right of lunatics like Cho to be able to escape the net and murder people with legally purchased firearms. There's no doubt that the public would have believed it, probably because it would have been true. The issue isn't whether homicidal people can get guns or other weapons in some way or another. The issue is whether they can get firearms legally by slipping past NICS.

Against that background, which I assumed you knew before you asked your question, you should be able to see that the original bill was not intended to do anything such as you suggest. The NRA in its compromising way was successful in leveraging benefical aspects of the act out of a Congress that felt it had to pass a tightened NICS. No-compromise people don't understand the benefits in recognizing opportunities to make profitable compromises. They believe only that rights are lost incrementally, one compromise after another, and that's true for people who don't know how to negotiate or are afraid to negotiate because they feel weak and powerless. But rights are gained incrementally too, one compromise after another, and more often by a long series of patient negotiations than by beating people over the head. We know that guns aren't inherently good or evil and we make fun of people who think they are. But a surprising lot of people don't seem to understand that compromises aren't inherently good or bad either. Competent people always seek opportunities to negotiate compromises that benefit them.

If the sky were falling every time GOA, JPFO, and all the other Chicken Littles ran around screaming it was, the sky would have been around our ankles long before now. It isn't.

We're losing some and losing some, just as happens in real life, but in general we are making significant headway and continue to do so. Stability, patience, clear thinking, and commitment always succeed better than erratic behaviors that scare people. We need to get out of the business of trying to scare people into supporting us. It can't work.

The NRA and its members--the gun owners who support it instead of trying to peck it to death--deserve all the credit. It's a serious mistake to believe that the nastiest roosters in the barnyard are responsible for the sunrise even though they cock-a-doodle-do at the top of their voices one day after another.