PDA

View Full Version : Schumer & McCarthy propose strengthening of background checks


DrjonesUSA
04-23-2007, 12:30 PM
Two of the most vehemently anti-gun senators in the senate....you KNOW this isn't good.....



http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070423a.html


Democrats' Bill Addresses Background Checks for Gun Buyers
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
April 23, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Two congressional gun-control advocates plan to introduce a bill that would provide "huge incentives" for states to automate their criminal history records, so people who shouldn't have guns can't get them legally, they said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, both New York Democrats, said their legislation would provide $250 million to state agencies and $125 million to state courts for computer upgrades that would "ensure speedy delivery of information" to the FBI.

States would be required to share information, including an individual's history of mental illness, with the FBI.

"Our legislation, had it been in place last week, may well have stopped last week's unspeakable tragedy," Sen. Schumer said. "But we know that someone like Cho Seung-Hui should never have been allowed to buy a gun. Our legislation will take one step toward preventing more people from falling through the cracks, and will try to make sure that such a horrible thing doesn't happen in New York, or Virginia, or anywhere else ever again."

Two years before buying the guns and murdering 32 people at Virginia Tech, Cho was accused of stalking two female students and was "civilly committed," Schumer and McCarthy noted. After a court order found that Cho presented "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," he was briefly admitted to a psychiatric facility for an overnight stay as an outpatient.

"This information was never conveyed to the federal government and never appeared on Cho's background checks," the lawmakers said

Federal law prohibits firearm purchases by those who have been "adjudicated mentally defective" or "committed to a mental health institution."

The Schumer-McCarthy bill also would require federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security to make their records available to the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS).

Schumer and McCarthy favor a "carrot-and-stick approach." Their bill says states with poor compliance would risk losing 5 percent of their funding under the Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. But significant incentives would be provided to states that have good reporting records.

"Congress has a responsibility to ensure the federal background check system is complete and current to prevent certain individuals from legally purchasing firearms," McCarthy said.

"While maintaining NICS records ultimately is the responsibility of the states, state budgets are already overburdened. The NICS Improvement Act will give states the resources to eliminate the legal loopholes that allow prohibited individuals from legally purchasing firearms," she added.

A criminal background check is only as good as the records that the states provide to the system, Schumer and McCarthy said in a news release. But millions of criminal and mental health records are not accessible to the NICS system, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records, the lawmakers said.

They also said the current background check process is "spotty" -- that "nothing necessarily requires states to turn over all information that could prohibit a person from getting a gun."

SemiAutoSam
04-23-2007, 12:32 PM
Their solutions always seem to be after the fact.

Always a band aid on the problem.

Band Aids that don't work.

jumbopanda
04-23-2007, 12:42 PM
I actually don't have a problem with improving communication between parties that would be concerned with someone who is unfit to own a gun. Cho had been in a mental hospital more than once, which should have stopped him from purchasing a firearm, had it shown up on his background check.

bwiese
04-23-2007, 12:43 PM
Good, the gun folks can stand back and let the mental health rights folks fight this one out.

CalNRA
04-23-2007, 12:46 PM
this is a new phase of gun control, to start tightening the ropes of who can buy guns. what these nice common sense laws they want to enact would mean mroe and more people will be included in the prohibited class of people. Ever gone for counseling for post-traumatic events? they can include that as a mental-health treatment. ever had a depression from work and saw a shrink? prohibited. CO-worker see you looking at guns at work? HR directs you to a psychologist, and you are now on the list.

this is not good guys, don't support anything that looks reasonable on the surface being promoted by these scum.

Omega13device
04-23-2007, 1:03 PM
What I would like to see clarified is whether this is totally new legislation around who can purchase a firearm, or just an attempt to fix the current system. We ask them to enforce the laws we already have, well maybe this is an effort to do that. It would have been a good thing if Cho had been prevented from buying any firearms.

HeHateMe
04-23-2007, 1:06 PM
The mental health folks are gonna flip over this one. Privacy issues galore. You're gonna have a database for the mentally ill.

JALLEN
04-23-2007, 1:15 PM
What I would like to see clarified is whether this is totally new legislation around who can purchase a firearm, or just an attempt to fix the current system. We ask them to enforce the laws we already have, well maybe this is an effort to do that. It would have been a good thing if Cho had been prevented from buying any firearms.

In theory it certainly would have been, but in practice he would have gone to "some dude", just like "some dude" who sold my stolen pistol to the perps who were caught with it loaded under the seat of their car in the wee hours of the morning in a local HS parking lot where they had no business being. "Some dude" sold it to them, a Sig P226 Navy with enhanced trigger improvements and red dot sight, estimated retail value over $1,000, for $300! No background check, no waiting, no sales tax, no stupid ID requirements, no DROS or fees. "Some dude" had a better profit margin, and a lot less overhead, than the FFL I bought from originally!!!

The detective from the gang detail I dealt with in retrieving it was on the team that recovered 53 illegal guns the week I got mine back, all from folks who should not have had them, and could not have walked into a store and bought one.

At the very best, background checks will deter some, but in no way all, who should not have guns due to criminal or mental health issues.

cartman
04-23-2007, 2:24 PM
Aren't states not allowed to collect and transfer medical files?

Wulf
04-23-2007, 2:38 PM
I dont really have a problem with tightening up the records system so that nuts and felons are correctly identified when they go to make a purchase. If you're going to have the law and going to have the system it might as well work.

I dont suffer under the illusion that this will actually deter the comitted evildoers from getting guns, but since the good guys have to put up with and pay for the existing system, it might as well do its job. As long as they're not planning on tinkering the standards while they're monkeying around of course.

Res
04-23-2007, 2:42 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v652/ResDogDM/upchuckshooting.jpg

hoffmang
04-23-2007, 2:50 PM
I've said this about this proposal in other threads, but as long as there are good safegaurds to remove an incorrectly applied mental disablement and some sort of sunset so it is not a lifetime disablement - unless it needs to be - then this is a relatively valid piece of legislation.

This is one time where the CA laws aren't too controversial. 5150 would have stopped Cho from buying at a real FFL in California. There are some unrelated issues with 5150, but those issues are imminently solvable.

-Gene

scootergmc
04-23-2007, 3:00 PM
I smell a 10 day federal/national wait coming........ once again, CA will lead the way!!

Neil McCauley
04-23-2007, 3:04 PM
It is true that although legislation like this might have likely prevented Cho from getting his glock, he probably would of figured out how to biuld his own firearm from an 80% kit or something. He was obviously techno savy and would have figured out how to do it as that info is all over the net. It might slow psycho's like him down but to prevent him from committing mass murder? I doubt it. I might vote for something like this if only we get something in return, like also writing in along with that bill another bill to help pass an amendment that would moot all current assault weapon bans and any future assault weapon bans. At least we'd both sides would be happy for awhile.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2007, 3:07 PM
I smell a 10 day federal/national wait coming........ once again, CA will lead the way!!

I dont think so. What we are likely to see is another database, this one consisting of those that meet this mental health disqualification, which can be added to the existing instant background checks.

bbq_ribs
04-23-2007, 3:32 PM
I smell a 10 day federal/national wait coming........ once again, CA will lead the way!!

He had already gone through one of those.

What this is leading to is an erosion of state's rights and a big nanny database of everybody.

6172crew
04-23-2007, 4:01 PM
He had already gone through one of those.

What this is leading to is an erosion of state's rights and a big nanny database of everybody.

I think the data is warranted in this case and if people who have said they wanted to kill themselves or others shouldnt be sold a gun.

The Fed form we fill out already asks us these questions but they dont have anyway to see if your lieing. Would it be ok if the TWA Pilot wrongfully fill out his phyc questionair?, he or she has to pass these tests every year and I dont have any problem making sure cops, transportaion or anyone else who has my life in thier hands they arent crazy. I know the 2ns ammendment doesnt apply to the aurgument but its 90% of the time a crazy person gets in trouble and we have to pay for it in a new bad gun law and if the lawmakers will stop taking the folks rights away who dont lie on the fed paperwork.

I know it isnt perfect but I dont think crazy people should have firearms.

stag1500
04-23-2007, 4:35 PM
We need to make sure that these Communists, I mean anti-gun Democrats, don't sneek in unwanted Amendments to this bill like a High-Capactiy Magazine Ban.

Remember what happened in the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act... The Hughes Amendment prohibited the sale of machine guns manufactured after May 19th 1986 to civilians.

We need to keep a close eye on this bill.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-23-2007, 5:13 PM
Another point to consider would be this...

If such a legal hurdle was in place, and the gunman was not able to legally purchase a gun, but was still able to purchase one off the street, it would prove that criminal minded people find ways around the law. I dont believe this gunman, or any other for that matter, would have been deterred by legal restrictions. He would have got his hands on a gun one way or another. It would just not sting as much, for us law abiding gun owners, if the sicko Cho had not legally purchased his guns.

hoffmang
04-23-2007, 5:19 PM
We do need to keep an eye on this from a rider point of view, but I think the political environment is such that the other side would prefer to get a good bill in response and knows that the bill would be shut down by NRA if it doesn't remain on the straight and narrow.

It also undermines some of California's arguments that NICS isn't good enough and we have to have DROS.

-Gene

triggerhappy
04-23-2007, 5:26 PM
I think the data is warranted in this case and if people who have said they wanted to kill themselves or others shouldnt be sold a gun.

The Fed form we fill out already asks us these questions but they dont have anyway to see if your lieing. Would it be ok if the TWA Pilot wrongfully fill out his phyc questionair?, he or she has to pass these tests every year and I dont have any problem making sure cops, transportaion or anyone else who has my life in thier hands they arent crazy. I know the 2ns ammendment doesnt apply to the aurgument but its 90% of the time a crazy person gets in trouble and we have to pay for it in a new bad gun law and if the lawmakers will stop taking the folks rights away who dont lie on the fed paperwork.

I know it isnt perfect but I dont think crazy people should have firearms.


Suicide threats should not count. Anyone who ever married my ex-wife (billions served!), has felt like they want to end it all.

6172crew
04-23-2007, 6:16 PM
Suicide threats should not count. Anyone who ever married my ex-wife (billions served!), has felt like they want to end it all.

Im sure a trip to a qualified phyc would get it cleared up but I see your point that if you said " I want to kill myself" and 22 years later your looking into a new 10/22 I think Id be ok with that and that is somthing the lawmakers need to work out with the NRA because I havent thought of everything, but I do like the idea of classes for firearms which include CCW, Hunting saftey and general firearms saftey which folks dont seem to want.

A 2-3 hour handgun class (for first time handgun owners) would have smoked this guy out Im sure. If his dorm buddies thought he was a loon then it wouldnt have been to hard for the NRA instructor to wave a flag but that is just another thougt Ive been having and wouldnt have fixed the other cases but just a thought.

Charliegone
04-23-2007, 7:16 PM
you know....i kind of thought of something right now...maybe we can use this to our advantage..they want mental loons on the list, why not make the waiting period nation wide the same (like instant check instead :D )..you know kick in a little provision there...i think it might work, but than again they can also do the same by putting in some stupid mag ban or something...be sure to keep an eye on this one.

dwtt
04-23-2007, 7:49 PM
I actually don't have a problem with improving communication between parties that would be concerned with someone who is unfit to own a gun. Cho had been in a mental hospital more than once, which should have stopped him from purchasing a firearm, had it shown up on his background check.

The problem is these two Democrats are not going to stop with this bill.
If Cho had been in the mental hospital more than once in Virginia, the state where he bought the guns used in the shootings, the problem appears to be communication within the state of Virginia's bureaucracies.

ketec_owner
04-23-2007, 7:50 PM
The state government in Virginia dropped the ball on this one. Federal laws already should have prevented Cho from purchasing a gun. I have no problem with the Government enforcing the EXISTING laws regarding adjudicated mentally unstable people from buying any firearms. Perhaps this was another one of those unfunded mandates I keep hearing about. :)

singleshotman
04-24-2007, 4:21 AM
This won't stop all nuts-rebember the case about 1990 where a Arab nut job went to a bar & Grill in Berkeley, CA and shot up the place, he loved brunenets, but hated blones, so he shot 10 blonde women,9 of them died.SWAT scrambled his brains forever with a 7.62mm round to the head. I knew the gun dealer who sold him the handgun, he was a friend of mine.This Arab came to his shop and wanted to buy a gun, filled out the paperwork.My friend sent it in and told DOJ he was a nut, what do i do? They said we've no recond, it's OK to sell him a gun.He didn't like the idea so he filed the firing pin down so it woun't fire,however the nut went to Chabot and tried to fire it and went to a Gunsmith and had it fixed. My friend was suid for $? by the surviving blonde and settled out of court for $350,000 and lost his business.

JGarrison
04-24-2007, 8:40 AM
This won't stop all nuts-rebember the case about 1990 where a Arab nut job went to a bar & Grill in Berkeley, CA and shot up the place, he loved brunenets, but hated blones, so he shot 10 blonde women,9 of them died.SWAT scrambled his brains forever with a 7.62mm round to the head. I knew the gun dealer who sold him the handgun, he was a friend of mine.This Arab came to his shop and wanted to buy a gun, filled out the paperwork.My friend sent it in and told DOJ he was a nut, what do i do? They said we've no recond, it's OK to sell him a gun.He didn't like the idea so he filed the firing pin down so it woun't fire,however the nut went to Chabot and tried to fire it and went to a Gunsmith and had it fixed. My friend was suid for $? by the surviving blonde and settled out of court for $350,000 and lost his business.

What the hell did he get sued for?

xrMike
04-24-2007, 9:18 AM
I think the data is warranted in this case and if people who have said they wanted to kill themselves or others shouldnt be sold a gun. I know it isnt perfect but I dont think crazy people should have firearms.Agreed. I have no problem with the creation of a database that identifies crazy people who should not possess guns. Since I'm not crazy, it will not affect me, or take away any of my rights.

And if that list helps prevent those people from getting guns even a little, it's a good thing, because crazy people killing other people in large numbers is only going to bring about more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners.

DrjonesUSA
04-24-2007, 8:36 PM
Agreed. I have no problem with the creation of a database that identifies crazy people who should not possess guns. Since I'm not crazy, it will not affect me, or take away any of my rights.




The problem lies with the potential for abuse - there are truly many people out there who think that you should be considered mentally ill for simply wanting to own a gun.

What if someone like that got into a position to do act on their belief?

Who gets to add to the list of "mental illnesses"? Probably some unelected bureaucrat.....you sure you want to give ANYONE the power to decide who can and cannot own a gun?

Inoxmark
04-24-2007, 9:33 PM
The problem lies with the potential for abuse - there are truly many people out there who think that you should be considered mentally ill for simply wanting to own a gun.
No kidding. One gun can still be explained: home defence, etc., but someone with 5 handguns would be viewed as a verified nut with unhealthy obsession with instruments of death. :rolleyes:

DrjonesUSA
04-24-2007, 9:41 PM
No kidding. One gun can still be explained: home defence, etc., but someone with 5 handguns would be viewed as a verified nut with unhealthy obsession with instruments of death. :rolleyes:


No, even one gun makes you a psycho - I mean what are you afraid of? The police are there to protect you!

mikehaas
04-25-2007, 3:33 PM
NRA supports preventing those who have been adjucated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. That's common sense. I understand NRA is considering supporting this legislation. FOX News just reported NRA is supporting legislation to open mental health records to the Instant Check system. Whether McCarty/Schumer's bill or not, I think its a good idea.

Note that the Dems in Congress are not catering to the Brady's calls for gun bans - they are directing their attention to modifying mental heatlh regulations. This is a paradigm shift - in the wake of Columbine (1999), there was a strong attempt to pass gun control. But not here.

And personally, I agree - it makes no sense to have an Instant Check system and not check for this obvious danger. So just who is the Instant Check system supposed to be checking - only healthy law-abiding gun-owners? Remember these are people that a court has determined are a danger to themselves or others. This does NOT include those who receive mental health treatment or therapy, simply under the care of a mental health doctor or those who exhibit "Brittney Spears" behavior, etc.

DRJones is right that there is a potential for abuse, like when Clinton prohibited 90,000 veterans with "post-traumatic stress syndrome" from owning guns. NRA is still trying to straighten that out. I hope NRA is involved with this kind of effort so that we stay protected. Dems may not want to attack gun-rights right now, but elections have a way of changing things.

IMO, the big danger to gun-owners here is coming from GOA and JPFO who, predictably, are already disagreeing with NRA's position. Anyone surprised? As often happens, our worst enemies are on our own side. These tiny groups will stop at nothing to fundraise, even adopting positions that make gun-owners look like neandrethals. Remember, their goal is to support themselves by convincing fellow neandrethals that NRA is betraying them. If they can convince .01% of NRA members to send them money instead of nRA, it's a financial boon for them!

Mike

triggerhappy
04-25-2007, 4:15 PM
Both Schumer and McCarthy (or is it Marx and Trotsky?) need some help, so I guess this is a good thing. It'd be interesting to see what they looked like as functioning, rational humans.

mikehaas
04-25-2007, 4:32 PM
I've heard Dingell's name (a former NRA Board member) attached to NRA's legislation, not McCarthy and/or Schumer. Dingell is obviously a very pro-gun, senior Democrat.

I'd be surprised to see NRA & Dingell supporting the same legislation as McCarthy/Schumer, but if true, it's a compromise on the part of McCarty/Schumer not the other way around. You KNOW they want to attack gun-owners.

Mike