Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
Measure stiffening background checks would be 1st major reform since '94

By Jonathan Weisman
Updated: 8:25 p.m. PT June 9, 2007
Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Carrot -and-stick proposal
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

A marriage of convenience
"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby -- she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road -- ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.

By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

Fight has left many lawmakers gun-shy
The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since.

This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system.

On Friday afternoon, the NRA finally signed off.

"I've been involved with this legislative effort for years, working to address the shortcomings of NICS. I'm confident that this legislation will do it," Dingell said. "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon."

States would be paid to comply
Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.

Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.

The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.

Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.

"I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

[hoffmang]

Sounds like decent news to me but I'll want to read it before I pass judgment.

-Gene

[50 Shooter]

To bad NICS doesn't apply here in CA, likewise I don't think that the state should get any money unless they drop the 10 day wait.

[hoffmang]

NICS is actually used under the covers is my understanding. The required audit is going to be amusing.

-Gene

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks.

Would be nice to eliminate CA's outrageous DROS fees too!

[mastadonn]

I seem to recall that the bill last year to reduce/eliminate California's 10 day waiting period (for those that had a CCW) was opposed by the then AG, on the basis that it would cost CA millions of dollars to bring their records system up to the point that an instant check system could be used.

Could this federal bill be the vehicle to get CA moving toward instant check in some circumstances?

[WokMaster1]

I seem to recall that the bill last year to reduce/eliminate California's 10 day waiting period (for those that had a CCW) was opposed by the then AG, on the basis that it would cost CA millions of dollars to bring their records system up to the point that an instant check system could be used.

Could this federal bill be the vehicle to get CA moving toward instant check in some circumstances?

I hope so. It just makes sense. Any felonies, local, state or federal should be in the NICS system. That should make California's system absolete & redundant. Should be done away with to save money for schools & roads. BOF should also be done away with & all staff moved to the Horticulture Division's Compost Bureau.:D

[SemiAutoSam]

That would be great for states where the federal government charges gun buyers.

But as I understand it the check I write to the FFL or DOJ goes to the state and not the federal government.

SO unless the feds are the ones providing the background check its a moot point for California me thinks.


The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks.

Would be nice to eliminate CA's outrageous DROS fees too!

[GJJ]

I would be interested to know what concessions the Democrats gave the NRA for their cooperation? Any good negotiator knows that you don't give up something without getting something in return. Which Federal Laws will be repealed?

[hoffmang]

The NRA could basically stop this legislation from getting anywhere at the Federal level so I expect they got almost everything they wanted.

-Gene

[bwiese]

I would be interested to know what concessions the Democrats gave the NRA for their cooperation? Any good negotiator knows that you don't give up something without getting something in return. Which Federal Laws will be repealed?

It's not quite that direct, quid-pro-quo...

But sitting-on-the-fence legislators can tout they voted for a "gun safety" bill, which can at least somewhat shelter them from being considered too progun if they vote against a truly antigun bill.

Votes for this bill provide cover for voting against HR1022 (Fed AW ban).

NRA support for this bill gets favorable PR "we don't want crazies with guns", even if the bill goes down in flames due to entirely separate HIPPA medical records privacy stuff, which has reared its head awhile back in similar matters. (Remember that the Kennedy family clan has some institutionalized nutjobs both on the Skakel side of the family as well as a retarted family member they apparently had lobotomized back somewhere in 50s/60s.)

[tango-52]

It would be great if they put something in there on CCW reciprocity for all states. If your going to dream, dream big. :D

[.22guy]

(Remember that the Kennedy family clan has some institutionalized nutjobs both on the Skakel side of the family as well as a retarted family member they apparently had lobotomized back somewhere in 50s/60s.)

Was his name Ted? :43:

[Otherguy Overby]

FROM: Oregon Firearms Federation

Today's Washington Post has reported that the NRA has, once again, cut a "deal" with the anti-gunners in Congress over your gun rights.

According to the Post, "Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers."

As many Oregon residents have learned, the background check system, a prior restraint on your rights, is a failure.

This system, which assumes you are guilty and requires you to prove your innocence before exercising a God-given, Constitutional right, has delayed and denied countless Oregonians attempting to make legal firearms purchases. In many cases, buyers have been told (illegally) they must wait weeks or more to take possession of firearms they have every right to own.

Well, if Congress and the NRA have their way, things are about to get a whole lot worse. In a deal the Post calls "a marriage of convenience for both sides," and NRA lobbyist Chris Cox calls "good politics," the failed National Instant Check system is poised to be expanded even further. Furthermore, the proposed legislation will punish states that do not supply all the private mental health records the Feds will be demanding.

Cox reportedly said "if the legislation becomes a 'gun-control wish list' as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill." But this is the same line they used on their second attempt to pass liability protection for gun dealers and manufacturers. That bill became a "gun control wish list" and the NRA not only supported it, but demanded that it pass with all the gun control that was tacked on to it.

What do gun owners get in return for this vastly expanded intrusion into their privacy? According to the Washington Post "Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. "

Individuals with minor infractions, and military veterans don't get their names removed from government "no-buy" lists, they get the "chance" to "petition" to have their names removed.

We are quite confident predicting that that process will be a nightmare if it can be done at all. The recent implosion of the passport issuing system is a perfect example of the kind of morass that all government databases become.

According to the Washington Post "Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system"

If that does not terrify you it should. The current background check system is an intrusive, error riddled mess. Now NRA and the anti-gunners in Congress want to expand a system that can't keep criminal records straight, and add vast new amounts of data about people's "mental health" records. The abuse and misuse of people's private information is nothing new and it's a very short trip from "court ordered drug treatments" to "has attended an AA meeting."

No one supports arming people who are a danger to themselves or others, but adjudicating someone's mental health is an inexact science at best. And there is no reason to believe that this latest attack on your right is going keep dangerous people from getting guns.

One of the legislators responsible for this "deal," anti-gun Congressman John Dingell ( who has voted with his anti-gun colleagues 96.8% of the time) said "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon." But of course, that's preposterous. All this law will bring us is more invasions of our privacy, more government databases, and more denied purchases.

I'm of the opinion that nothing good can come from politicians agreeing on something for "our safety"...

[Anthonysmanifesto]

The opinions of the series of sole -proprietorship "gun" groups that have seem to have no known governeance structure, no seat at the table, no access to government, no political influence, sure seem to have a lot of press releases...

[50 Shooter]

Bill,
How do you think they'll get around the Hippa requirements? I think this is a hurdle that could kill this bill.

[Delta V]

BOF should also be done away with & all staff moved to the Horticulture Division's Compost Bureau.:D

Nothing worse than taking a dump at Barnes & Noble store & finding out there's no toilet paper.

Two birds with one shell.

[bwiese]

(Remember that the Kennedy family clan has some institutionalized nutjobs both on the Skakel side of the family as well as a retarted family member they apparently had lobotomized back somewhere in 50s/60s.)

Was his name Ted? :43:

No. Ted is noninstitutionalized drug addict/alcoholic unconvicted murderer.

And people are doing 10 years in prison for a quarter amount of drugs that went up Teddy K's nose.

[bwiese]

Bill,
How do you think they'll get around the Hippa requirements? I think this is a hurdle that could kill this bill.


Exactly. Remember, this is a proposed bill that has a lotta work before it gets to full vote, etc.

Why not take advantage of good free press regardless of bill's outcome: "Of course NRA doesn't want armed crazies - we're all about lawful ownership by sane folks."

[C.G.]

No. Ted is noninstitutionalized drug addict/alcoholic unconvicted murderer.

:smilielol5:. You've managed to crack me up, yet again!:D

[E Pluribus Unum]

It would be great if they put something in there on CCW reciprocity for all states. If your going to dream, dream big. :D

I do not believe in the federal government mandating reciprocity. It is up to each individual state to allow or disallow non-residents to do something.

I think the US constitution already gives each and every one of us the right to carry guns (bear arms) concealed or otherwise. The government does not agree with me however.

[SemiAutoSam]

Just use one of their many nearby books. not as smooth as your use to but it will give the next person to look at that book a surprise.

"Be prepared! Nothing worse than taking a dump at Barnes & Noble store & finding out there's no toilet paper."

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

From: Firearms Coalition <AlertsList@FirearmsCoalition.org>
Date: June 11, 2007 1:53:41 PM EDT
To: fcalerts-list@firearmscoalition.org
Subject: [Fcalerts-list] Action Alert!


Please reply to feedback at FirearmsCoalition.org (using appropriate email format).


The Bar is Being Lowered
It's up to you to hold it up!


Take action now. Write to your Governor and the Attorney General and then write to your Senators and Representative. Forward this alert to every gun rights activist and organization you know then send it on to veterans and veterans' organizations because they are among the most severely impacted. The national gun and veterans' organizations and most of the state groups have either completely missed or conceded this issue. Only your immediate action can stop the momentum of this steamroller.


I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have time.


As we warned in the last FC-Alert, the standard for revoking gun rights is being lowered by Governors and Attorneys General around the country.


Over the past few months activists have been arguing about NRA support for, and GOA opposition to, Carolyn McCarthy’s bill to throw another Billion Dollars at the NICS “Instant Check” system and require more mental health and domestic violence reporting from the states. This is the fourth or fifth year in a row that McCarthy has introduced this exact bill and each time, NRA has quietly supported it while GOA has noisily opposed it. The Virginia Tech murders simply drew more attention to the argument this year, raising activists' ire.


While activists have been thus diverted, ATF has been actively lobbying Attorneys General and Governors to repeal the gun rights of millions of Americans. Anyone who has ever needed help dealing with depression, drug or alcohol issues, post traumatic stress disorder, or other mental problems is at risk of retroactively losing their right to own a firearm FOREVER!


The Gun Control Act of 1968 says that anyone "adjudicated mentally defective" may not own a gun. GCA '68 broadly defines this to mean anyone "involuntarily committed" by a court or other legal authority. The word "committed" has heretofore been interpreted to mean "institutionalized" - locked up in a facility with barred windows, padded walls, and Nurse Ratched. But after the murders at Virginia Tech, ATF is saying that anyone ordered by a court or other authority to participate in any mental health program should be included. That would include


* Anyone who has been ordered to attend therapy sessions because the judge thought they were a suicide risk.


* Anyone required to regularly visit a VA hospital for treatment because they came back from war with nightmares.


* Anyone the VA says is not "competent" to manage their own benefits check.


* Anyone who has been ordered by a judge to participate in a treatment program because they might be "a danger to themselves or others" (which is pretty much the only way a judge can order a person to get any medical treatment.)


It could include anyone ordered to participate in an “anger management” program or a dependency program after an alcohol related traffic ticket. Or a police officer who was ordered into a counseling program. (California Highway Patrol has a substantially higher suicide rate than any other police agency in the country and police have a higher suicide rate than the general public. Is the threat of losing their job and their right to own firearms likely to encourage them to seek help?)


All this because Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech murderer, had been ordered to participate in an outpatient mental health program, and that order did not meet the standard for prohibiting him from purchasing a firearm.


The next logical “loophole” is people who have been voluntarily committed. The government has a clear policy of “once crazy – always crazy” and provides no means for someone denied their gun rights for mental health reasons to ever regain those rights. Why, then would they stop at only those who are committed against their will? Who is crazier, someone who wants to go to the “funny farm” or someone who must be forced to go?


After that comes those treated for depression; since virtually all mass murderers in modern history were taking Prozac or some similar anti-depressant drug, how long can it be until ATF decides that anyone who has ever been prescribed an anti-depressant is “mentally defective" and should also retroactively lose their gun rights.


What's next? How long before the inclusion of anyone who has ever received outpatient treatment or counseling for depression? Therapy? Psychoanalysis? Marriage counseling?!?


The gun rights community seems to be standing aside as the government shreds an Enumerated Constitutional Right.


We must stand up and demand that they stop this abuse and unilateral expansion of their authority over law-abiding citizens.


Write to your Governor and your Attorney General today. Tell them that:


* Mental health is much too complicated an issue to be painted with one broad brush. It is unconscionable that Constitutional Rights would be permanently denied for what are often brief periods of personal challenge.


* ATF is trying to solve a rare and statistically insignificant (though potentially tragic) problem by asking you to declare millions of people as permanently and irreparably impaired.


* By choosing to own a gun a citizen does not surrender protection from medical privacy laws.


Remind your attorney general and legislators that once a person’s name has been added to the federal NICS prohibited persons database for mental health reasons, it is virtually impossible for them to ever have their name removed. People who suffered from brief problems in their youth, but have lived normal, productive lives for years – including safe and lawful firearms ownership – would suddenly be stripped of their Constitutional Right to arms forever at the stroke of a key. Even violent felons have ways to regain their gun rights, but "mental defficients"do not.


Urge your attorney general and state legislators to place justice over a false sense of security. No one should have their name submitted to the NICS database unless they present a true, serious, and permanent threat to themselves and the public. The standard ATF is calling for to judge that threat is over-broad and intentionally vague. Urge them to refuse to lower the standards of your state to such a simplistic and unjust level.


Take action now. Write to your Governor and the Attorney General and then write to your Senators and Representative. Forward this alert to every gun rights activist and organization you know then send it on to veterans and veterans' organizations because they are among the most severely impacted. The national gun and veterans' organizations and most of the state groups have either completely missed or conceded this issue. Only your immediate action can stop the momentum of this steamroller.


Rights are not reserved only for those who have unblemished health records. The whole reason we have a republic rather than a true democracy is that democracy tends to trample the rights of minorities. Elected representatives are supposed to be above the mob mentality that can grip a population and intervene when government oversteps its authority. It is up to you and me to make noise for the minority until our representatives take appropriate action.


*********************

[hoffmang]

The power of the state to disarm the mentally ill has existed prior to the writing of the states and federal constitution. Just as fighting words are not covered by the first amendment, so shall people who are a risk to themselves and/or others be disbarred the use of arms by due process - especially where they have due process to get those rights back upon being healed.

To hold something different, well, I ask you to find a defense.

-Gene

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

In praise of the NRA

Friday, June 15, 2007

THROUGH the years, we've had our differences with the National Rifle Association. For the moment, we'll set aside our conflicting opinions of whether the Second Amendment's declaration of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" should be interpreted to preclude any meaningful regulation of assault weapons, "cop killer" bullets that penetrate Kevlar and gun shows that become bazaars for the criminal element. We'll hold the arguments about whether manufacturers should be held accountable for marketing and distribution practices that knowingly court the bad guys' dollars ... and whether criminals and terrorists or the public interest is served when the records of background checks are scrubbed within 24 hours of purchase.

Today, we write in praise the NRA.

In response to the Virginia Tech massacre that left 33 students and faculty dead, including a gunman with a history of mental-health problems, the House of Representatives this week gave its approval to legislation that would strengthen the systems for ensuring the mentally ill do not obtain guns.

The NRA-backed measure would require states to automate their lists of criminals and mentally ill people who are proscribed from buying firearms in an effort to get them to the background-check system in a timely manner. State records about the mental problems of Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, never reached the FBI.

The NRA insisted it was not "gun control" legislation. No matter what it's called, it was the right thing to do and long overdue. It was the first significant constraint on the gun trade to clear the House in a decade.

We thank the NRA for helping make it happen.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/15/EDGKOP3GB71.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

The power of the state to disarm the mentally ill has existed prior to the writing of the states and federal constitution. Just as fighting words are not covered by the first amendment, so shall people who are a risk to themselves and/or others be disbarred the use of arms by due process - especially where they have due process to get those rights back upon being healed.

To hold something different, well, I ask you to find a defense.

-Gene

Do you think that they will stop at this? Honestly, how long do you think it will be before a psych evaluation, at gun buyers exspense, becomes a mandatory requirement before being allowed to make a firearm purchase?

[hoffmang]

"They" couldn't even pass this without NRA co-operation.

You need to meet some mentally ill people. Its hard to understand how wack they are until you really deal with them.

Did you notice that it takes a judge to rule you a threat to self or others?

-Gene

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

"They" couldn't even pass this without NRA co-operation.

You need to meet some mentally ill people. Its hard to understand how wack they are until you really deal with them.

Did you notice that it takes a judge to rule you a threat to self or others?

-Gene

I'm not disagreeing with you on the mentally ill and their access to firearms. Living in San Francisco's Mission I see mentally ill people on a daily basis.

My concern is how this expanded background system has the potential for abuse. In all honesty I can see it leading to mandatory psych evealuations as part of the gun buying process. Maybe the evaluations will be good for six months before renewing your state issued "Psych Card" to go along with your HSC Card before being allowed to make a firearm purchase once a month. With the anti gunners everything is a first step to something even more restrictive! :rolleyes:

[hoffmang]

The only changes to the actual *law* on the mentally ill being prohibited is to do three things:

1. Remove the Vets that should never have been reported in the first place.

2. Add a bunch of cash incentives to states to report records like Cho's that already should have been reported and are already legally disabling.

3. Add an ability to appeal being put on the NICs no list.

That doesn't seem like we're losing much - maybe in fact gaining quite a bit.

-Gene

[Satex]

The NRA took a BIG HIT on this one. The news media is talking about how the most radical democrats twisted the NRA's arm and the Brady campaign talks about the victory.
In my mind, the NRA got shafted. I realy realy hope that there was closed door negotiations on reciprocity on other issues - such as the proposed federal CCW bill.
If there isn't more to it than meets the eye, then I say the NRA made a move that will not serve our interests.

[hoffmang]

How does this not serve our interests?

True or false: After this bill there will actually be a process mandated by law to get off the NICS denial list where there wasn't one before.

-Gene

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Here is the NRA's statement:
H.R. 2640, The "NICS Improvement Act," Passes House By Voice Vote

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640 by a voice vote. H.R. 2640, the “NICS Improvement Act,” is consistent with NRA’s decades long support for measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes some much needed, and long overdue, improvements to the NICS.

The basic premise of the bill is to provide an effective mechanism to help screen would-be gun buyers with adjudicated mental illness records. H.R. 2640would require federal agencies to provide records of prohibited individuals for use in the NICS, providing financial incentives to states to do so. It would not prohibit any additional people from owning guns. Those blocked from buying a gun due to newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law.

No piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes. However, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should to be included in the NICS. In addition, the NICS should be as instant, fair, and accurate as possible.

Among the numerous improvements contained in H.R. 2640 are:

* Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
* Excluding federal decisions about a person’s mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision is intended to address concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.
* Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish “relief from disability” programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
* Ensuring—as a permanent part of federal law—that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
* Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.

This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout the process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.

If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any adverse amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!


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

If this passes does it mean that CA will no longer be able to charge their outrageous DROS fees and ending the 10 day waiting period? Afterall what do we as Californians stand to gain by this supposedly improved background check?

[hoffmang]

If this passes does it mean that CA will no longer be able to charge their outrageous DROS fees and ending the 10 day waiting period? Afterall what do we as Californians stand to gain by this supposedly improved background check?

Look at the big brain on Josey!

Sure does undermine the CA Legislature's position on DROS a lot doesn't it?

-Gene

[sierratangofoxtrotunion]

Do we actually think this may have an effect on CA's 10-day rule in the future?

And if so, would it be through the legislature admitting that the federal system works fine and there's no need to pay for the same service that the state could get for free from federal?

Or would it maybe be some kind of situation where, "under the covers" CADOJ is already using the NICS system, and throwing in the 10 day wait because somebody just feels like jerking people around, and that this jerking around would get the CA system into trouble unless they dropped it?

[fairfaxjim]

If this passes does it mean that CA will no longer be able to charge their outrageous DROS fees and ending the 10 day waiting period? Afterall what do we as Californians stand to gain by this supposedly improved background check?

Since when do the CA legislators embrace anything resembling reality? This state takes a perverse pride in being more ridiculously outrageous than any other (NY is getting pretty close though). There are many that would (and if fact have) argue that the CA 10 day wait would have prevented the VA Tech shootings (even though he purchased his guns more than 10 days in advance.)

[tenpercentfirearms]

I think it is kind of funny how people are looking at this bill and assume they will suddenly require psychological evaluations for gun ownership. Everything the government does has to be approved in legislation. They can't just change things around at their will. The legislators can't do these things without us knowing about it.

Right now people seem to think the democrats have sort of strong hold on our rights and that they can just pass anti-gun legislation at will. There might be some truth to that in California, but on the national scene the democrats are anything but mighty. They learned such an important lesson in 1994 and 2000 about passing anti-gun legislation or even appearing anti-gun that they will not make that mistake again. We are still in control of this country.

The key is for you to pay attention to what is going on, help others see what is going on, and to remain active in politics. If you continue to do that, you don't have to have this "fear of new laws" rhetoric to hide behind. This will not be a new stepping stone to a new psychological profile for gun owners. It simply wouldn't pass. Implying it will to shut down this new legislation is not rational and relies upon fear mongering rhetoric to influence people without higher order thinking skills.

Even the idea that this is some victory for the anti's because of the somewhat negative press the NRA is getting is interesting. The anti-gun groups have been hurting so bad lately I don't know if even an "apparent" victory is going to help them much. It should be obvious to any gun rights activisits that if the NRA is backing this, they are getting something out of it. The anti's can claim a win all they want, but we know the NRA is much more powerful than they are and the NRA must be allowing this to go forward for a reason.

Thankfully those of us on this board actually read through the bill and see exactly what it is we are gaining. There can be no fee or tax on a NICS check, expired court orders no longer count, many vets will be eligible again, and so on and so forth. I would be interested in seeing if this no fee on NICS thing can translate into something against our DROS out this way. I doubt it, but hey, here is to hope.

[AaronHorrocks]

Since the shooting, thousands have been killed on roads by bad drivers.
Where is the legislation to stop insane, or substance-abusing people from buying cars???

[SemiAutoSam]

I only have one thing to say about this.

A lot of things that are "approved in legislation" are still unconstitutional.

And as stated in Marbury v. Madison an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. No matter how the public perceives it.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm


I think it is kind of funny how people are looking at this bill and assume they will suddenly require psychological evaluations for gun ownership. Everything the government does has to be approved in legislation. They can't just change things around at their will. The legislators can't do these things without us knowing about it.

Right now people seem to think the democrats have sort of strong hold on our rights and that they can just pass anti-gun legislation at will. There might be some truth to that in California, but on the national scene the democrats are anything but mighty. They learned such an important lesson in 1994 and 2000 about passing anti-gun legislation or even appearing anti-gun that they will not make that mistake again. We are still in control of this country.

The key is for you to pay attention to what is going on, help others see what is going on, and to remain active in politics. If you continue to do that, you don't have to have this "fear of new laws" rhetoric to hide behind. This will not be a new stepping stone to a new psychological profile for gun owners. It simply wouldn't pass. Implying it will to shut down this new legislation is not rational and relies upon fear mongering rhetoric to influence people without higher order thinking skills.

Even the idea that this is some victory for the anti's because of the somewhat negative press the NRA is getting is interesting. The anti-gun groups have been hurting so bad lately I don't know if even an "apparent" victory is going to help them much. It should be obvious to any gun rights activisits that if the NRA is backing this, they are getting something out of it. The anti's can claim a win all they want, but we know the NRA is much more powerful than they are and the NRA must be allowing this to go forward for a reason.

Thankfully those of us on this board actually read through the bill and see exactly what it is we are gaining. There can be no fee or tax on a NICS check, expired court orders no longer count, many vets will be eligible again, and so on and so forth. I would be interested in seeing if this no fee on NICS thing can translate into something against our DROS out this way. I doubt it, but hey, here is to hope.

[Satex]

How does this not serve our interests?

Very simply, the NRA is a political organization. In politics EVERYTHING is give and take. There is no giving without taking. If the NRA did some giving without taking - they did disservice to its membership.

[6172crew]

Very simply, the NRA is a political organization. In politics EVERYTHING is give and take. There is no giving without taking. If the NRA did some giving without taking - they did disservice to its membership.

If the brady's were looking to get this done they had to work with the NRA and I cant see one thing the NRA did that would suggest a disservice to any lawfull gun owner. Now I wouldnt put it past this state to try and get everyone whos ever had a headache on this list but over all I think its the 5150's who have screwed things up for gun owners over the last 30 years and we are now looked at lke the DC snipers and all the other loons who shot unarmed citizens because of a mental issue that should have had them under phyc care.

Of course the DC guys stole the AR15 they used to kill humans with but I still say thaqt guy should have been on a list.

[hoffmang]

Satex:

You skipped the post where I pointed out the facts on the actual law. I've posted facts and you keep posting opinions. Go read the law and find where we are losing anything:

The only changes to the actual *law* on the mentally ill being prohibited is to do three things:

1. Remove the Vets that should never have been reported in the first place.

2. Add a bunch of cash incentives to states to report records like Cho's that already should have been reported and are already legally disabling.

3. Add an ability to appeal being put on the NICs no list.

And no, not everything is give and take when you are in power. Right now the NRA can stop all gun bills in the US legislature.

As to what impact this will have on CA's DROS system, I can put it to you this way. There is a lot of rumbling on the Legislative front that we may be able to shorten and simplify DROS and the waiting period and this bill may significantly expand our negotiating strength in future legislative sessions here in California to roll those back.

-Gene

[Satex]

Hoffmang I don't doubt for a minute that this bill hasn't hurt gun owners per the letter of the bill. What I do claim is that given the political environment, the NRA put it self in a submissive posture which led to a virtual victory of the other side - that is my point. Again, there may have been close door deals we are not aware of - and only time will tell, but on the surface, I see this as a political loss for the NRA.

[hoffmang]

Satex,

Sentence 1 - Your opinion.
Sentence 2 - Your opinion.
Sentence 3 - Your unfounded speculation.

My opinion: The facts are that "doing something" that would help stop a prohibited buyer from buying through legal channels in the future where he succeeded in the past will generally buy the pro gun side political capital. With that political capital we got the Vets names out of NICS and an actual process to get names removed from NICS (there wasn't really one before.)

If NRA wants this bill stopped (eg: it gets a bad amendment or somesuch) they can easily can it in the Senate. The blue-dog dems make up the balance of power there and they have to be seen as gun friendly to be re-elected in the states they are from.

The NRA didn't take it, they dished it out. That's my opinion and I've stated some facts to support it.

-Gene

[tenpercentfirearms]

Hoffmang I don't doubt for a minute that this bill hasn't hurt gun owners per the letter of the bill. What I do claim is that given the political environment, the NRA put it self in a submissive posture which led to a virtual victory of the other side - that is my point. Again, there may have been close door deals we are not aware of - and only time will tell, but on the surface, I see this as a political loss for the NRA.

Well lets see the democrats add some anti-gun amendments to it and see it get squashed and then everyone will know who is in power. The anti's are going to claim victory for everything. It is your job to know the truth and let your friends know the truth as well.

Sometimes you have to do the right thing even if it might look bad. If you are too scared to ever play the game, how can you ever win?

[Satex]

It is your job to know the truth and let your friends know the truth as well.

The media knows that the masses are significantly affected by what they are fed - its reality. Very few of us actually shape our personal opinions independently. So you and I (=we) should care about what the media does - as it affects public sentiment which in turn affects our lives.

[ridingonfumes]

the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers



so now anyone with a mental disability is a non-law-abiding gun owner
when did having a mental condition become a crime???

f*** the NRA i will never support them again

this is all a ploy by those in power to take away guns from anyone they dont like, mark my words this is way worse than they are telling us now :(

[grammaton76]

so now anyone with a mental disability is a non-law-abiding gun owner
when did having a mental condition become a crime???

f*** the NRA i will never support them again

this is all a ploy by those in power to take away guns from anyone they dont like, mark my words this is way worse than they are telling us now :(

Actually, what you're completely missing is that the mental issues are ALREADY grounds for failing a background check. The only thing being changed, is that the states are being made to keep their systems that tie into NICS up to date. That, and a system for being REMOVED FROM THE PROHIBITED LIST is being mandated. Presently, you're at the government's mercy as to whether you're ever going to get removed. An orderly, non-discretionary means for qualified folks to be removed from the list is actually a huge step forward for gun rights. The next step from here would be restoration of gun rights for non-violent felons. Did you know you can lose your gun rights for getting a felony SPEEDING TICKET?

[6172crew]

Actually, what you're completely missing is that the mental issues are ALREADY grounds for failing a background check. The only thing being changed, is that the states are being made to keep their systems that tie into NICS up to date. That, and a system for being REMOVED FROM THE PROHIBITED LIST is being mandated. Presently, you're at the government's mercy as to whether you're ever going to get removed. An orderly, non-discretionary means for qualified folks to be removed from the list is actually a huge step forward for gun rights. The next step from here would be restoration of gun rights for non-violent felons. Did you know you can lose your gun rights for getting a felony SPEEDING TICKET?

Ed Zachary, the law has always been this way but like most gun laws they aren't/cant be enforced. Its too bad he feels the NRA is doing the wrong thing but I dont think 5150s should have access to firearms.

[hoffmang]

There is a new GAO alert out today that does have one potentially troubling issue. They claim that upon close reading the new law sweeps in pre-existing ATF rulemaking actions - one of which includes that its not just adjudicated mentally ill, but a determination by any "OTHER LAWFUL AUTHORITY" which is a bit too wide for comfort. Here is their take on it and I need to go do a close reading myself to see what I think of the issue: http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm

Hopefully NRA will look into the issue and respond.

-Gene

[hoffmang]

Gah... This is one of the reasons I dislike the GOA...

When I went a reading the link I posted above, it turns out that even though the language is:

Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) 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:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others;
or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include—
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) 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.
From: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/10apr20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/aprqtr/pdf/27cfr478.11.pdf

even ATF states clearly that you have to be adjudicated as follows:

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.
From: http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

So the bottom line is that GOA is being untruthful in certain parts. All of the statements they make that you can be adjudicated without Due Process (their IDEA example sticks out) are flat wrong.

That was a waste of my time...

-Gene

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Hoffmang I don't doubt for a minute that this bill hasn't hurt gun owners per the letter of the bill. What I do claim is that given the political environment, the NRA put it self in a submissive posture which led to a virtual victory of the other side - that is my point. Again, there may have been close door deals we are not aware of - and only time will tell, but on the surface, I see this as a political loss for the NRA.

If you are a partisan and Dem author gets to pass abill, you may see that as a win for the Dem conference.

for the NRA... no loss, in fact I see it as a win, as they can stop any bill they want to in the house righ tnow, they got some important safeguards for the future for gun owners and gave away virtually nothing accept their ability to "allow" it to pass.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

1)so now anyone with a mental disability is a non-law-abiding gun owner

2) when did having a mental condition become a crime???

3)f*** the NRA i will never support them again

4)this is all a ploy by those in power to take away guns from anyone they dont like, mark my words this is way worse than they are telling us now :(

1)you are complaining about current law. not the NRA, and the statment is an over-exaggeration

2) not sure... have to look it up, in fact, why dont you?

3) I doubt you are currently an NRA supporter now. and if so, and you choose to stop, then the bond between me and my brothers when we toast st. crispians day will only be that much tighter.

4) ploy? maybe. but I have my black helicpoter well hidden. they never find it.

[hoffmang]

4) ploy? maybe. but I have my black helicpoter well hidden. they never find it.

Anthony is from the government and he's here to take you for a 'copter ride (j/k) :chris:

As to when the mentally ill could be debarred arms, I can tell you from my brief historical reading it was before the 1776...

-Gene

[Parag]

'Course, afterwards, it's just one small step to say anyone who likes guns clearly has mental problems and should have their guns taken away. :)

-- Parag

[JGarrison]

Presently, you're at the government's mercy as to whether you're ever going to get removed. An orderly, non-discretionary means for qualified folks to be removed from the list is actually a huge step forward for gun rights. The next step from here would be restoration of gun rights for non-violent felons. Did you know you can lose your gun rights for getting a felony SPEEDING TICKET?

Actually it was very easy to be removed from the list. I did it last year on my own and it took nothing but a lil time and research. Just got a court date, showed up on my own, the judge asked me a few questions and I was able to buy a gun within two weeks of the ruling.

[Anthonysmanifesto]

Actually it was very easy to be removed from the list. I did it last year on my own and it took nothing but a lil time and research. Just got a court date, showed up on my own, the judge asked me a few questions and I was able to buy a gun within two weeks of the ruling.

can you elaborate?

[JGarrison]

can you elaborate?

I received a 5150 back in 2002, pretty stupid stuff.

Fast forward to 2006, I was wanting to buy a gun but knew I couldn't for another year due to the 5 year ban from the 5150. I did a little googleing, found the forms I needed to get a court date to try and have my firearm rights restored, got the court date, showed up and after talking to the court liasion?, when the judge called my name, she said why I was there and a lil info about me, the judge asked me a few questions and said no problem. Phew, that was a run on. Anyway, got it back that easy.

[grammaton76]

Bear in mind that not all states necessarily are as easy as CA with regards to 5150's.

[Builder]

Bear in mind that not all states necessarily are as easy as CA with regards to 5150's.Pardon me for playing the argumentative type here; isn't the removal of a civil right prohibited by the American with Disabilities Act? I'm probably stretching it here, but how would the ADA be used to protect those with a mental disease (disability) from being discriminated against (removal of 2nd Amend. civil rights)?
Thanks,
Builder