PDA

View Full Version : Those opposed to the NICS improvement bill


hoffmang
12-01-2007, 11:03 AM
I noticed that David Hardy had (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/11/list_of_people.php) the same thought I did upon reading the news that the number of mental health records reported to NICS has doubled (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3931894&page=1).

So what has happened is that by opposing the measure due to trumped up concerns about Veteran's being disabled, a few more hundred thousand people have had their records reported to NICS. Absent the bill, these people have NO WAY to fix their disablement. The bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640) would have allowed them to.

GAO has tried to call this the Veteran's Disarmament Act. How Brady-esque. It actually successfully disarmed 225,000 actual people. I hope the government got all of those right :rolleyes:.

Everyone think not letting this bill pass was a good thing now?

-Gene

M. Sage
12-01-2007, 11:40 AM
No, he's saying that some people have called the NICS improvement act a "veterans disarmament" bill. All those people added to the restricted list due to mental health histories now have no way to reverse it later. NICS Improvement Bill has a route to clear those from your record.

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 11:49 AM
What I'm getting at is that after Virginia Tech, no state is going to get got with its pants down and not get those records into NICS. With the NICS improvement bill we gun owners would have gotten a new process to challenge being on the list (past, present or future) but because the tinfoil hat crowd tried to fabricate that vets were somehow going to be added to NICS generally (ignoring the whole adjudicated by a court part) this bill is held up in the Senate.

So now lots of people are still going to go into NICS and have no way to appeal. Does that sound pro-gun to you?

-Gene

dustoff31
12-01-2007, 11:49 AM
Yep. The bill had no more to do with veterans than it did any other person in similar circumstances.

Outlaw Josey Wales
12-01-2007, 12:33 PM
NICS Improvement Bill has a route to clear those from your record.


NICS already includes a process to appeal but since fiscal year 1992, Congress has prohibited the expenditure of funds by the Department of the Treasury to act on applications for "relief from disability". What makes anybody think that the "NICS Improvement Bill" would change this?

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 12:35 PM
I think a new act of congress that creates a judicial right (instead of a process right through ATF) would quite effectively over-rule the old funding trick.

State courts and Article III courts take the law a bit more seriously than even congress.

I suggest you read the law and compare it to what's been going on at ATF.

-Gene

M. Sage
12-01-2007, 12:38 PM
NICS already includes a process to appeal but since fiscal year 1992, Congress has prohibited the expenditure of funds by the Department of the Treasury to act on applications for "relief from disability". What makes anybody think that the "NICS Improvement Bill" would change this?

Because states can't turn down free money:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2640
SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.

Oh, and:

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

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

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

DarthSean
12-01-2007, 11:03 PM
US CODE TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 44 § 925 (C)

A person who is prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms, and the Attorney General may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Attorney General may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector conducting operations under this chapter, who makes application for relief from the disabilities incurred under this chapter, shall not be barred by such disability from further operations under his license pending final action on an application for relief filed pursuant to this section. Whenever the Attorney General grants relief to any person pursuant to this section he shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such action, together with the reasons therefor.

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 11:23 PM
Uh, no.

Congress has defunded that process and SCOTUS has said that defunding the old process is constitutional. Please see US v. Bean (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_704/).

I reiterate; there is currently no process to get oneself off of the NICS prohibited list.

-Gene

DarthSean
12-02-2007, 6:56 PM
Then does that case law make the appeal procedures wthin CA WIC 8100-8108 void too?

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 6:58 PM
Then does that case law make the appeal procedures wthin CA WIC 8100-8108 void too?

In one of those rare occasions of sanity, California does have a real ability for those adjudicate in California to get relief.

Most states do not.

-Gene

artherd
12-03-2007, 2:16 AM
Gene, I have often wondered if ATF would be *able* to turn down individual private funding for such inquiries? In say the form of a retainer of pre-deposited funds so there is no question as to collection.

Trueno
12-04-2007, 6:05 PM
Gene, I have often wondered if ATF would be *able* to turn down individual private funding for such inquiries? In say the form of a retainer of pre-deposited funds so there is no question as to collection.

Good evenin', first post here so bear with me. Kind've steppin' out on a limb, but I sure wouldn't mind the NRA "funding" 925c. I'd feel a whole lot better about where my membership dues were goin'.

Maybe, just maybe, the NRA could even blab about it in their literature. "Help the NRA fight the good fight by doing what big government won't do".

I'm just sayin'...

;)


ps: the Bean case strikes close to home.

Bishop
12-04-2007, 6:43 PM
When you stop "crazy" people from being able to own guns, you'll begin to see the gradual expansion of the term "crazy."

We're already seeing expansion of the term "terrorist."

hoffmang
12-04-2007, 6:49 PM
When you stop "crazy" people from being able to own guns, you'll begin to see the gradual expansion of the term "crazy."

We're already seeing expansion of the term "terrorist."

Yep. Kind of like you're seeing the word rational expand who it encompasses..

Distinctions have to be made or you're just arguing for anarchy.

Ben: I don't think ATF could accept funding from the private sector - though if they politically wanted to I bet they could.

-Gene

DrjonesUSA
12-04-2007, 7:52 PM
But Gene, this bill was supported by the NRA and we *know* they are the most anti-gun organization out there!!

dustoff31
12-04-2007, 8:28 PM
I don't think ATF could accept funding from the private sector - though if they politically wanted to I bet they could.

-Gene


Do you suppose it would be possible/feasible to get ATF to set a fee for those seeking relief and a foundation then provide that fee to the individual?