Bill unveiled to strengthen background checks

I guess if we have to have a background check system, I don't object to having it work. That said, all that's supposed to be reported is people who have been "adjudicated" mentally defective or who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for treatment. If this is going topen the floodgates to reporting anyone and everyone who ever mentioned having a down day ... then I'm opposed.

Yes, Veterans Administration, I'm looking at you.
 
This is a double edged sword, like Aguila Blanca I have no objections to stronger background checks...as it does not affect me, but this is a powerful tool to be used by unscrupulous people and organizations which could have just as much as a negative effect.
 
Based on the article, that bill is about getting various agencies to properly report the necessary information, not tightening restrictions. The shooter in Texas was incarcerated for a year for domestic violence, but the conviction was never reported or added to NICS. The bill sounds to me like accountabillity and incentives to various state agencies to get them to report what they should have been already.
 
Exactly, GarandTd. They're trying to make the existing system work like it's supposed to, thereby strengthening it. Since it came out that the Texas shooter had fallen through the cracks because of reporting issues, I have been hoping that something would be done to address it. I'm pleased that it appears that this bill has at least enough support to move through the process.
 
I'm not a lunatic or a criminal, so background checks don't bother me too much. I do have a problem with authoritative entities not doing their part to make this country a safer place. There is no excuse for it. While accountability is a step in the right direction, it is of little consolation to the loved ones left behind by mass shootings perpetrated by cases that "fell through the cracks".
 
The bill is endorsed by NRA and NSSF and basically is just an updated 2007 NICS Improvement Act with more funding to report data to NICS. However, the Obama Administration funded 321 new employees to handle NICS checks in January 2016, and the FBI has been unable to fill all of the positions it has funds for....

Something to keep in mind the next time somebody suggests expanding NICS to all sales.
 
It is frustrating that the antis want to add more and more laws and restrictions when we've been telling them all along that we have the laws in place already... we just need to enforce them properly. What good is a law that isn't enforced? Why add more restrictions when they can't enforce the existing laws?

If this helps keep guns out of the hands of people who absolutely should not have them then it's a good thing. If it's further lip service then what's the point? Another 'feel good' law that's not enforced?
 
So this bill will force compliance to those who should have been doing their job?

Yeah let’s just layer on the bureaucracy.

I have a problem with background checks because they don’t work and the definition of “bad guy” can be adjusted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wonder what the requirements are. My wife has been looking for a job since OPM abandoned USIS and they shut their doors. It's like she's been black listed and can't get a job anywhere.
 
GarandTd said:
Based on the article, that bill is about getting various agencies to properly report the necessary information, not tightening restrictions.
Click to expand...
The devil is in the details, and here (IMHO) the key word is "properly." I don't have positive proof, but it has been widely reported that the Veterans Administration has been reporting veterans to NICS as prohibited on mental health grounds not for an adjudication or involuntary commitment, but simply for appointing someone to handle their finances.

That would be an "improper" report, and that's what I worry about. I've read too many articles about aw-thaw-rih-tays who do this, that, and the other "out of an abundance of caution." I'm a pretty cautious type myself, but when "out of an abundance of caution" results in reporting people who don't "properly" fit the criteria for being reported, then I have a problem with the system. (Or with the abuse of the system, to be more accurate.)
 
Aguila Blanca raises a fair point. Under the current Administration, we hopefully will not see abuses of the gray areas in definitions; but the fact remains that there are gray areas in the definitions and we are rewarding federal agencies with money for reporting more people. Ultimately, that will be a problem if we don't better define those gray areas and this bill does not do that.

I think ultimately we need to seek out some kind of blockchain, decentralized background check if we want to preserve the Second Amendment. If we stick to traditional views, we'll end up with registration and confiscation. I mean, even from a gun-control perspective, the current system is a 1968 implementation of a 1930s Nazi law. Even if you thought the premise was valid, there is a lot of room for improvement in the last 50 years.
 
I agree about the devil in the details. I know how those bills work. Alot of shady things slip by in that fashion. I also agree that this shouldn't be about the numbers of people or cases reported to NICS, but about the relevancy of those cases. Some one that reported feeling depressed because they couldn't provide for their family during the holidays is not the same as a physically abusive parent that tortures animals.
 
In the case of the Veterans Administration, I don't think there is any gray area involved. "Adjudicated" means what it says. The VA has simply, unilaterally decided that words no longer have meaning, and that their administrative determination is the same thing as adjudication. Which, of course, it isn't -- but most of the veterans improperly reported can't afford an attorney to contest the classification.

What's sad is that the result works counter to the VA's goal of helping younger veterans who may be suffering PTSD. Once they know (and if at 70+ years old I know, it's reasonable to think that a large percentage of the younger guys know) about this problem (which has been widely written about in VFW publications and discussed on veterans' web sites), they will simply NOT ask for counseling rather than risk having their 2A rights taken away.

This is a result of the "out of an abundance of caution" mentality. The VA actively screens for the slightest hint of potential PTSD. Every time I go to the VA hospital for a routine physical, the intake form asks if I am feeling well today, and if I have felt even a little bit sad since my last appointment. What normal person doesn't feel a little bit sad from time to time? But, am I going to admit that to the VA? Heck no!

As I've commented to friends, it doesn't matter if my wife just ran away with my best friend, my dog died, my pickup truck just got run over by a bulldozer and my house just burned to the ground ... I feel great, never had a sad day in my life. No, Sir, everything in my life is just perfect.
 
Here is another article on the proposed bill.

https://townhall.com/notebook/bethb...ENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-=nl&newsletterad=

This bill penalizes federal agencies who fail to report relevant criminal records to the FBI and creates an incentive for states to make sure their reporting is up-to-date by giving federal grant preferences to states who comply. The bill also directs more federal funding to make sure domestic violence records are accurately reported to the FBI.
Click to expand...

It always puts a burr under saddle when the so called "fix" is to through more money at the problem. Why not just require those already on the payroll to do their job instead.

Here is the actual Bill, nothing yet.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q={"search":["cornyn"]}&r=1
 
LINK to bill text from Sen. John Cornyn's official webpage.

From a quick reading, the main highlights are:
  • Federal agencies and state and Indian tribal governments are required to cooperate with the AG and create an Implementation Plan for reporting all records pertinent to NICS to the FBI;
  • The AG has to prepare and public semiannual reports summarizing what federal agencies have done to comply with NICS;
  • The AG is required to take affirmative steps to correct erroneous NICS information within 60 days;
  • Funding is provided to various agencies for compliance efforts.
 
So this bill will force compliance to those who should have been doing their job?
Click to expand...

This is a yes, and no, kind of thing. The Feds (and the Fed law) cannot force those who do not work directly for the Federal govt to do anything. Federal agencies (VA, SSA, Air Force, etc.,) the Fed has the authority to order them to do their job better, and do it right. (effectiveness of the order will vary)

Records created by STATE govts, courts, etc. cannot be "forced" by the Fed, directly. The Fed law can order states to comply, but there is no authority to force any specific level of compliance. That must be done by the state govts, and to get them to do so, the Fed offers them money.

ONE of the problems with the system is that different groups use different terms and definitions for things. Another is that the Lautenberg law is so broadly (and to my mind, badly) written that it makes prohibited persons out of people who were not prohibited persons before, and uses criteria that state courts may not even be aware of, when it comes to submittal of various records.

The recent case in focus is the Air Force's failure to report the DV conviction of the Texas killer. Yes, the Air Force dropped the ball on that one,.. sort of. But it appears that they didn't know they had the ball in their hands, because of the differences in bureaucratic standards, regarding terminology and records.

And here, the wording of the Fed law is partially to blame. It has been reported that the Air Force did not have a separate category for domestic violence in their record keeping system. (no doubt that since attention is now being focused on that, it will soon change..)

So a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction (which, under the Lautenberg law is sufficient to make one a prohibited person) was reported as a misdemeanor assault, which does NOT make one a prohibited person. Felony assault does. This double standard in punishment, thanks to the Federal law, and the Air Force's definitions is why the killer "slipped through the cracks".

Another issue, ALSO dealing with various agencies different definitions is the VA, and SSA reporting "prohibited person" status to NICS. Remember the flap over the Trump administration "making it easier for crazy people to get guns"?

Trump didn't do that. What was done was to change some internal standards and definitions, which had NO effect on people legally classed as prohibited persons (via due process and compliance with existing law). Social Security (specifically) was using their own in house criteria to determine if a person was "mentally disabled" enough to qualify for aid. This is fine, its what they are supposed to do.

HOWEVER, those "in house" criteria are NOT the same as the legally required due process to declare a person mentally incompetent and strip them of their 2nd Amendment rights. This is also ok, as long as SSA's in house determination is only applied to "in house" social security matters.

But, this was not all that was being done. SSA's report of an individual's mental incompetence was being reported to NICS, and NICS only has one "box" for that, which is "mentally incompetent = prohibited person". The Trump administration stopped that, stopped the automatic classification of people as prohibited because they were being made prohibited persons WITHOUT the legally required due process being followed.

For that, the media claimed (and still does when the subject comes up) that they made it "easier for crazy people to get guns". A total lie, but one that plays well to their target audience, and one that is accepted by those who simply are not aware of the truth.

The VA has been (is?) doing something similar, Using their own, in house definitions, and reporting those to NCIS as if they were the legal standard definition arrived at through due process of law. They aren't, but again, NICS accepted them as if they were.

To be fair to the FBI/NICS, I do not believe that they are charged with determining the accuracy of the data provided to them, only to use that data in accordance with the regulation and the law. In other words, its not NICS's job to determine if the VA or SSA, or other agencies reporting data to them are lying about the accuracy of the data.
 
44 AMP said:
...The Feds (and the Fed law) cannot force those who do not work directly for the Federal govt to do anything. Federal agencies (VA, SSA, Air Force, etc.,) the Fed has the authority to order them to do their job better, and do it right. (effectiveness of the order will vary)

Records created by STATE govts, courts, etc. cannot be "forced" by the Fed, directly. The Fed law can order states to comply, but there is no authority to force any specific level of compliance. That must be done by the state govts, and to get them to do so, the Fed offers them money.
Click to expand...
True, but at least the bill would establish a reporting process for state gov't and federal agency compliance with NICS.

Although I could see this potentially being misused by anti-gun groups for propaganda purposes, it's potentially a first step in establishing a mechanism for holding agencies and state governments accountable BEFORE a massive failure like the one that led to Sutherland Springs. It should also help uncover shenanigans like those at the SSA, as a sudden spike in NICS denials would be readily apparent without the press and activist groups having to dig for the information.
 
I'm for better reporting. If the Feds have to twist a couple nipples to get people off their kiesters.... Money well-spent.

Agreed: there's always the potential for abuse whenever a law is passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top