Bill unveiled to strengthen background checks

[DaleA]

This quite possibly is very obvious but I'd like to get confirmation or correction on these points.

1. As the states and localities get with the program there will be more folk added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS prohibited list.

2. Because we are all human there will be more folk on the prohibited list that are there by mistake.

3. To get off the prohibited list, you would have to go to the state, county, city, jurisdiction and get THEM to correct the error that put you on the prohibited list.

4. You would then need to get the jurisdiction that put you on the list to send the correction upstream to the NICS folk.

Is this correct?

Question: If you are denied by the NICS will the NICS folk tell you which jurisdiction has a beef with you?

Question: If you are denied by the NICS and the problem is totally with the NICS (e.g. "John Smith" gets denied but his SSN is different than the "John Smith" the NICS folk have on their prohibited list) can/will the NICS folk fix the problem without you having to get evidence that you have not been convicted of anything?

I think it's obvious there is going to be more reviews/complaints with the NICS folk. I hope they are going to hire more folk to deal with the situation.

 

[raimius]

As long as it only serves to make the database more accurate, I don't have an issue with it. It's sad that they need to throw more money at it to get people to follow the law and report criminal convictions and adjudications.

Will it help? Maybe marginally, but that margin is measured in lives, so I can get behind this, so long as no one tries to tinker with definitions/add poison pill amendments, etc.

 

[carguychris]

Question: If you are denied by the NICS will the NICS folk tell you which jurisdiction has a beef with you?

Question: If you are denied by the NICS and the problem is totally with the NICS (e.g. "John Smith" gets denied but his SSN is different than the "John Smith" the NICS folk have on their prohibited list) can/will the NICS folk fix the problem without you having to get evidence that you have not been convicted of anything?

I am not an FFL dealer, but my understanding from past threads with FFLs is that the operator who answers the NICS phone call can ONLY give the FFL one of three answers: "Approved," "Denied," or "Delayed." The NICS operator supposedly cannot see any other information on their computer.

If the answer is "Denied," or if the purchase is subsequently denied after being delayed, the buyer can then appeal the denial through the FBI. It's my understanding that the reasons for the denial are sometimes divulged during the appeal process, but not always; in some cases, the answer basically amounts to "Oops, we dunno what happened."

The bill contains a provision giving the AG 60 days to remove erroneous information that led to an incorrect NICS denial.

 

[ATN082268]

I am not an FFL dealer, but my understanding from past threads with FFLs is that the operator who answers the NICS phone call can ONLY give the FFL one of three answers: "Approved," "Denied," or "Delayed." The NICS operator supposedly cannot see any other information on their computer.

If the answer is "Denied," or if the purchase is subsequently denied after being delayed, the buyer can then appeal the denial through the FBI. It's my understanding that the reasons for the denial are sometimes divulged during the appeal process, but not always; in some cases, the answer basically amounts to "Oops, we dunno what happened."

The bill contains a provision giving the AG 60 days to remove erroneous information that led to an incorrect NICS denial.

If the NICS bureacracy is anything like the no fly list, I wouldn't hold my breath for erroneous information or mistakes to be corrected. I vaguely recall a Senator having problems with the no-fly list and it took him months for it to be corrected and it would probably take Joe Average years to correct

 

[carguychris]

If the NICS bureacracy is anything like the no fly list, I wouldn't hold my breath for erroneous information or mistakes to be corrected.

Perhaps, but I would argue that the underlying problem in both cases is the lack of a firm statutory requirement for the AG to correct erroneous information in a prompt manner.

I haven't followed the dispute over the No-Fly list closely, but my understanding is that the statutes surrounding the list are very loosely constructed, and this is one of the main objections to the list among individual-rights advocates.

IMHO the 60-day requirement to correct erroneous NICS information is a big check mark in this bill's favor.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

IMHO the 60-day requirement to correct erroneous NICS information is a big check mark in this bill's favor.

Maybe a little check mark. It should be 30 days -- or 15 days -- but 60 days is better than no requirement at all. But there should be severe monetary and other penalties for failure to comply. Otherwise, the .gov will do as they always do with time constraints -- ignore it.

 

[carguychris]

^^^ Point taken.

The bill would certainly be better if it included provisions penalizing bureaucratic laziness, indifference, or malice, but at least it takes the first step. Same goes for the reporting requirements; penalties would indisputably be better, but reports should at least make problems apparent.

Executive-branch abuse is certainly possible, but such abuse will be less defensible with the bill's provisions in place.