Congress OKs NICS Improvement Act

R

Rockrz

New member
What do you guys think of this new gun purchasing requirement???
Think the government can use this wrongly???


Congress OKs Va Tech-inspired gun bill

Congress on Wednesday passed a long-stalled bill inspired by the Virginia Tech shootings that would more easily flag prospective gun buyers who have documented mental health problems. The measure also would help states with the cost.

Passage by voice votes in the House and Senate came after months of negotiations between Senate Democrats and the lone Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who had objected and delayed passage.

It was not immediately clear whether President Bush intended to sign, veto or ignore the bill. If Congress does not technically go out of session, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has threatened, the bill would become law if Bush does not act within 10 days.

"This bill will make America safer without affecting the rights of a single law-abiding citizen," said the Senate's chief sponsor, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer.

One of the House's chief sponsors, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, spoke in the full House about her husband, who was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in New York. "To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., added that the bill will speed up background checks and reinforce the rights of law abiding gun owners.

Propelling the bill were the Virginia Tech shootings on April 16 and rare agreement between political foes, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association.

But other interest groups said that in forging compromise with the gun lobby, the bill's authors unintentionally imposed an unnecessary burden on government agencies by freeing up thousands of people to buy guns.

"Rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center. "It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others."

The measure would clarify what mental health records should be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which help gun dealers determine whether to sell a firearm to a prospective buyer, and give states financial incentives for compliance. The attorney general could penalize states if they fail to meet compliance targets.

Despite the combined superpowers of bill's supporters, Coburn held it up for months because he worried that millions of dollars in new spending would not be paid for by cuts in other programs.

His chief concern, he said, was that it did not pay for successful appeals by veterans or other people who say they are wrongly barred from buying a gun.

Just before midnight Tuesday, Coburn and the Democratic supporters of the bill struck a deal: The government would pay for the cost of appeals by gun owners and prospective buyers who argue successfully in court that they were wrongly deemed unqualified for mental health reasons.

The compromise would require that incorrect records — such as expunged mental health rulings that once disqualified a prospective gun buyer but no longer do — be removed from system within 30 days.

The original bill would require any agency, such as the Veterans Administration or the Defense Department, to notify a person flagged as mentally ill and disqualified from buying or possessing a gun. The new version now also would require the notification when someone has been cleared of that restriction.

The bill would authorize up to $250 million a year over five years for the states and as much as $125 million a year over the same period for state courts to help defray the cost of enacting the policy.

Propelling the long-sought legislation were the April 16 killings at Virginia Tech. Student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 students and himself using two guns he had bought despite his documented history of mental illness.

Cho had been ruled a danger to himself during a court commitment hearing in 2005. He had been ordered to have outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the two guns he used. But Virginia never forwarded the information to the national background check system.


Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071220/ap_on_go_co/congress_guns
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Click to expand...
 
Fine with me. The Vtech killer only wasn't on the NO list because liberals didn't want the mentally defective to be "discriminated against".

Ignore the GOA hysterics, there's nothing wrong with this, IMO.
 
The Vtech killer only wasn't on the NO list because liberals didn't want the mentally defective to be "discriminated against".
Click to expand...
Good point!

This law may result in the ACLU going to court to protect insane people's right to have guns...probably in hopes of shooting a bunch of people so they can try to push for outlawing guns altogether!

They're probably working this at their office now...
25.gif
 
"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive," said McCarthy, D-N.Y.
Click to expand...

That one sentence gives me the shivers and chills. One of our greatest enemies got something she wanted. This cannot be good in the end.

Fine with me. The Vtech killer only wasn't on the NO list because liberals didn't want the mentally defective to be "discriminated against".
Click to expand...

And just how soon do you expect that gun owners, especially ones with carry permits, won't be qualified as mentally defective. After all, we are purposely owning, and walking the streets with objects that are designed to kill. They were designed to kill other people from the start. No getting around that little fact.

What person in his right mind would intentionally own a device desined to kill? Of course the answer is a person of mental defect.

This may be a good move in the beginning, but I can see this as a weapon against the 2A after all is said and done.

I did read it by the way. It bothered me on so many levels. There is a better way to get certain veterans the rights back. This was not it.
 
the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list," said Kristen Rand,
Click to expand...

You mean it repeals the machine gun ban? No? Well, whatever it does, it must be good if Kristen hates it.

Thank goodness for our Dr. Tom Coburn, who held out until he got some provisions which would allow those cleared or expunged to have the appropriate records required to be forwarded to the feds for the NICS check. Drop a quick email or line to thank him.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/dbq/officials/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018
 
it must be good if Kristen hates it.
Click to expand...

She hates it because it will give some people the ability to own guns after they were denied that right due to bad mental diagnosis.

You have to understand that the idiots that run VPC want everyone to be disarmed. This means any and all guns. Even the fudds aren't safe according to VPC policy.

Anyone being armed is a threat to them.
 
I haven't read the bill as engrossed and passed. The GPO has not printed it yet (just checked). What I do know is that S. Amdt. 3887 was passed as a substitute for H.R. 2640. It's on its way to Bush.

Here is what the NRA has to say:
Congress Passes NICS Improvement Act

After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following:

  • Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.
  • Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.
  • Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.
  • Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.
  • Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.
  • Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
  • Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.
  • Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.

The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:

  • Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.
  • Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.
  • Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.
  • Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.
  • Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.
  • Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.
  • Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
Click to expand...
This is much better than the original H.R. 2640, let's hope that how the NRA reads it is true.
 
I haven't read the bill as engrossed and passed. The GOA has not printed it yet (just checked). What I do know is that S. Amdt. 3887 was passed as a substitute for H.R. 2640. It's on its way to Bush.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'm not sure I'd personally trust GOA's printing of it, not with Larry Pratt's hysterical, deliberately misleading tinfoil rants that cited California law as if it were part of this.

I'll wait for the THOMAS version, myself.
 
I meant the GPO... Gads, now I gotta go correct my post! (although, now that you mention it, I do wonder how Mr. Pratt will spin this...)

Oh, and the thread is moving to L&P.
 
NRA alert on Senate Passed (voice vote) NICS Improvement legislation

[deleted material - same as post #7 above. Antipitas]
-------------------

The following items/questions jump to my mind upon a quick read of the above.

1. Re the award of attorney's fees to the "injured party" arising out of court action brought against a Federal Agency that improperly denied "relief from disability", how about PUNATIVE DAMAGES AWARDS levied against the INDIVIDUALS responsible as well as against the agency.
2. Have monies to operate this relief from disabilities business been included or will that be open to obstruction by Senator Charles Schumer and others of his ilk, as has been the case in the past, and still is today?
3. Seems that there is a hellish long "time lag", 1 year is mentioned, allowed to federal agencies to drag their feet re relief from disability, before the individual can take the thing to federal court. This business has the sound and the smell of another of those congressional Dog and Pony Shows. I could be wrong re this conclusion, I suppose.
4. Once again, on important legislation, legislation on which there is significant argument, part of the national legislature, (Senate) passes important, disputed and otherwise questionable legislation on a "voice vote", presumably unrecorded. What is going on here seems an all to reasonable question.
5. Finally, there are seemingly significant differences between the House passed version, a voice vote there too, and the Senate version. There seems however, no mention of or references to the seemingly required House-Senate Conference Committee, out of which in the past, have come some rather strange pieces of legislation. Is something here being "glossed over"? Has the NRA blown it, some would add here AGAIN, re their support of this legislation?
 
This may be a dumb question... but here goes.. Just what are they considering "mental defect"? A person with depression, a bi-polar person, a person who sees a shrink, or is it someone who has gone before a court and been ruled as mentally incompetent? Just curious, as I never really understood where the line was drawn...

Thanks

Trav
 
Antipitas or anyone:

This version passed by The U.S. Senate, on a voice vote yet, so much for what has been described as "the worlds greatest deliberative body", perhaps it used to be that, supposedly is "significantly different" from House passed version. Historical note, this legislation was enacted in The House on a voice vote too, has The Senate accepted House version, or has House accepted Senate version, no mention of such activity.

What this brings to my mind is the following question. Who will sit on the seemingly required "conference committee", a legislative device that has, in the past, produced some pretty strange looking results. Conference Committees are formed to "iron out" differences between House and Senate passed versions of particular legislation.

Al, as to correcting your post, a mere typo, I make lots of them mysself, unless it be a "Freudian slip".
 
According to the Congressional Record (CR) for Dec. 19, 2007 (pages S16024 - 16028, for anyone interested), H.R. 2640 was voted out of conference; voted to immediately proceed; S. AMDT. 3887 was introduced as a substitute for H.R. 2640 and on a voice vote, accepted. Yet another voice vote was taken and the legislation was passed. S. AMDT 3887 was engrossed and taken immediately to the House where it was immediately passed by a voice vote. No conference committee will be dinking with this legislation. It is what it is (but see below).

The Legislation will probably be available from the GPO by next week. As soon as the GPO publishes it, it will also be sent to Bush, who is expected to sign it.

As far as the actual differences between H.R. 2640 and S.AMDT. 3887, we will just have to wait and see and hope the NRA was not out of line in its analysis.

Now, having written this, I'll move on to the "voice vote" thing.

Whenever the Congress wants to get things done in a hurry, voice votes are taken. At this time of year, all the congresscritters are itching to get home for the holidays and want a recess. Therefore, if you take the time to read the CR's, for the last few days, you will see a tremenduous usage of voice voting. It simply speeds things up for them. Voice votes are also very common for any legislation that all parties agree upon.

Yes, sometimes this can mean some hanky-panky may be going on. But not this time. Sen. Coburn reached the agreement with the Dems late Tuesday night. S.AMDT 3887 was authored by Sen. Leahy and introduced by Sen. Schumer! :eek:

As it now stands, both sides (the NRA and the Brady Center) are claiming a victory, with the VPC roundly criticizing the legislation, and the NRA. Go figure!
 
What I'm trying to figure out is how can anyone call it good or bad if there isn't a typed out copy available to read. For all we know the amendment says "Snoopy was a cartoon dog"
 
Antipitas:

For all our sakes, I do hope that you, and what you referenced as "NRA analysis" prove to be correct. Looking at "the usual suspects" herewith involved, as you mentioned above, Senators Leahy and Schumer, I tend to wonder.

As to this voice vote, as you mentioned, such can most certainly be utilized to cover up "hanky-panky", as you so nicely described it. Quite possibly I'm simply an evil minded old man, but it seems to me that I've seen altogether to much trash rushed through Congress, and as for "all the congresscritters are itching to get home for the holidays and want a recess", those people are a whole lot better paid than I ever was, and I used to live in hotels and motels for a year at a time, without any of the benefits they lavish on themselves. Likely, I should have gone to law school, after finishing college that is, didn't do that either, my fault entirely. seems to me that push coming to shove, and with a view to the oaths of office that those "congresscritteres" all take, they are way overly well paid for the piss poor work product they produce.

It's late and I'm kind of tired, and it seems that I grow crankier on a logarithmic scale, compared to simply growing older. As to the legislation being available next week, likely after the president has signed it, perhaps with "signing statements", that strikes me as one hell of a way to run a war, or the proverbial lemonade stand. No criticims of you intended.
 
I find it rather comical that VPC denounced the legislation as a wish list for NRA, and yet, here's what their sister organization, the Brady Campaign, sent to me today, as one of their email list recipients:

Dear *****,

Great news! Last night, Congress passed a bill that will strengthen the Brady background check system. It will help ensure that fewer guns end up in the hands of dangerous people like felons and those who have been found to be a threat to themselves or others because of mental illness.

After the Virginia Tech tragedy, with your help, we asked our national leaders, "What are YOU going to do about gun violence?"

The tide is turning. Yesterday, Congress passed the first major piece of legislation to reduce gun violence in over a decade — and congratulations are in order: you, our donors and activists, helped make this victory possible. Thank you!

The "National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640) was passed by unanimous consent in the U.S. Senate and House, and now goes to the President's desk for signature.

PLEASE CALL PRESIDENT BUSH TODAY AT 202-456-1111
Urge Him to Sign the NICS Improvement Act Immediately
Give the Virginia Tech families this victory before the New Year



This legislation was passed in response to the Virginia Tech massacre. The killer was able to arm himself because the court order that should have blocked his gun purchase was not reported to the national Brady background check system.

We deeply appreciate the courage and strength of the Virginia Tech victims. On October 16, many of the Virginia Tech families joined Brady President Paul Helmke and me on Capitol Hill calling for passage of this legislation — the efforts of all the families involved were crucial to this victory.

Our special thanks go out to Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) for their work on this legislation.

Much work lies ahead with the implementation of this legislation and our efforts to make the Brady background check system as strong as it can and should be. I know I can count on you to help us make future victories possible.

Click here for more information on the NICS Improvement Act.

Thank you again and happy holidays.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair
Click to expand...
 
This may be a dumb question... but here goes.. Just what are they considering "mental defect"? A person with depression, a bi-polar person, a person who sees a shrink, or is it someone who has gone before a court and been ruled as mentally incompetent? Just curious, as I never really understood where the line was drawn...
Click to expand...

Not at all. You have to be forcefully committed by a judge to a mental institution as an imminent risk to yourself and society and have pyschatric doctors approve it. It is rather hard to get on the list in the first place.

What the law basically means is that states have to hand over the names that qualify for the list to go on the Federal list that would block them from buying, and allows some money to pay for this, while allowing such a decision to be removed in the future, should you no longer be deemed an imminent risk to yourself and society.

The likes of depression and bi-polar diagnosis by a doctor is not going to do it. Being the next Charles Manson is.
 
As someone who suffers from Bi-polar disorder I have to agree that the seriously mentally ill should not have guns, cars, or large knives for that matter. I also agree that once they have undergone and continue treatment, as I have, they should be removed from the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top