New Bipartisan Gun Bill on NICS Denials

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Pro-RKBA and gun grabbers have teamed up to introduce a bill requiring the FBI to report NICS denials to state law enforcement agencies within 24 hours, as well as require the Justice Department to regularly report on prosecutions for lying on the 4473.

As some of you are aware, NICS made over 76,000 denials in 2010. Of those, 4,732 were referred to ATF field branches for further investigation. Only 62 were actually prosecuted.

The idea behind the new law is to start arresting people when they attempt to obtain a firearm by lying on the 4473 and slipping through one of the many gaps in NICs.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...te-reporting-buyers-blocked-background-check/
 
Enforce an existing law?

What a novel idea! If you think about it, it's a sad commentary when you have to pass a law to try to get a law enforcement agency to enforce a law that's already on the books.
 
For years, I've been arguing that current law needs to be better enforced before new laws should be enacted. I'll need to look at the bill, but if the article's accurate, I don't see a problem with this bill.
 
steve4102 said:
Lying on a federal form is a Federal crime, how is this a State's issue?
Click to expand...
State and local law enforcement has more resources to go after offenders than the Feds do. Additionally, many states have laws that mirror federal law regarding attempted acquisition of firearms by convicted criminals and/or people subject to protective orders, so this would allow state and local LE to go after offenders on state charges immediately, rather than waiting on the ATF bureaucracy to work; it cuts out the middleman, so to speak.
 
How about a law requiring a report on the amount of false positives from background checks?
How about making the check for the same things in ALL states?
Owning a 10 round mag in NY is a felony and 100% legal in most states.
Why does writing a bad check stop you from buying or owning a gun?
Why is all mental illness a dis qualifier when 99+% of mental patients never show any form of violence?

We don't need background checks or laws that prohibit owning a gun, killing , hurting or robbing with a gun are already illegal.
 
Lohman446 said:
Leader said:
Why is all mental illness a dis qualifier
Click to expand...
Is all mental illness a dis qualifier?
Click to expand...
No, it emphatically is not, nor should be. If you read Form 4473, question 11(f) reads as follows: Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

To be disqualified by mental illness, a person must have been found by a court to be mentally incapable or a danger to self or others. It's not the mental illness as such that's disqualifying.
 
Lohman I've never seen or heard your question addressed in any rational way. There is a big difference in mild depression that is tied to a traumatic life experience like loss of a loved one, and psychosis that causes a complete break with reality.

Who decides? A governmental bureaucrat? A medical professional with a political agenda? Local law enforcement? What sort of appeal process is in place to assure due process?

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people. Unfortunately as a gun carrying citizen, I fit that definition according to many.
 
With NICS in place, use of the 4473 should be discontinued. Not even sure it's a reasonable expectation for everyone to tell the truth on the form due to the 5th amendment issues.
 
Evan it is the process for removing the right to buy or own guns that I am worried about. An ex-wife with a grudge enough? A neighbor who doesn't like my lawn grooming style? The meer suggestion of erratic behavior to local law enforcement?
 
Evan it is the process for removing the right to buy or own guns that I am worried about. An ex-wife with a grudge enough? A neighbor who doesn't like my lawn grooming style? The meer suggestion of erratic behavior to local law enforcement?
Click to expand...

The process and the impacts of the process.

For instance let's consider that I start to notice some symptoms that are consistent with schizophrenia in myself. Do I go and see a mental health professional and seek treatment knowing that such treatment MAY, with an adjustment in the laws, ban me from owning firearms?

What about depression? Are we going to trust our politicians to make an inclusive list of mental illnesses and severity we are concerned with or our judicial system sorting out those questions?
 
Not even sure it's a reasonable expectation for everyone to tell the truth on the form due to the 5th amendment issues.
Click to expand...

You may consider lying on the form as a protected right, it is not. The 5th Amendment says you are not compelled to witness against yourself in a criminal case. Of course if you lie on your form you may have the opportunity to use it. That assumes you will be prosecuted...
 
K_Mac said:
Evan it is the process for removing the right to buy or own guns that I am worried about. An ex-wife with a grudge enough? A neighbor who doesn't like my lawn grooming style? The meer suggestion of erratic behavior to local law enforcement?
Click to expand...
Did you note the underlined portion of my reply? The part that reads "by a court"? This is what is technically known as "due process."

For someone to be adjudicated mentally defective, a court must hold a hearing on a person's competence, find them incapable of handling their own affairs, and appoint a legal guardian. This isn't something that's treated casually, nor is it something which lends itself to nuisance complaints of the kind you mention. Similarly, the process of involuntarily committing someone to a mental institution requires a court to review evidence and find that the person is a danger to themselves or others. It puts a substantial burden of proof on those making the request, as it should -- depriving someone of liberty (and other rights) isn't something to be undertaken casually.

We're now seeing attempts to weaken these processes in the name of safety, and -- regrettably -- many of these proposals are coming from pro-gun people who are essentially scapegoating people with mental illness, who are far less likely to perpetrate violence than to be its victims.
 
K_Mac said:
You may consider lying on the form as a protected right, it is not. The 5th Amendment says you are not compelled to witness against yourself in a criminal case. Of course if you lie on your form you may have the opportunity to use it. That assumes you will be prosecuted...
Click to expand...
I don't consider lying on the form a protected right, but I am saying it's not reasonable to expect everyone to tell the truth on the form, especially given the 5th amendment issues. I'm not sure the standard argument about the 5th Amendment only applying in a criminal case measures up to reality. It seems likely that statements given on the form could be used against someone in a criminal case at a later date. The 4473 even states as much, and you suggested it as well.

In most (all?) other criminal cases, a person will be made aware of charges against them and be given the Miranda warning so that subsequent statements will be considered admissible. Such is not the case with the 4473. In fact the 4473 seems to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent potential 5th Amendment issues.
 
Evan Thomas said:
No, it emphatically is not, nor should be. If you read Form 4473, question 11(f) reads as follows: Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Click to expand...
And the question is followed by a note to see the instructions for question 11f, which say:

Question 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: 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. This 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.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental
institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term
includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes
commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments
for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a
mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.
Click to expand...

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
 
Your argument is flawed BB. You certainly have the right to not answer a question on the form. Lying on the form, or in court is not a protected right. I will leave further discussion to those more familiar with the nuances of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top