NICS Reauthorization

[Tom Servo]

The NICS system is up for reauthorization this year. It's still under debate in the Senate, but here's what's going on.

Under Section 103:

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``as a mental defective'' each place that
term appears and inserting ``mentally incompetent'';
(2) by striking ``mental institution'' each place that term
appears and inserting ``psychiatric hospital''; and
(3) in section 102(c)(3)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``as a mental
defective or committed to a mental institution'' and
inserting ``mentally incompetent or committed to a
psychiatric hospital''; and
(B) by striking ``mental institutions'' and inserting
``psychiatric hospitals''.

Section 106 contains the "Nationwide Project Exile Expansion,'' which contains provisions to actually, you know, prosecute people who violate existing laws.

Section 108 has a post Fast & Furious tidbit:

The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose

Sections 109 and 110 tighten up rules a bit on straw purchasing.

Section 114 prohibits the Attorney General from requiring dealers to submit reports for multiple sales of long guns.

Section 116 requires federal agencies to report the amount of ammunition they're buying as a result of the stupid DHS ammunition buy conspiracy theory.

Section 118 changes 922(b)(3) to allow dealers to sell handguns to folks outside their home state.

Section 119 allows dealers to use the NICS system to do background checks on employees.

Of particular note are amendments SA 730-733, which are each titled, "an
amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale." Though the amendments carry that title, the actual verbiage is silent on the notion of universal checks and seems only to apply to mental-health reporting.

Thanks to Bartholomew Roberts for pointing this out.

 

[Spats McGee]

I saw BR's post, and it got me to thinking: If NICS is up for reauthorization, what happens if it's not reauthorized? My gut says that we then have a federal requirment for background checks on certain sales, but no way to perform them. That would be problematic for gun buyers.

Some sections from the text cause me a little heartburn, though:

SA 725. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Graham, Mr. Thune,
Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Flake, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cornyn,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Risch, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Portman,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Coburn)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from
buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background
check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; as follows:

I do not see where the text of the amendment actually requires the bolded and underlined part above, however.

SEC. 114. MULTIPLE SALES REPORTS FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

Section 923(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) The Attorney General may not require a licensee to
submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other
disposition of 2 or more rifles or shotguns during a
specified period of time.''.

Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time? My gut says no, but expect someone on the anti side to claim that that's exactly what it means.

 

[SamNavy]

Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time?

Looks like the perfect excuse to convince the wife that I JUST HAD TO buy 2 rifles.

 

[Tom Servo]

Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time?

I'm doubtful that it'll be interpreted that way. The main reason for it was the forced reporting requirement instituted in four border states following the Fast & Furious mess. Theoretically, it's already unlawful, but this puts some teeth in it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Really should be written as "The Attorney General may not require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other disposition during any specified or indeterminate period of time of any number of rifles, shotguns, handguns or any other device over which the BATFE exercises over-sight. "

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

Really should be written as "The Attorney General may not require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other disposition during any specified or indeterminate period of time of any number of rifles, shotguns, handguns or any other device over which the BATFE exercises over-sight. "

Yes, but current law requires report of multiple handgun purchases. So unless the intent is to repeal that requirement (which would be a good thing), the last part would not "fix" the perceived ambiguity.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I am not sure, but I believe the psychiatric jargon changes conform with DSM V and the old law does not. I don't have a copy available to check.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

So unless the intent is...

SHHHHhhhhhh!

That's where you bury the clause at the end, which reads:

This law supersedes any previous and/or contradictory laws on the matters addressed within.

 

[gc70]

Of particular note are amendments SA 730-733, which are each titled, "an amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale." Though the amendments carry that title, the actual verbiage is silent on the notion of universal checks and seems only to apply to mental-health reporting.

I think the part in bold describes S.649 rather than the amendments. The language is exactly the same as the purpose statement following "A BILL" at the beginning of S.649 and preceding the bill text.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

S.A. 725 already received a vote in the Senate, this is the Grassley-Cruz Amendment offered as an alternative to Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. It received 52 votes but needed 60 to pass due to the consent agreement. The only amendments to receive less votes were the AWB and magazine ban amendments which failed even a simple majority.

While I strongly suspect that the bill to reauthorize funding in the House will end up looking very much like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment, it doesn't look like that language is going to pass the Senate.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

While I strongly suspect that the bill to reauthorize funding in the House will end up looking very much like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment, it doesn't look like that language is going to pass the Senate.

Maybe not while there is a lot of attention on it. But the Senate will not want to fail to reauthorize NICS and this could pass quietly later in the year.