Sen. Graham Offers Alternative Background Check Bill Backed by NRA

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...duces-background-check-bill-with-nra-backing/

Basically, the bill says if you have ever pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity" you are now added to NICS as a prohibited person. The bill also clears up a statutory definition of mentally incompetent to make it clear you must be involuntarily committed for being a danger to yourself and others.

Apparently the prospect of a bill that says "background check" on it and is also backed by the NRA is being welcomed by many Democrats like it was a miracle from heaven. They are eager to get on board a bill that they hope will please a majority of their constituents.
 
Graham is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he'd be out of a job if that were not the case. It is also the lone reason he will win reelection from this state in 2014. We aren't real happy with a lot of his other decisions and compromises though.
 
Basically, the bill says if you have ever pleaded "not guilty by reason of insanity" you are now added to NICS as a prohibited person.
Click to expand...
Somebody thus adjudicated is already disqualified from owning a firearm:

Adjudicated Mentally 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.
Click to expand...

So, is this bill simply tightening up the requirements for reporting such findings to NICS?
 
Not QUITE correct Tom. I saw this little gem in this Op Ed piece. This woman was able to plead Not Guilty, but charges were dropped, so she slipped through the cracks. If the story referenced by the OP is accurate, this would now apply the Adjudicated Mentally Deficient test to this woman, and others like her where the system starts, but then quits before verdict is rendered.

Edit: Thought about it for a second, and decided to check for myself, however S.480 has no been received by the GPO yet, and the text is not available. Graham is from SC though, so maybe he is catching that little whoopsie, and maybe not.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, the big background check fight is whether if one goes to buy a gun, will the check become a permanent federal report - thus a registration ploy.

Schumer wants that as a harmless, blah, blah ...

Tightening up on reporting those adjudicated is not a big deal as compared to a registry (or whatever by any other name).

Flipping news channels yesterday, I saw an MSNBC host (what else) reporting some survey that most of the country supports background checks. Of course, an analysis of the registration issue and the risks would never enter their minds.
 
Nor is the concept of BG Checks leading to a registry usually brought up. Ask 1000 people if they favor ice cream, and you'll get a high positive. Ask them if they favor cyanide chunk (poison pill) ice cream, and the answer is going to change.
 
cyanide chunk (poison pill) ice cream

That flavor is available if you want to end up on a marble slab.

It's typical, vivid instance and surface validity politics.

Bah.
 
Last edited:
Looks like it requires a finding by the court/jury of insanity which makes it palatable. Still, what about a true temporary insanity case?

Years ago, when I wore a different hat, I represented a woman who was borderline "intellectually challenged" and who became addicted to cocaine. She was manipulated and coerced by some violent, fairly big time drug dealers and was charged with conspiracy to traffic two to three kilos. We asserted an insanity defense. By the time of trial, she was clean and had regained her physical and mental health (obviously did not gain intelligence). At any rate, the jury found her not guilty by reason of (temporary) insanity (maybe some jury nullification going on as well). This was somebody who was not a danger to anyone at anytime, let alone after she rehabilitated herself. I would hate to think an important constitutional right would be taken away from someone in this kind of circumstance.
 
Her temporary insanity was created by her lack of intelligence. Being a danger is not the criteria of stripping second amendment rights. Mental deficiency is. I am not so horrified at this person losing her second amendment rights. She is/was an unlawful/addicted user of illegal drugs. She was mentally deficient enough to be led down a criminal path- if the people controlling her had been less benevolent(not that the bar is all that high) would she have killed their rivals, stolen their cocaine, etc?

And I find losing 2nd amendment rights immediately upon pleading Insanity just as palatable as someone who is adjudicated so. No one forces someone to plead that way unless they still go through a hearing when they refuse to assist counsel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top