Posted on 05/24/2002 9:23:12 AM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:32 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- In a surprising alignment of onetime rivals, one of the National Rifle Association's most stalwart backers in Congress has teamed up with one of its biggest opponents to try to make it tougher for felons and other banned gun owners to buy firearms.
The measure would provide states with more than $1.1 billion over the next three years to upgrade records that help ensure compliance with gun buying laws. It would penalize those states that do not get up to speed, and it could expand the data that states have to give the federal government about banned gun owners, such as the mentally ill.
(Excerpt) Read more at detroitnews.com ...
H.R.4757
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn(introduced 5/16/2002)
Latest Major Action: 5/16/2002 Referred to House committee. Latest Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Title: To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.
Rep Andrews, Robert E. - 5/16/2002 Rep Blagojevich, Rod R. - 5/16/2002
Rep Brown, Corrine - 5/16/2002 Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 5/16/2002
Rep Carson, Julia - 5/16/2002 Rep Castle, Michael N. - 5/16/2002
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/16/2002 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 5/16/2002
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 5/16/2002 Rep DeGette, Diana - 5/24/2002
Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. - 5/16/2002 Rep Dingell, John D. - 5/16/2002
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 5/16/2002 Rep Ford, Harold, Jr. - 5/16/2002
Rep Frank, Barney - 5/16/2002 Rep Gilman, Benjamin A. - 5/16/2002
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - 5/22/2002 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 5/16/2002
Rep Hoeffel, Joseph M. - 5/16/2002 Rep Israel, Steve - 5/16/2002
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 5/16/2002 Rep Kirk, Mark Steven - 5/16/2002
Rep Langevin, James R. - 5/16/2002 Rep Lofgren, Zoe - 5/16/2002
Rep Lowey, Nita M. - 5/16/2002 Rep McGovern, James P. - 5/16/2002
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 5/16/2002 Rep Moore, Dennis - 5/16/2002
Rep Moran, James P. - 5/16/2002 Rep Morella, Constance A. - 5/16/2002
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 5/16/2002 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 5/16/2002
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. - 5/16/2002 Rep Rivers, Lynn N. - 5/16/2002
Rep Rothman, Steve R. - 5/16/2002 Rep Roukema, Marge - 5/16/2002
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 5/16/2002 Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 5/16/2002
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 5/16/2002 Rep Sherman, Brad - 5/16/2002
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. - 5/16/2002 Rep Towns, Edolphus - 5/16/2002
Rep Waters, Maxine - 5/16/2002 Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 5/16/2002
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 5/16/2002 Rep Wexler, Robert - 5/16/2002
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 5/16/2002
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4757
To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 16, 2002
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. KIRK, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. GILMAN, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mrs. MORELLA, Mr. ANDREWS, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. FRANK, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MOORE, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. BLAGOJEVICH, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HOEFFEL, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. FORD, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. WEINER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Ms. WATERS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. CLAY, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. DELAURO, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To improve the national instant criminal background check system, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Our Lady of Peace Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Since 1994, more than 689,000 individuals have been denied a gun for failing a background check.
(2) States that fail to computerize their criminal and mental illness records are the primary cause of delays for background checks. Helping States automate their records will reduce delays for law-abiding gun owners.
(3) 25 States have automated less than 60 percent of their felony criminal conviction records.
(4) 33 States do not automate or share disqualifying mental health records.
(5) In 13 States, domestic violence restraining orders are not automated or accessible by the national instant criminal background check system.
(6) In 15 States, no domestic violence misdemeanor records are automated or accessible by the national instant criminal background check system.
TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS
SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--
(1) by striking `may' and inserting `shall, not less frequently than quarterly,';
(2) by inserting `electronically' before `furnish'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: `The head of each such department or agency shall ascertain whether the department or agency has any records on any person described in any paragraph of section 922(g), title 18, United States Code, and on being made aware that the department or agency of such a record, shall transmit a copy of the record to the Attorney General for inclusion in the system. The Attorney General shall notify the Congress on a quarterly basis as to whether the Attorney General has obtained from each such department or agency the information required to be provided to the Attorney General under this subsection.'.
(b) IMMIGRATION RECORDS- The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service shall immediately transmit all relevant records of persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal law, including but not limited to, illegal aliens, visitors to the United States on student visas, and visitors to the United States on tourist visas, to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.
SEC. 102. TRANSMITTAL OF STATE RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL- A State that does not meet the requirements of this section shall be subject to section 104.
(b) REQUIREMENTS- The requirements of this section are as follows:
(1) The State shall provide the name of and other relevant identifying information relating to persons disqualified from acquiring a firearm under Federal or State law to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.
(2) Any information provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1) may be accessed only by personnel legally entitled to access such system.
(3) The State shall certify to the Attorney General that at least 95 percent of all information under paragraph (1) has been provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1).
SEC. 103. TRANSMITTAL OF STATE MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL- A State that does not meet the requirement of this section shall be subject to section 104.
(b) REQUIREMENT- The requirement of this section is that the State shall provide the name of and other relevant identifying information relating to persons adjudicated as mental defective or those committed to mental institutions to the Attorney General for inclusion in the national instant criminal background check system.
(c) DEFINITION- For purposes of subsection (b), an adjudication as a mental defective occurs when a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority determines that an individual is mentally retarded or of marked subnormal intelligence, mentally ill, or mentally incompetent, including--
(1) defendants in criminal cases adjudicated as not guilty by reason of insanity, or found incompetent to stand trial;
(2) individuals found to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or illness;
(3) individuals involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other authority;
(4) individuals committed for reasons other than mental defectiveness or mental illness; and
(5) individuals committed within the past 5 years to a mental institution--
(A) for treatment of alcoholism; or
(B) as an unlawful user of, or person addicted to, any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), provided that such unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.
(d) EXCEPTION- This section does not apply to--
(1) a person--
(A) in a mental institution for observation; or
(B) voluntarily committed to a mental institution; or
(2) information protected by doctor-patient privilege.
(e) PRIVACY PROTECTIONS- The Attorney General shall work with State and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided in this section. Such protocols shall be in addition to any other applicable laws for protecting the privacy of such information.
(e) COMMENCEMENT OF TRANSMITTAL- Notwithstanding subsection (c), the State shall begin to comply with subsection (b) not later than January 1, 2005. If such compliance occurs before the establishment of protocols under subsection (c), the Attorney General shall ensure that any information provided under this section may be accessed only by personnel authorized by law to access the national instant criminal background check system.
SEC. 104. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.
(a) ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of States in automating the databases containing information under sections 102 and 103 and in providing that information pursuant to the requirements of sections 102 and 103.
(b) PENALTIES-
(1) AFTER THREE YEARS- During the period beginning three years after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending five years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General may (but need not), for any State that fails to provide under sections 102 and 103 at least 60 percent of the information required to be provided under those sections, decline to allocate to that State up to 5 percent of the amounts that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756).
(2) AFTER FIVE YEARS- After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall, for any State that fails to provide under sections 102 and 103 at least 95 percent of the information required to be provided under those sections, decline to allocate to that State 10 percent of the amounts that would otherwise be allocated to that State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3765).
(3) WAIVER BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General may waive the applicability of paragraph (2) to a State if that State provides compelling evidence of its inability to meet the requirements of sections 102 and 103.
(c) REALLOCATION- Any funds that are not allocated for failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (b) shall be reallocated to States that meet such requirements.
SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS TO STATES.
(a) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each State, in a manner consistent with the national criminal history improvement program, which shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of local government and State and local courts, to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations.
(b) USE OF GRANT AMOUNTS- Grants under this section may only be awarded for the following purposes:
(1) Building databases that are directly related to checks under the national instant criminal background check system (NICS), including court disposition and corrections records.
(2) Assisting States in establishing or enhancing their own capacities to perform NICS background checks.
(3) Improving final dispositions of criminal records.
(4) Supplying mental health records to NICS.
(5) Supplying domestic violence restraining orders and temporary restraining orders for inclusion in NICS.
(c) CONDITION- As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State shall specify the projects for which grant amounts will be used, and shall use such amounts only as specified. A State that violates this section shall be liable to the Attorney General for the full amount granted.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT RECORDS
SEC. 201. CONTINUING EVALUATIONS.
(a) EVALUATION REQUIRED- The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall study and evaluate the operations of the national instant criminal background check system. Such study and evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, compilations and analyses of the operations and record systems of the agencies and organizations participating in such system.
(b) REPORT ON GRANTS- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation of sections 102 and 103 of this Act.
(c) REPORT ON BEST PRACTICES- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress, and to each State participating in the National Criminal History Improvement Program, a report of the practices of the States regarding the collection, maintenance, automation, and transmittal of identifying information relating to individuals described in section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code, by the State or any other agency, or any other records relevant to the national instant criminal background check system, that the Director considers to be best practices.
TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS
SEC. 301. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.
(a) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each State for use by the chief judicial officer of the State to improve the handling of proceedings related to criminal history dispositions and temporary restraining orders as they relate to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.
(b) USE OF FUNDS- Amounts granted under this section shall be used by the chief judicial officer only as follows:
(1) For fiscal year 2003, such amounts shall be used to carry out assessments of the capabilities of the courts of the State for the automation and transmission to State and Federal record repositories the arrest and conviction records of such courts to the extent relevant to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.
(2) For fiscal years after 2003, such amounts shall be used to implement policies, systems, and procedures for the automation and transmission to State and Federal record repositories the arrest and conviction records of such courts to the extent relevant to disqualification from firearms ownership under State and Federal laws.
(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
-------------------------------------
This one isn't that bad, but I'm still opposed to it for different reasons. To me, this is an infringement on STATES RIGHTS.
2)Yet more information in federal databases? No way! Enough is enough!
3) I don't trust the federal govt to obey the privacy strictures listed in the bill. Who enforces them? Why no penalties for disobeying?
They like to cite that number quite often, but many (if not most) of those denied are denied because of screw-ups in the computer system, or for having a name similar to a convicted felon.
I see this legislation as one step closer to a national computer database that will eventually include all Americans with KGB-style reports on each of us.
They called two pro-2a reps anti-gun.
They said that the shall issue bill was not shall issue and was on the same side as Anti-Self Defense jerks like Mike Duggan and MPPGV
They said they were working on a good CCW law in Michigan with a state senator, they never contacted him. Another lie.
It was the NRA, and only the NRA that helped us in Michigan get rid of that awful discretionary law. The NRA helped give us the heads up when prosecutor Dunnings tried to overturn the law.
The NRA is the best org out there. This bill, which I do not support, is not really an anti-gun bill that takes away rights. It follows existing law. The NRA is staying out of this one, probably for that reason.
The NRA is not perfect. As for GOA, I've personally done more in a week, then they have ever done, at least in Michigan. I've never seen GOA set foot in my state, and this is a swing state.
Sunday, May 27, 2001 Copyright (c) Las Vegas Review-Journal COLUMN: VIN SUPRYNOWICZ Snatching defeat from the jaws of victoryOne way America's mainstream media reveal their rabid anti-self-defense prejudice is through their insistence on characterizing the National Rifle Association as a wild-eyed group of no-compromise, gun-rights extremists.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The NRA endorsed the original federal handgun control bill of the 1930s; the 1968 Gun Control Act; and the Brady Bill with its waiting periods and now its so-called "instant check" national gun registration (for long guns as well as revolvers.) NRA executives seem happy so long as they continue to collect dues and contributions from the outfit's reported 4 million dull-witted members, who apparently never tire of the siren song, "We got you a better compromise than if we hadn't been here; we only bargained away a few more of your rights this year."
Until March 16, Dennis Fusaro worked for the NRA's chief competitor in the field of Washington gun-rights lobbying, the 300,000-member Gun Owners of America, training local activists to lobby against further restrictions on the Second Amendment at the state level.
He appears to have done his job too well.
As opposed to the old NRA game of "Let's Make a Deal," Fusaro says he was training GOA's local activists to hold the feet of anti-Bill-of-Rights politicians to the fire and "tell them, `Do what you have to do, but you know where we stand. If you vote any way but for our gun rights, we will work against you in the next election; we will rate you with an "F"; we will run people against you; we will get all the gun owners to vote against you; we will defeat you.' Politicians respond to whoever makes their lives miserable. If they can count on your being their friend no matter what they do, they're going to start cozying up to Sarah Brady."
Fusaro says it was precisely his budding success with these tactics in 20-plus states that led the GOA board of directors to attempt to pull in the reins on such effective lobbying, and -- when that didn't work -- to fire him.
"The local pols tell the lobbyists, 'Can't you control your people?' And what's more important to the (professional) lobbyists is to have these relationships with these politicians rather than saving your rights. And I said that, and for saying that I had to go."
There "were some personality differences" that led to the removal of Fusaro, GOA executive director Larry Pratt insists, adding that the group will not be going "softer" on any gun issues. "It's a shame" that Fusaro had "a personality difference with the chairman of the board," 73-year-old GOA founder and former California state Sen. H.L. "Bill" Richardson.
"If it had just been a personality difference that'd be great," Fusaro responds, "but if it was just a personality difference, why did (GOA) board members come out and say we can't lose the Republican majority in 2002; we have to get Bush re-elected? If that's our primary objective, then what can Bush and the Republicans in Congress do to us, or fail to do for us? Why should they feel obliged to do anything for gun owners?"
It's the larger NRA which cynics have long described as the "Gun Owners' Auxiliary to the Republican Party," of course, since the nation's largest gun control organization will often award its "A" or "B" rating to GOP turncoats who have voted for half the gun control laws to come down the pike, endorsing them over Libertarians or other third party candidates who vow to repeal every gun law on the books.
Why? Because the third party candidate "can't win," of course, and the NRA lobbyist's real game is to "retain access" to the GOP incumbent after helping him win re-election. Why insist on the plain language of the Second Amendment ("shall not be infringed") if the end result is fewer cocktail party invitations next year? That could make your organization appear "out of the mainstream."
"Richardson doesn't want GOA people criticizing the NRA," Fusaro explains. "Richardson yelled at me over the phone, he said they have wonderful relations with the NRA in California; we can't have this public disunity" among the supposed gun rights' groups. "Well, hell, let's look at California," which has some of the most onerous victim disarmament laws in the country.
"What Richardson wants most, in my opinion, is to be part of that respectable conservative Republican establishment, and if that's what you want, then they own you. You have to show them you're willing to break up the country club, you're willing to be thrown out, you're willing to be thrown into the briar patch."
Insiders tell me there may indeed be a drop in GOA lobbying at the state legislative level this election cycle, though they place the primary blame on a shortfall in fund-raising -- one that's apparently affecting most conservative organizations since the Bush election.
When it comes to conservative causes, "People are figuring with George Bush elected we've all died and gone to heaven," sighed one frustrated, inside-the-Beltway fund-raiser this week.
Vin Suprynowicz (vin@lvrj.com), the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.
If GOA didn't bash pro-gun bills since they weren't good enough(Vermont or NOTHING), then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. I want better than Vermont carry(Vermont with a premption on local municipalities), but it's not going to happen...YET. I want incrementalism(like the ASD'ers have done) toward Vermont Carry. Also, why do they have to lie? Is the truth that painful for them? When the NRA is wrong, I'll say so. When MCRGO is wrong, I'll say so.
Why? Because the third party candidate "can't win," of course, and the NRA lobbyist's real game is to "retain access" to the GOP incumbent after helping him win re-election. Why insist on the plain language of the Second Amendment ("shall not be infringed") if the end result is fewer cocktail party invitations next year? That could make your organization appear "out of the mainstream."
Third party candidates 'can't win', because they HAVEN'T won. When have they won? Twice. Angus King in Maine, and a celebrity in Jesse Ventura. What about the house and senate? Bernie Sanders and James Jeffords are dems(caucuses with them). There are no 3rd party winners in the state house or senate in Michigan. Where are the results.
MCRGO doesn't have grades, but we have endorsements. We are a little tougher than NRA gradewise, although we are affiliated with them. We say endorsement or no endorsement. If one isn't perfect but better than the other, sometimes we begrudgingly endorse the better one. If both are the same, we stay out.
Fusario seems more obsessed with the NRA than getting good legislation passed. What has GOA done since 1998? One bill that passed the house. That's it.
I want results. If a pro-2a org doesn't get results, they aren't worth my support. I see a lot of noise from GOA and Fusario. What have they really done outside of give me a headache in Michigan when I'm explaining the real story to angry emails or messages on the MCRGO message boards.
MCRGO and NRA get good results. I can carry in Michigan. Thank you NRA. Thank you MCRGO. Screw GOA. They weren't at the capitol. They didn't lobby. In fact, they fought us.
I tend to be a little bitter about that.
The deal the NRA was brokering was no opposition to trigger locks from them if the EE thing got past. GOA and Fusaro helped us mainly by providing a mailing list of GOA members and others so that we could sent out a mailing with post cards to be sent back to the legislators. Our state level mailing list of CSG members was only about 3900 at its peak, so the extra names came in handy for putting pressure on the legislature. SO I had a considerably different experience vis a vie GOA and NRA than you did. Eventually this died, and after a while, the NRA denied that it ever happened.
In addition, the NRA actively supported the instant background check at the state level. I tried to convince their state lobbyist, Bill Davis, that it was a bad thing because it 1 changed a right to a permission and 2 it enables the government to keep a permanent computerized record of gun owners as in registration. He's not a bad guy, but he wouldn't stray form the official NRA line that instant background checks are desirable. I said before and I'll say again. what the NRA says to its members and what goes on behind the scenes are two different things. The NRA never met a gun control law that it didn't end up liking.
Our NRA guy is Todd Adkins. The guy before him sucked, I don't know his name, but he is now out of a job. There was a swing race in Saginaw county(1998). The seat leaned dem, but we had a strong candidate in Jim Howell(GOP), and Geoff Fieger was on top of the dem ticket(98 was almost a 94 in Michigan). NRA backed the dem. MCRGO backed Howell. Howell won. The NRA guy was replaced with Todd Adkins. Todd is on the same page as us, and he is on our board of directors. Todd helped us with CCW, and is helping us as well. The NRA endorsed us as a group for the state level. They helped us with the CCW lawsuit behind the scenes as well.
While we compromise when we gain more than lose, we(Michigan - MCRGO/NRA) don't give away our rights. When John Engler signed CCW and vetoed the Vear Transportation bill(wanted it both ways), we wern't happy about it, and we put Vear back on his desk a year later. Democrat Chris Dingell(better than John) went to bat for us and got Vear passed in the Senate, and Steve Vear got it passed the house again. Engler signed it the second time and apparently told Chris Dingell - (Get these guys off my back).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.