Posted on 10/07/2007 7:35:04 AM PDT by SJackson
(CNSNews.com) - The normally solid "gun lobby" has split on a bill intended to improve the system for conducting instant background checks on would-be gun-buyers.
The bill would require federal agencies to provide records of all individuals who are prohibited by law from owning guns to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS); and it would provide financial incentives for the states to automate and transmit their records to NICS as well. (States would be penalized for noncompliance.)
The goal is to provide NICS with updated criminal and mental health records -- to prevent a situation like the Virginia Tech shootings, where a student who should have been flagged as having mental problems was allowed to buy a gun.
H.R. 2640, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, passed the House in June, but it can't advance in the Senate because Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has placed a hold on it, as Senate rules allow him to do.
The bill -- sponsored by gun control advocates Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) among others -- has the support of the National Rifle Association.
"The legislation would improve the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records," the NRA said.
But the much smaller Gun Owners of America (which calls itself "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington") said the NRA has "taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement."
Sen. Coburn -- a gun-owner and a staunch supporter of an individual's right to bear arms -- objects to the bill because it would create "a pathway by which individuals can lose their Second Amendment rights but no pathway through which they can gain them back if they're stable," he was quoted as saying.
He also expressed concern about the cost of the legislation.
Concern about veterans
While the NRA supports efforts to improve the instant background check system that was set up 14 years ago, Gun Owners of America strongly opposes the system and always has.
According to the NRA, H.R. 2640 would remove gun ownership rights only if a person is found to be a danger to himself or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
The NRA emphasized that neither current federal law nor H.R. 2640 would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital. Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS.
But the way Gun Owners of America sees it, "Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer's (and there goes the family inheritance)."
The Associated Press, in reporting on House passage of H.R. 2640, said it "could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade." But the NRA insists it is not a gun control bill.
"Some pro-gun groups have claimed that H.R. 2640 would 'prohibit' thousands of people from owning guns. This is not true," the NRA said. "In fact, H.R. 2640 would allow some people now unfairly prohibited from owning guns to have their rights restored, and to have their names removed from the instant check system."
"We saw veterans go into the system unfairly with no way to get their rights restored," Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA, was quoted as saying by The Hill newspaper. "Once they're in the system, there's no way to get out. While not perfect, this legislation would go a long way towards helping to address some concerns [with the database]."
The NRA said the bill would require all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments (such as the Veterans Administration) to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." That means even if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency, the person would have an opportunity to correct the error.
"This actually restores the person's rights, as well as deleting the record from NICS -- a significant improvement over current law," the NRA said.
The legislation also prohibits federal fees for NICS checks. "A permanent ban on such a 'gun tax' has been an NRA priority for nearly a decade," the NRA said.
Dangerous alliances
In an open letter to the pro-gun community, Gun Owners of America said the NRA has "made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret."
GOA says the pending bill would "rubber-stamp" federal regulations "which have already been used to strip gun rights from 110,000 veterans. It would also allow an anti-gun administration to turn over Americans' most private medical records to the federal instant check system without a court order."
GOA also objects to the fact that the bill was "hatched in secret, without hearings or testimony," and passed out of the House without a roll call vote. The same thing is happening in the Senate, GOA said.
Passing the bill "will not quell calls for gun control," GOA said. "To the contrary, it will embolden our enemies to push for the abolition of even more of our Second Amendment rights."
The GOA also says the bill will not do anything more than current law does to help people get their gun rights restored: "The reason why no one has been able to get their rights restored under current law is that funds for the system have been blocked by Chuck Schumer," GOA said.
The bill's cost is a consideration as well, GOA said.
The GOA, in its open letter, "respectfully" asked the NRA staff to "step back from a battle with its membership" by opposing the bill rather than supporting it.
Another Second Amendment group is challenging senators on both sides of the aisle to make sure the bill does what it is supposed to do.
Mark A. Taff, executive director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said, "Senate Republicans have an opportunity to stand up for gun rights, and that includes restoring those rights to thousands of veterans whose names were wrongly included in the NICS database.
"It also includes sticking up for American citizens whose names have been wrongly entered into that database," Taff said.
"Senate Democrats should guarantee that this legislation protects and enhances due process," Taff said. He noted that 83,000 veterans' names were added to the NICS database arbitrarily during the Clinton administration -- "and that must be corrected. They have found themselves disqualified from enjoying a constitutionally-protected civil right that they fought to defend."
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb called for full funding of the process that gets people's name off the can't-buy-a-gun list ("relief from disabilities" investigations).
"Though the process remains on the books, there has been no implementing funding since 1991," he said. "People who have a mistake in their past, but have become productive citizens cannot get their rights restored.
"There should be a mechanism in place to allow funding of RFD investigations, even if the petitioner pays the costs himself. If we can restore voting rights, we must have the ability to restore other civil rights," Gottlieb said.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640&tab=summary
Overview Summary Floor Speeches Other Info
Congressional Research Service Summary
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
6/13/2007--Passed House without amendment.
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 -
Title I - Transmittal of Records Section 101 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms; (2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly; and (3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such action to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date. Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide the Attorney General, not less than quarterly, information for determining whether a person is disqualified under the federal criminal code from possessing or receiving a firearm for use in NICS background checks.
Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
Section 102 - Grants states a two-year waiver of the matching fund requirement (10%) for criminal justice identification grants if such states provide at least 90% of the information required to be transmitted to the NICS under this Act. Requires states to provide reasonable estimates of the number of records transmitted to the NICS for purposes of granting such waiver.
Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons: (1) t disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm; (2) convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and (3) adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to mental institutions. Requires states to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS. Requires the Attorney General to: (1) establish regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information in the NICS; and (2) report annually to the Judiciary Committees of Congress on the progress of states in automating criminal records databases and making such data available to the Attorney General.
Section 103 - Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations. Allows up to 5% of grant funding for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems. Specifies allowable uses of grant funds. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010. Prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from charging user fees for NICS background checks.
Section 104 - Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an annual report on the progress of states in automating databases of information for transmittal to the NICS. Authorizes appropriations. Provides for discretionary and mandatory penalties for states that fail to provide information required by this Act. Allows a waiver of such penalties for states that provide substantial evidence of reasonable efforts to comply with requirements for providing information.
Section 105 - Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.
Title II - Focusing Federal Assistance on the Improvement of Relevant Records
Requires the Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics to: (1) study and evaluate the operations of the NICS; and (2) report to Congress annually on state estimates of records transmitted to the NICS and on best practices of states for handling information to be transmitted to the NICS.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title III - Grants to State Court Systems for the Improvement in Automation and Transmittal of Disposition Records
Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments for use by state and tribal court systems to improve the automation and transmittal of criminal history dispositions and records and mental health adjudications or commitments to federal and state record repositories. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
Title IV - GAO Audit
Requires the Comptroller General to audit expenditures for criminal records improvement under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to determine if such expenditures were made in accordance with such Act and to report to Congress on the findings of such audit.
It's worth noting that many states already do this, and many states have stricter standards, for example disqualification of those who voluntarily seek treatment for drug or alcohol problems.
I'm not noticing a lot of "fix" in this bill. Just a shuffling of the decks chairs on the USS Titanic.
Further, setting up a government office to review lifting the restrictions would end up in the same office as registering new Class III firearms. Bet on it...
Good find...and the issues and concerns about the NRA having already taken ‘the slippery slope’ are well founded. I’m definitely with GOA on this one.
‘’the NRA has “taken a course which, we believe, would be disastrous for the Second Amendment and the pro-gun movement.” ‘’
The bill should NOT pass the Senate. A veteran’s bill, if necessary to get some veterans off the list, can easily be drafted, and titled accordingly. The House in my opinion, passed a bad bill.
So if I lived in that state and attended AA, I couldn't get a gun. If I then move to another state and attend AA, I could.
Under the proposed system, the state where I used to live would report my name to the federal database, meaning I could never get a gun no matter where I go. Well, there's an improvement, huh? Thank God my state doesn't consider ADD a disqualifier.
Perhaps you'll say that I can appeal, based on differing state laws. Fine. Then why even adopt the new system?
What supporters of this law do not want to consider is how this law will impact the willingness of young men who like to hunt to enlist in the armed forces.
Another NRA frog boiling sell out.
Read the bill.
I'm not that familiar with the federal regulations which are looser than here in Illinois. But in Illinois, anyone committed within the last 5 years, for any reason. I believe the federal standard requires a commitment for danger to self or others.
However this law doesn't establish that standare, it simply requires reporting.
If you want to argue that felons, those under restraining orders, or formerly dangerous discharged mental patients shouldn't be barred from firearm ownership, that's fine. But that's not the issue, the issue is whether the states should make criminal and commitment records available to the instant check system.
The conditions under which felons or those discharged from mental institutions is established under already passed legislation, this simply requires reporting. If you think the restrictions are bad, argue that, I disagree with some of them particularly on a state level. But if you accept the restrictions, reporting is a necessity.
No, if you lived in Illinois, for example, and entered voluntary inpatient drug or alcohol treatment you could not own a firearm in Illinois, though there is an appeal process. The police unions get it done efficiently, as a citizen you'll likely need a lawyer. Illinois already reports your name, so reporting wouldn't matter. Other states and the feds would know about you, though their laws might not disqualify you.
This is largely a reaction to the Virginia Tech killings, and the fact that Seung-Hui Cho's records which likely would have barred his firearm purchases were'nt available.
And yes, he would have obtained firearms, a different issue.
Cho was not found to pose a danger to others. If he had been, he would have been forbidden from buying weapons under existing statutes. This new bill, like a lot of gun-control legislation, would have done nothing to prevent the event that "inspired" it.
Forbidden, but he would have been able to purchase fireams by lying on the 4473, since Virginia would not have reported his commitment, had he been committed.
Also you have to go to court to get your rights returned - always a bad idea.
This step was taken in 1968, revised in 1985 or 1986. Mental health restrictions are a very old issue.
If you're worried about "first steps", I'd suggest high profile crimes committed by firearms purchased over the counter by barred individuals are far liklier to produce a reaction. We came very close to this with the Cho/Virginia Tech shootings.
I curious, assume Cho had been committed to a mental institution as a danger to himself or others, as he should have been.
He would have been barred from firearm ownership under current law.
You're arguing that his commitment record should be concealed from the instant check system.
For what purpose? To enable him to do an end run around existing law?
>But the way Gun Owners of America sees it, “Your ailing grandfather could have his entire gun collection seized, based only on a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s (and there goes the family inheritance).”<
Are you saying that under this Bill, the Feds would look for another family member to take posession of the gun collection?
No, you aren’t saying anything. Well, then answer my question and show that GOA’s assertions are wrong.
As a side note in many states you can be committed by relatives on very little evidence. In many it only takes a cop and a judge to send you in for "psych hold". The system is completely broken.
I have a very good employee who served in the Army for 15 years. A family member was killed in the first Gulf War, on the way to the funeral his wife, son and both his parents were killed in an accident - more than any human should have to take. He checked himself into the psych ward at the VA and stayed for two weeks to get his head on straight. He now has a psych record. One of the most level headed guys I have ever known and I trust him with fortune and my life. He could have his gun rights denied and then have to go to court to fix it - how is that fair?
I have told my Congress critter and my "good" Senator that this is unacceptable on numerous occasions.
Tnen show me the portion of the bill where it says a visit to a doctor or shrink takes away your Right to own a gun.
Seems like a Catch-22 type provision. If they can't provide a person's mental health or commitment information once the person is "cured" or whatever, does that mean that the previous information, which would prohibit the person from purchasing firearms, remains in the database? I wouldn't be surprised, even if that is not the intent of the provision.
The last phrase is used extensively in the bill. Who do you think "commits you to a mental institution? A shrink, a Judge or family.
Have you tried to get something scheduled in court lately? 5 years is the norm. Want to guess how hard it is to actually get off the list once you are on it?
What is one of the first questions a therapist would ask?
'Have either of your parents or brothers or sisters ever suffered from mental stress?'
If answered 'Yes', then, 'Does anyone in your family own a gun?'
BINGO! The house would be raided before you got home.
(And I'm not the least bit paranoid.)
The Bill states it takes a court order not a visit to a shrink or the VA. Nowhere does it state a simple visit to a shrink’s office will take away your Rights.
The bill does provide the ability to regain your Rights which is something that hasn’t been done since 1968.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about - it wasn't stopped in 1968 but in 1993. What's to stop them from defunding it again?
Time for you to get your head out of the NRA's butt and see the light of day - the NRA is, once again, allowing the anti's to win! Ask yourself this question, why would the NRA sign on to a bill that was not only introduced by Carolyn "never met a gun law I didn't like" McCarthy but one that Chuckie "gun grabber" Schumer is in favor of?
The GOA should recomend legal council rather that hyping the issue.
Grandpa could transfer or sell his collection to his heirs, though if he's incompetent, the transfer should be done properly else the heirs may squabble over the collection.
No, the collection doesn't go to the government.
Are you an advocate of gun ownership by the mentally incompetent?
Worth noting, though I've known people afflicted with alzheimers, I don't know of any cases where the family had the individual declared legally incompetent, though that does happen, usually for financial reasons.
The provision of this or any other bill that would allow that?
Making things up doesn't help establish an image of responsibility for gunowners.
Read the bill. It provides relief at the state level and for some people living in certain states, this is the first time since 1968 they can regain their Rights.
You’re against arming commercial airline pilots because feinstein was for it?
Generally yourself, involuntary, or a judge, involuntary. Medical professionals can commit you, but you're entitled to a hearing, so the judge has the final word.
This bill deals with reporting. I'm not familiar with federal provisions. In Illinois, revocation for things like voluntary commitments can be cured by proving compliance with treatment programs, or simply waiting 5 years. The federal law is more restrictive in who's rights are restricted, but I don't know if you can clear your name, so to speak. That's completely unreasonable in most instances, but not a result of this law, rather it dates to 68.
I'm not a member nor have I ever been a member of the NRA or the GoA. I'm one of those former combat vets diagnosed with PTSD and may end up being grossly affected by the bill in question here. To that end I've decided to throw my support to the GoA because I'm just much to bothered by the seemingly cozy relationship between the NRA and Carolyn "never met a gun law I didn't like" McCarthy ... Chuckie "gun grabber" Schumer and Patrick (leaky) Leahy.
I'll be looking into becoming a member of the GoA and firing up my letter writing skills to help do my part to support the position that the GoA is taking on this issue and continue working to preserve the 2nd Amendment. So hang in there GoA.
In reading section 105, am I correct that someone in effect permanently banned from firearm ownership due to former mental defect can now cure that deficiency? That seems like a major improvement to me, particularly to those who are concerned about past treatment and who, if actually barred, may be committing a crime when completing the 4473.
How would you be affected by this bill. Whether treatment for PTSD would be a bar to owning a firearm isn't at all clear to me, but if it is, that's not because of this bill, rather the 68 bill.
Not you, but if someone were barred by prior mental treatment, he's commiting a crime on the 4473 when he answers no. Perhaps it won't be noticed, many states already report this info, I acknowledge this bill makes it much more likely it will. But the bar to gunownership already exists.
It also provides a way to cure the defect. Not clear to me how that works, but it strikes me as a big step forward.
That's true, ultimately it's a judges decision. And they may not go against a shrink, though both sides can bring them in. I'd be interested in the statistics on this, I doubt there are all that many "danger" voluntary comitments, I wonder if there are that many involuntary you or I would like to see armed. And the individual, he can voluntarily commit.
In the federal context, gunownership is based on the danger to self or others standard.
I think an individual should have the ability to cure that defect, this bill appears to provide for that. I even think felons, not necessarily all, should have the ability to cure their defect.
But I think restriction of firearm ownership in the case of someone committed to a mental institution as a danger is reasonable.
As I've noted before, it's also been the law for four decades or so.
Also this little tidbit:
"discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring"
This implies that you do not have to be committed only under supervision, treatment, monitoring - does that include court ordered detox under the care of a doctor?
A good family friend was "committed" two years ago by her husband who decided he didn"t want to be married to her anymore and was not going to pay her any alimony. He managed to have her committed for 72 hours based upon a trumped up domestic violence charge. She was angry and the shrink went to court and had her committed for three months - simply because she was angry that her ex had taken away all of her means for support for herself and her child. The divorce is final and she is now waiting for the judge to remove the "commitment" from her record based upon the opinions of two other shrinks. The court date is one year out.
Oh and one other dirty secret, if you have insurance coverage you are WAAAYYY more likely to be committed than if you don't.
Have you ever been adjucated mentally defective(which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have been committed to a mental institution?
Adjucaed/committed essentially meaning involuntary.
Bad things happen, courts aren't always correct, domestic violence, restraining orders are a more commonly used abuse, what can you say. And she could defend herself, but I recognize that doesn't always happen. Lawyers cost money.
If she was committed for 3 months, I'm ok with the provision in this bill which would allow her to clear her record. Because it's my understanding if she's federally defective, she can't.
Who is this crap going to prevent from getting a gun?. Is it going to stop a criminal?. This so called law has nothing to do with anything but control of the honest law abiding citizen. Stupidity reigns supreme.
You know I was extrapulating. Why pretend otherwise? Yes, I made that up as an example of what could happen as one of the incremental steps towards total confiscation.
"Making things up doesn't help establish an image of responsibility for gunowners
The only image I want to project is that of one pissed-off Citizen whenever the next gun control measure appears on the horizon.
Thank you for you concern.
I disagree with this bill. I don’t believe that allowing the Federal government a way to put people on “lists” to take away their constitutional right to anything, let alone firearms, is okay. Today they may have a set of criteria and tomorrow that might be expanded to include anyone that sees a shrink.
I call BS on this bill.
There is a reason the AMA classifies themselves as an organization in favor of gun control. This profiling is frightening to me since it possibly will APPLY to me. I'm not a combat veteran. But I have been treated for depression by the VA. I struggled with depression for YEARS until I could stand it no more. Life was no longer any fun. Still, the first time I tiptoed inside the Behavioral Health Clinic at the VA, I was so adamant that they assure me that another Clinton administration could not do this very thing to ME I would have walked out and been miserable today. The Docs over there were very bold about stating how there could be no federal data dump of this sort absent a specific "by name" warrant signed by a Federal Judge. So I got help and today, I'm fine. The docs even made specific references in my files that at no time was I ever considered a threat to myself or others.
That sounds fine, right? Well here's the perfect CATCH-22: How easy would it be to justify to nearly anybody that VETS shouldn't be trusted with guns since they've been trained to use them with lethal efficiency? Extend that eventually to cops, security guards....until the only folks who can have firearms are folks who don't want them.
Sign up this morning just to post that? Brady troll.
Why just veterans? In fact, pass legislation saying that anyone applying for restoration of rights in a year where no funding has been allocated for investigations gets approved automatically. That eliminates their conflict of interest in denying funding.
Bang
“Every veteran who ever saw a shrink in relation to military service is at risk of having their gun rights revoked.”
That’s the intention of the gun-grabbers. They want to disarm the American people, especially those who have had military experience.
This is just another bad bill that allows the government to infringe deeper into an area in which it is forbidden by the constitution.
Be vigilant.
I resent the hell out of someone who just decides to put me on their ping list without me requesting it.
remove me now.
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.