Skip to comments.NRA, Democrats reach gun law deal
Posted on 06/10/2007 7:39:59 AM PDT by holymoly
The gun lobby wrests some concessions as it agrees to back stronger background checks.
WASHINGTON - Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.
The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System, and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.
To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83, 000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.
The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.
"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a ... system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement, " said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., a former NRA board member, who led the talks.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby - she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road - ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.
By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America.
Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said Saturday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics, " he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support.
Only those who have been convicted of a felony, are under indictment on felony charges, and/or have been adjudicated mentally ill, are prohibited from purchasing firearms.
(See: ATF Form 4473)
So, why will "minor infractions" even be included in the Federal database?
And what "minor infractions"? Jay walking? Traffic tickets?
I drove by a dead skunk on the road a few days ago.
That dead skunk smelled better than this NRA "compromise".
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
In Illinois Guns Save A Life, Burma Shave type signs have been posted along the roadsides but it doesnt take long for the anti-gunners to pull them down!
By the way.
I Just received from the NRA pre addressed post cards for me to send to my Illinois representatives from me.
They have to be kidding!
My representatives are:
Senator Dick (Turban) Durbin
Senator Barack (Osama) Obama
U.S Representative Bobby (former Chicago Black Panther Minister of Defense)Rush.
I live in Cook (Crook) County, Illinois enough said.
No need for background check. PERIOD!!!
Sorry, I still smell a rat. If someone is deemed a greater-than-average threat to public safety, based on past actions, he should be kept off the streets. Everyone else should be allowed to defend himself.
BINGO!!! I posted my last response before seeing yours - these are my thoughts exactly. Do we really need Uncle Sam poking his nose into our medical records before determining whether the 2nd Amendment applies?
No need for gun laws.
Future revisions will expand the background checks to include teacher’s recommendations, e.g., for Ritalin, etc.
There are many citizens who had been accused of spousal abuse that are prevented from buying firearms without being convicted. This is common in nasty divorces where the wife claims physical abuse, and the court includes this on the husband's record with no evidence.
There are many expunged convictions that still prevent citizens from buying firearms for their protection.
Currently, it is nearly impossible for these people to get their names cleared. The NRA made this a priority.
Driving off a bridge leading to the death of a woman
COMMITTING PERJURY WHEN LYING ABOUT SEX IN A FEDERAL OFFICE WITH A WOMAN OTHER THAN YOUR WIFE
HAVING 90 THOUSAND DOLLARS IN MARKED BILLS IN YOUR FREEZER THAT MATCH NUMBER FOR NUMBER THE MONEY IN AN FBI STING
GIVING YOUR LOADED GUN TO AN AIDE WHO IS ARRESTED FOR ITS POSSESSION ON CAPITAL HILL
Need we go on!
Curly, Moe, and Larry.
Looks like the armpit of the country, politically speaking that is..
That headline doesn't exactly warm the cockles of my heart.
States would be paid to comply.
Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system.
The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.
Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.
The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.
Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.
"I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.
Can you imagine a scenario where a state would say. 'You're an adjudicated gun nut, and you can't buy your guns here.'?
Any time the words "Democrats" and "guns" appear in the same sentence, it can mean nothing good.
Yea. But I have a very vivid imagination. I can also imagine this:
(You go to a gun store to purchase a rifle, and...)
Gun Store Clerk: "According to the FBI back-ground check, you were convicted at the age of 19, of being a minor in possession of alcohol; specificially a partially-consumed six-pack of Budweiser beer. I'm sorry, but you are prohibited by Federal law from purchasing a firearm."
"You may, if you wish, 'petition' the state to have your name removed from the database. Of course, the state isn't required to approve your petition. Have a nice day."
It doesn't take a gun to kill.
If this were a serious attempt at preventing a killing spree, the focus would be on people and not guns.
If one is he!! bent on rampage, (illness or not) it certainly doesn't take a gun or guns to follow through.
Reference Oklahoma City, 911, or for all that matters, the Boston Strangler or Bundy.
Anytime the words "Democrats" and "legislation" appear in the same sentence it can't be good!
Requiring clean mental health in order to obtain a weapon appears to address the problem, but doesn't. Just another bandaid. The only way these rare incidents can be prevented (or minimalized) is to allow citizens to be able to respond immediately with force, wherever necessary.
The chicken-s**ts who plan these things would think differently- were citizens armed and capable of ending such attacks instantly.
Its a good deal. But if the Democrats renege on their agreement, the NRA will oppose it.There are some real problems with the data now - people who've done nothing wrong but have been dogged by incorrect paper trails. It looks the the NRA is using the metal records effort to push for some meaningful technical reform. I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks that raging lunatics should be running around with guns. But most of us look at proposals for automatically triggering a lifetime firearms disability because of some past psychological evaluation with a great deal of scepticism. Where is the due process? What is the standard of evidence? How is the decision appealed? What does it take to have the disability removed? It looks the NRA is agreeing to a compromise that includes mental health records in the database, but contains provisions that address these issues - not only with regards to the mental health issues, but in other areas of the database where similar problems exist. If that is what is going on, I'm all for it.
Sell-outs all; its a far cry from when C. Heston ran the organization “when the pry it from my cold-dead body!”.
I’d recommend the GOA instead (I’ve heard they’re much better; and don’t really “compromise”).
South Carolina’s trying “the opposite way”: the leg is pushing for a “bill” allowing concealed cary permit holders to own firearms on school campuses. Which would really make it safer from the “massacre” types..IMO
So 49% of the population should be behind bars, based on the possibility from some actuarial table that says that they might harms others at some point in the future?!? How much do you despise Freedom and the Constitution... and why?
If Chris Cox actually asserted that, he should be removed from his position at the NRA.
It's patently ridiculous. Of course the Democrat leadership will paste all kinds of gun control nonsense in the bill --- has he forgotten the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" that also became a machine gun ban?
The NRA should not be giving the Democrats any chance to pass gun control legislation. Withdrawing assent if something goes wrong is akin to closing the barn door after the horse runs away.
The definition of bi-partisan is the the ‘Rats get what they want. They also renege on all deals. Principles matter. The NRA has gone RINO.
Since then I have purchased all my firearms from individuals - cash only. As far as the federal government knows I don't even own a gun and that's the way I intend to keep it.
As far as I know I'm not in any of the banned databases and don't see any reason why I would ever be. But I would rather not take the chance that some low level government functionary might mistakenly add my name to a list.
All NRA members need to get involved with electing board members. They are leaning more and more liberal with board members like open borders Grover Norquist.
All great questions. The answer is the the federal government is treading into water where they need not be.
A lot of people are going to be ‘railroaded’ into these government databases... some will just be perfectly normal and others may or may not be wacky. The federal government screws up almost everything they touch.... this has to be left alone.
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
The thread above answers many of those questions.
The DA wanted to charge him with unlawful imprisonment, (a felony), and he plead it down to a misdemeanor charge punished by home monitoring and probation. Had it been me, I would have fought it out in court, but he was in the middle of a divorce and wanted to be able to still see his son. Unfortunately for him, he'll probably never be able to own a gun again.
So these are the kinds of minor infractions that are already included in the federal database. If this new legislation allows people like my friend to get their rights back and keeps a few documented psychos, like Seung Hui Cho, from buying guns, then I'm for it.
Catch 22. - Residents of Calif are felons if they try to opt out.
Coming soon to a State near you.
It would make them work harder at planning their sick directive, however the drive in their intent would make it possible for them to accomplish their feat of destruction of life with or without firearms.
Sickness may be an excuse, however the outcome is the same.
Meanwhile, ALL rights given to us who don't tote this directive of destruction are lost and as it is proved to be not enough to stop those who are mindfully set on death and destruction, we are placed in a cocoon of mandated protection which leaves us unable to defend ourselves individually.
Thus, freedom is lost.
It's going to happen, guaranteed. You can't make a binding deal with a liar and you never want to make a deal with the devil. Democrats are both.......
It’s too late. No matter what the Dems pile onto it, any opposition the NRA could mount now would make as much difference as peeing in the ocean. I think they’ve gotten my last money.
Additionally people convicted of misdemenor gun infractions such as illegally carrying concealed weapons, carrying a gun unlocked or loaded firearms in a vehicle, etc. have been consdered guilty of “firearms violations” and put on the banned list. If this allows them to be removed that would be a very good thing.
I don't support criminalizing the keeping and bearing of arms. Neither the Senator nor the aide deserve to be denied the protection of the Second Amendment.
And the band plays on....
In effect, you're betting your right to own and carry a weapon on that big 'IF'.
We can't ~allow~ this database type of infringement, period. - Such a power is, and always will be abused.
Bet on that.
And NRA staunchly defends Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban- I mean, firearms reform bill that reduced the size of the carry permit to one that will fit your wallet.
Of course, once the legislation is passed and the courts and BATFE come up with “reasonable regulations” under which the opportunity to clear your name will be turned into legal process, NRA will be working toward their next compromise and will defend the last one.
The NRA compromises again?
A lot of folks were kept in the database for merely having harsh words for an ex-wife. Think that's right? The old rules had a lot of wiggle room. This should tighten things a bit. I wish the NRA had fought for national reciprocity, too. But that would have queered the deal, I'll bet. As far as I'm concerned this kind of legislation should slow down the overall juggernaut agenda of the extremeists until we can get a more solid progun majority and President into place.
Yes I'm suspicious of any deal the RATs agree to that would tend to offer us anything as a "concession." So we'll trust for now....trust but verify. If they try to add more of their wish list, it'll be easy to scream "breach of trust" and fight it. Then it makes them devote more and more resources in an election year which raises the issue even higher into the public eye. West-by-God-Virginia went Republican for the first time in decades during the 2000 election on JUST this issue! That cost Gore the White House.
The 1934, and 1968 gun control acts were also supported by the NRA.
Well frickin HECK!!
All of both houses of Congress fit that description....
Which goes right back to the FACT that once Hinkley Psycho finds out they can't buy a gun legally they will just find one illegally. It's beyond laughable that anyone would think a law will stop a criminal or a psycho from obtaining a weapon.
A lot of people are going to be 'railroaded' into these government databases..A lot of people already are being railroaded into these databases.
Like I said, if in the process of adding provisions for mental health background checks, we can establish due process protections for not only those who are hit by mental health checks, but for all the rest, too, I think it's a good deal.
It depends very much upon the specific technical details of the bill. But there are folks at the NRA who understand this stuff as well as anyone in the world.
Consider Thomas Lamar Bean - a gun dealer who got hit with a federal felony conviction because an employee put a box of ammo in his car after a gun show, and he crossed into Mexico without realizing its presence. He's no threat to anyone, but he's stuck with a lifetime firearms disability. Federal law establishes a process by which such a disability can be removed, but Congress has blocked it.
If, as a part of this compromise, this process was made active again, would it change your mind about the value of the compromise?
This could be, depending upon the details, a good bill.
If you're not particular about who gets killed, driving a car into a street fair at 70 MPH is pretty effective too. That just happened in the Washington D.C. area within the last couple weeks. Witnesses on the scene recognized the driver and observed that she appeared to be sucking on a crack pipe as she drove into the crowd. The death toll was close to 13 people.