House tempers background checks for guns

[Coyote33]

House tempers background checks for guns

House tempers background checks for guns

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally ill, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying two guns he used in the rampage. But the state of Virginia had never forwarded this information to the national background check system.

If it moves through the Senate and is signed into law by the president, the bill would be the most important gun control act since Congress banned some assault weapons in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled the House. In 1996, Congress added people convicted of domestic violence to the list of those banned from purchasing firearms.

Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. a proponent of gun control legislation, said the chances of Senate passage were "very strong." He said, "When the NRA and I agree on legislation, you know that it's going to get through, become law and do some good."

The bill was the outcome of weeks of negotiations between Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the most senior member of the House and a strong supporter of gun rights, and the NRA, and in turn, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a leading gun-control advocate.

"This is good policy that will save lives," McCarthy said.

The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.

The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

Under a gun control act that passed in 1968, the year Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, illegal drug users, those courts find to be mentally disabled, and illegal immigrants.

The legislation approved Wednesday would require states to automate and share disqualifying records with the
FBI's NICS database. The bill also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and imposes penalties, including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law, to those states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

House action came as a panel that
President Bush ordered to investigate the Virginia Tech shootings prepared to make recommendations on ways the federal government can prevent such tragedies.

Also on Wednesday, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine said that in ordering state executive branch agencies to upgrade background check reporting last month he had found that Virginia was one of only 22 states reporting any mental health information to the NICS. Kaine, a Democrat, said the House bill was "significant action to honor the memories of the victims who lost their lives at Virginia Tech."

The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group supported the legislation and he hoped Congress would go a step further and extend background checks to all gun sales, not just those licensed dealers covered by current law.

The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms."

McCarthy, in an emotional speech, said that "this has been a long, long journey for me." She ran for Congress on a gun control agenda after her husband was gunned down on a Long Island commuter train in 1993.

___

The bill is H.R. 2640

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

NRA: http://www.nra.org

Brady Campaign: http://www.bradycampaign.org/

 

[Admin]

He we go...

 

[Tiktock]

I dont have much of a problem with this one. it doesnt seem to change at all the rules for who can and cannot buy guns, just makes the system better to get those who arent supposed to have guns on the "bad" list.

if it doesnt disqualify anyone who currently isnt disqualified, it will only disqualify those who are currently able to slip through the cracks, right? meaning convicted felons and mentally unstable? maybe i am a sheep or something, but i dont have much problem with that.

 

[Admin]

Tiktock it's one of many that will be coming down the pipe...

And you know very well it will have ZERO effect on violent crime...

 

[pipmaster1971]

Tiktock it's one of many that will be coming down the pipe...

And you know very well it will have ZERO effect on violent crime...

Agreed. Although I don't object to this legislation (providing there is a mechanism to have your name removed from the list). I often feel that this sort of stuff is simplistic "feel good" legislation that'll have no overall benefit. The real solution for this problem is to fix the mental health system, but that's going to require real work and real money and won't get as many votes for the politicians.

 

[Tiktock]

Tiktock it's one of many that will be coming down the pipe...

And you know very well it will have ZERO effect on violent crime...

I get that its just one of the things, but is there ANY negative to a bill that makes it harder for people who should already be disallowed guns to get them if it doesnt affect legal buyers at all?

I'd be all for a law that would make it harder for drunks to get behind the wheel because i dont drive drunk....so why would i be against a bill that makes it harder for currently gun-ownership excluded individuals from passing background checks going forward? Lets say they found a bug in their database that allowed 5,000 people to buy guns who should not be allowed to because they are convicted felons....would you oppose them fixing that bug? Unless im reading wrong, this seems exactly that....databases are not being effectively updated....the reasons for exclusion are not changing one bit.

Maybe im way off base....but i think sometimes gun owners need to pick their battles....we have a brutal reputation for screaming "FOUL" every time ANYTHING sounds at all like it involves a law and a gun....sometimes makes it difficult for others to understand a real rights violation coming down the pike when everything is reacted to with the same level of outrage.

 

[fubar]

Yeah , I see a negative. What are the parameters for "mental defective" ?

Will we see therapists and psychologists become mandatory reporters ? Marriage counselors ? College & High school guidance counselors , DSS , Alcoholics Annonomous / rehab ... , the AMA's general Practitioner doctors , ER room staff ?

Will we see the recent generation of combat vets barred for life if they talk to a mental health proffessional ?

 

[pipmaster1971]

Yeah , I see a negative. What are the parameters for "mental defective" ?

Will we see therapists and psychologists become mandatory reporters ? Marriage counselors ? College & High school guidance counselors , DSS , Alcoholics Annonomous / rehab ... , the AMA's general Practitioner doctors , ER room staff ?

Will we see the recent generation of combat vets barred for life if they talk to a mental health proffessional ?

But the same issue is there today. AFAIK (and I could be wrong) a person needs to be COMMITED to an establishment. We're pretty much talking about a fruit-cake here; some dude who's depressed because his wife just dumped him will probably be in the clear.

I could be wrong though, but that's how I read it.

 

[Tiktock]

As far as the military thing goes, it seems clear that it accomplished the exact opposite:

"It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes"

As far as mental disability, its not just you seeing a therapist or being depressed. I believe from the text that the mental aspect applies to people who have been found by a court to be mentally disabled. That isnt just an off-the cuff thing, you need to have very serious, measurable mental problems for someone to be willing to testify that you should be found mentally disabled by a court. A HS guidance counselor isnt qualified in any way shape or form to be a judge of medical mental disability.

Remember, this is EXACTLY as the law stands today.....any issues you have with that aspect of law, you should already have and really isnt relevant to this bill, which is about improving the distribution of information for background checks, not changing the rules for the checks themselves.

If im missing something, someone please let me know...

 

[Carguy]

I read something today from Gun Owners of America that said the ATF will not honor the appeals process being suggested in this bill to allow those 80,000 veterans submitted previously with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on their record to be able to now purchase guns. I understand that they are taking the tact that once diagnosed, forever an issue. And I understand that the government will be "bribing" state agencies with providing more names to the FBI of those that should not be allowed to purchase firearms due to criminal mental health concerns, by distributing funds for law enforcement initiatives or with holding said funds if the sate in question does not comply. Finally I understand that a big deal has been made of the fact that the government will not tax gun buyers additionally for the back ground checks necessitated by law...gee thanks...this was made law back in the Clinton years! This is supposedly a way of disguising the re-instatement of the assault weapons ban and more. I don't know any more than what I related here and I'm not sure of it's complete accuracy but wanted to bring it up to people alot better informed than I, better safe than sorry.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Keep in mind that there is currently a mechanism federally to get your gun rights back. HOWEVER, Congress each year passes a money bill which PROHIBITS the use of ANY MONEY to do this process!

Color me suspicious that the same will befall this bill.

The comment about BATFE refusing to restore rights to Vets sounds "about right" for what I'd expect to happen.

Verification of the Ts & Cs are where the time-bombs are hidden.

 

[crak]

Len beat me to most of it. Check out how well the current ATF appeals process works.

if it doesnt affect legal buyers at all?

Good luck with that one.

 

[greycar]

Raise the temperature slowly

The frogs don't mind.

 

[USMA-82]

Baaaaa! Baaaaa! Just get in line with the rest of the sheep, and don't ask questions.....

 

[tuna]

The real solution for this problem is to fix the mental health system, but that's going to require real work and real money and won't get as many votes for the politicians.

For those of you in Western Mass, the National Alliance on Mental Illness is having their annual Walkathon on June 24th at Trinity Church in Springfield. More info at their website.

http://namiwm.org/

Usually a pretty good time, and for a good cause.

 

[Tiktock]

**Comment removed**

Guess im a sheep....because from where i stand, all i see are people screaming at the weatherman to make the rain stop.

 

[Coyote33]

...It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes"...

Isn't there an appeals process in MA? How is that working out? Just curious.

For those of you in Western Mass, the National Alliance on Mental Illness is having their annual Walkathon on June 24th at Trinity Church in Springfield. More info at their website.

http://namiwm.org/

Usually a pretty good time, and for a good cause.

Maybe it is time to revitalize the LARGO team for these charity walkathons. It provides good public exposure. Get your whole team to wear LARGO (or GOAL?) shirts.

http://www.largo.org/

 

[tuna]

Coyote - that's a great idea! I never even thought of it.

Even if people don't raise money themselves - there is a philanthropic organization that donates $50 for every registered walker, up to 200 people I think (that's still 10K, which is pretty good for a small non profit affiliate). NAMI-WM does a lot for people that have loved ones with mental illness, such as support groups and the like. They also campaign to fight against stigma attached to anyone with mental illness.

Sorry for the thread hijack. I'll shut up now.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If you are a member of GOAL, you could check the GOAL website (anyone can do this) or read The Outdoor Message (GOAL members only) wrt the Licensing Review Board.

If you ever read the rules by which they operate, they don't pass judgment on "mental health". They can't over-ride a Fed ruling either!

Again, read what's going on. VA (US Gov't) declared 80K returning Vets with PTSD (and other issues) as "mentally unsuitable to own guns" (sorry for the terse terminology) administratively, with NO HEARINGS and probably NO NOTIFICATION to those effected. They find out the hard way when they flunk NICS and/or are denied a LTC/CCW someplace. NOTHING that MA can do will undo this, it has to be done at a Fed level.

I'm suspicious that another bill will block use of funds to do this Fed'l action (just like the other issue with people appealing to US Gov't to get their gun rights back). This stuff has been discussed many times here and on other forums (including MAF, where you spent years before this) for probably 10 years or more.

 

[Coyote33]

LenS:
I don't see anywhere on GOAL's web site where it details how or if the appeals process is working or not. I think this is what you meant by the "Licensing Review Board" part of your message.

I was wondering if ANYBODY has had success in any sort of appeal in MA. I would think if it were a "Fed'l action" (your term) that "Fed'l monies" would be used to pay for it. Or is this just another unfunded mandate?

 

[Len-2A Training]

GOAL did publish the stats on the FLRB successes/failures in The Outdoor Message a short time ago . . . it is sent to all GOAL members. I thought it was also up on the GOAL website but don't see it now (they have made major changes and deleted old stuff off the site).

To learn what FLRB can and can not do, I suggest you and anyone else interested read the following:

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/Petition and Instruction Letter1.pdf

Also if you paid attention to numerous posts on MAF, NES and elsewhere you'd know that EVERY YEAR when funding is passed by the US Congress, there is a provision that PROHIBITS the responsible agency from spending ANY MONEY to investigate or reinstate gun rights to ANYONE wrt Fed Disqualifiers! This is what I'm referring to, we (NRA, Brady, et al) pass this proposed bill and it all looks good . . . but then Congress does the same thing to this section that allows people a fair hearing to remove their disqualifiers and we've given away the farm and get NOTHING FOR IT! I'm very untrusting that this will not happen.

 

[MaverickNH]

Text of Bill 2640 here http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2640.IH:

The statistics are interesting:

Between 11/30/98 and 12/1/04, 916,000 out of 49,000,000 NICS denials (~ 1 in 50). Having read elsewhere (I'll try to find it) that more denials are for criminal records (mostly felons), it's amazing to me that so many try to legally buy guns.

Also claimed is that 21,000,000 criminal records are missing from NICS - some 7% of the US population (probably lower, as many are likley duplicates).