HR2640- Does it actually do anything?


PDA






FieroCDSP
June 15, 2007, 01:43 PM
I just read throgh the bill as it passed. The biggest thing I'm seeing here is that it's going to allocate $125 Million to this program which will only make the NICS delay a bit longer, and create more paperwork. The fact that it makes misdemeanor domestic violence offenders more pronounced in the system is moot. If you lie on the NICS form about a conviction in that, you're a felon.

This one is important:
(d) Information Excluded From NICS Records-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nor may the Attorney General make available to such system), the name or any other relevant identifying information of any person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.


Okay...so all this bill does is requires the states to do a set level of records updates to the NICS system, provides them with money to do it, provides for AG office oversight of the revision program, says that the requirements for mental and criminal are as defined in 922 USC.

First, this would not have stopped Cho, as the courts failed there. Second, I am not seeing anything here that is doom and gloom as some say. I don't approve of it as it's going to jam the system in place up horribly, cost more money, and is being done in what I consider a slight-of-hand way. Also, I don't approve of the generic defining of Domestic violence, but a woman has always been able to claim being beaten regardless of whether the guy actually did it or not.

Can anyone find in the revised version that passed the house where it says they're going to take all of our guns away? Can anyone find in here where there is any room for skewing the lines a bit to take rights away from anyone who otherwise doesn't deserve it under the provisions in 922?

I am interested here in what actually is to be concerned about that hasn't already been done to us in the past 20 years. Please back up with non-emotional statements and where in the REVISED bill it is.

So far, all I've seen about this bill is the doom and gloom provided by GOA and others who I'm not sure are really in tune with what this bill says. I AM against it personally. But I am asking you why people on the fence, or even those slightly on our side of it, should not back this as sent to the Senate.

If you enjoyed reading about "HR2640- Does it actually do anything?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
June 15, 2007, 04:19 PM
BTT

Funny, no responses yet.

I can't think of anything the bill actually DOES, that's not already IN the law.

I may think some laws should be changed (domestic violence in particular), and like everyone with a lick of sense on the left and the right, I am concerned with the possibility of an authoritarian government abusing "mental illness" diagnoses.

But I can't see what this bill actually changes, legally.

Cliff47
June 15, 2007, 05:08 PM
I don't see this bill doing anything but generating a way of making it harder for the law-abiding gun owner to exercise the right to purchase the next firearm. Thank you very much NRA for a job well done.

Nomad, 2nd
June 15, 2007, 05:34 PM
They're working to try to disarm the vets that get labeled with PTSD.
(Which EVERYONE is eager to give out if your a OIF vet, and right now everyone's taking it because: 'Hey, it's 10% disability')

rugerman07
June 15, 2007, 06:09 PM
If this bill makes it through the senate and I'm sure it will with the help of the NRA, does that mean the FBI will make this new information available to the ATF, who will in turn contact FFL dealers and request copies of ATF form's 4473 of individuals whom they believe this new updated law may effect and start rounding up alleged offenders that are deemed mentally unstable or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

Ratzinger_p38
June 15, 2007, 06:20 PM
If this bill makes it through the senate and I'm sure it will with the help of the NRA, does that mean the FBI will make this new information available to the ATF, who will in turn contact FFL dealers and request copies of ATF form's 4473 of individuals whom they believe this new updated law may effect and start rounding up alleged offenders that are deemed mentally unstable or convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?

I doubt such a thing would be possible. They already dont investigate when people fail the NICS check.

FieroCDSP
June 15, 2007, 11:43 PM
This is the stuff I'm talking about. I haven't had a chance to do an apples to apples check of the original vs the passed version, but knowing McCarthy, the passed version is likely narrower in scope and reduced in effect than she wanted. No doubt if it passes, she'll tout it as a huge win for anti's everywhere, but really, it's just more spent money for little, if any, gain.

Al Norris
June 16, 2007, 01:17 AM
Section 105 of the bill, as passed, does something that hasn't been done in a long time.

It requires that the states implement a method for relief of the disability. By either a court, board, commission... Whatever that States lawmakers decides. While this bill requires an action on the part of the State, it doesn't specify how the action is taken. It leaves it up to the States themselves.

That is, it gives back to the States, the power to say you can own a gun again. This power was taken from the States and given to the Treasury Dept. under the original Brady Bill. Then in 1999, Sen. Schumer added an amendment to an appropriations bill that defunded the Treasury from granting relief.

Granted, this particular disability relief is only for the mental disability you had... But it is a step in the right direction.

Further, if you are denied relief, you can appeal to a Federal District Court which is required to review the denial de novo. This is a good thing! A de novo review means that the court will essentially hold a trial where you can present all your evidence and arguments that you no longer have the disability.

So it is the State that gets to say you can have your guns back (instead of the Feds alone). And if they deny your petition, then you have further recourse with the Federal Courts and a full blown trial.

gc70
June 16, 2007, 04:17 AM
Here is a word-for-word comparison (http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/81221_drqqb/HR297-2640.pdf]HR297-2640.pdf) of the original HR 297 versus HR 2640 as passed by the House. Verbiage deleted from HR 297 is struck through and shown in red. Verbiage added by HR 2640 is underlined.

Read and judge for yourself.

Old Fuff
June 16, 2007, 12:09 PM
If passed in its present form, all this bill would do is prevent some individuals with mental health issues from buying a gun from an FFL. Such individuals could still obtain firearms through other legal or illegal sources. I suspect some will do so, and if they are involved in high-profile shootings there will be a demand that any and all gun transfers be subjected to a NICS background check - and that would require every transaction of any kind be made through an FFL dealer with a #4473 form.

This is really what the gun control community are after, bcause it would be the beginning of federal gun registration. Their ultimate goal of confiscation can go nowhere without it.

The present bill may (or may not) be a problem, but its future consequences might be troublesome.

Kelly J
June 16, 2007, 12:33 PM
Here's the link http://http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110hUpGa3 .

Keep in mind that under existing law, a person denied the right of firearms ownership ( felons, dishonorable discharges, etc), had potential relief available to them through pardon, expungement or other means. Those with the mental health issue had no means of appeal. Now to the "relief issues". Hint, for cropcirclewalker, go directly to

This first one deals with "future" determinations

c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Determinations Related to Mental Health-


1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if

(A) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

The second deals with "past" determinations especially as it relates to the veterans issue.

2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS, DETERMINATIONS, AND COMMITMENTS-

(A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, [u]shall establish a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections. Relief and judicial review shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

(B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A), the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

But the real help comes here


(d) Information Excluded From NICS Records-

(1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (nor may the Attorney General make available to such system), the name or any other relevant identifying information of any person adjudicated or determined to be mentally defective or any person committed to a mental institution for purposes of assisting the Attorney General in enforcing subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, unless such adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, included a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of paragraph (1) before such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
_________________

Well Regulated
June 16, 2007, 01:41 PM
Let's assume that you are correct, that this bill does nothing to individuals that is not already done (despite the fact that the word determined is not the same as committed, so the law is not just about those adjudicated to be committed. When you shine a light on something, it’s amazing what can be seen). But as you already admit, it wouldn't have stopped Cho, so what's the point except as knee jerk feel-good legislation? The very thing the NRA has accused the other side of doing for years. Remember that errors of omission can occur on equal footing with errors of inclusion. If the law is so clear then how did those Veterans get on the database? Why does this Bill not hardcode that these specific people or those similarly situated be removed or not allowed to be included? Why should they have to do anything to get their names off a list that they should not have been on in the first place? Mistakes or abuse of the system are and can be made, but the law only is changed because of an emotional reaction to a horrific event. If the system is abused again will we regain our rights by having to wait for another horrific event?

Let's go to the carrot and stick approach into getting the states to input data into the database. Put data in and get money. Don't put data it in and lose money. Is that the way the federal government wants to deal with the states on such a paramount issue that any rational person would bend over backwards to get the data in? Virginia has done that and it failed! Why would a state not put the data in like Virginia has done for free? It's not for lack of funds, that’s a red herring. Maybe some states have reservations like the other people here on the board. Is that not their right? If not, then force them by law to put it into the database without any grant.

Better yet, lets have one state like New York put all the data in they want, and lets have another state like Utah or Wyoming not put in the data, and after 5 years lets see if any murders occur because of the database. If none happen in Wyoming and Utah, then we know the law is a farce. It didn't help in Virginia because more government bureaucracy does not correlate with less crime.

The NRA refuses to muster such political clout on national reciprocity for concealed carry for regular citizens but they did support government agents to have this privilege. Why is that? Why doesn’t the NRA spend its political clout to repeal the ban on carry in National Parks? Will we have to wait for another horrific tragedy? The NRA’s mantra is correct. Don’t trust feel-good knee jerk reactions to pass laws.

Kelly J
June 16, 2007, 04:15 PM
I will try to address these issues that you pose:
1. I do think this whole thing is nothing more than a Knee Jerk reaction to the VT shooting, and it was an opportunity to gain some political gains. I personally feel that this whole exercise is a Compromise deal for the Democrats & the NRA, which I do not like but more on that later.
2. The Veterans names were added to the NICS list back while Clinton was in office, frankly I donít know the reasons for sure but it was I believe because they were diagnosed with PTSD, and the fact that those names are on the list means that they are there forever.
3. If this legislation proves to be a vehicle for our Veterans to have the opportunity to have their names removed from that list and regain their right to purchase and posses Firearms then it is a good thing, Plus if I understand correctly the terminology difference between determined, committed, or adjudicated should prevent any future wrongs from being committed. A Determination amounting to an evaluation can be ordered but is in itself not a proving ground for Mental instability any more so than the word Committed as a person can be voluntarily committed for treatments that would not nor should it be any proof of mental instability, however if the Court Adjudicated a person to be a danger to themselves or others then we have a totally different situation. Which I understand; that in the future the only people that will be maintained on the list will be only those that have been adjudicated by the Courts. And I believe that if the people that have been cured would have the option of suing the Courts to regain their lost rights.
4. Bad things happening have always been the root of change in this Country, usually the lose of life or the proof of gross negligence over a long period of time, or things that are simply in need of correction, like we here in Missouri just got the old Jim Crow Law removed from the books, which corrects a long over due wrong.
5. to the issue of paying or not paying States to comply is at best Bribery, and should never have been part of this equation and I agree with you it is and shouldnít be.
6. I may be wrong here, but the fact that Choís name was not on the list, that would have prevented him from buying a gun, was not a fault of the Law, per se it was the fact of his name not being added to the list, that caused this failure, and there is more than likely a good chance of that happening again, just as much as it is for a person that should have been put into an institution, and not being put there is capable of doing the same thing, life has no absolute guarantees with it, and the best laws can be bad if not used, a good example of tat is the Immigration situation we are faced with today because laws were not implemented after being passed.
7. To try and explain the NRA and the tactics they employ is a paradox I donít have the ability to perform, or comprehend, I have personally canceled my membership in the Origination because I got tired of their compromising on issues relating to the 2nd Amendment, for me it is all or nun, you can not be strong on this point and waiver on the next, it just donít fly in my book.

Iím sure I have not satisfied all of your questions but I hope I have covered most of them.

Well Regulated
June 16, 2007, 06:02 PM
4. Bad things happening have always been the root of change in this Country, usually the lose of life or the proof of gross negligence over a long period of time, or things that are simply in need of correction, like we here in Missouri just got the old Jim Crow Law removed from the books, which corrects a long over due wrong.


I agree, but we all must take note, that the Virginia Tech Commission no matter how biased it may be, has not even released its findings yet because it can't gain access to Cho's records. Nobody knows the full chain of events, only what the press has reported. At first they said he was on anti-depressants, now we read that he may have never sought his court ordered treatment. In essence the bill is being rushed through when the facts and the problem are not yet completely known.

In Virginia the Governor acted outside his constitutional authority with his executive order, again, before his own commission had even met once! When we are dealing with fundamental rights, at least let the facts settle before we tinker with something so critical. The NRA has got this ball rolling and has said it will not support the bill if the Senate attaches anti-gun bills to it. Well it may be too late. The Horse has already left the barn. You can't put the full faith and credit of a major organization on the line to try to whip up support for its bill and then expect to be able to pull the rip cord at the last minute to escape what you started. The ground is fast approaching.

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 06:13 PM
Just for the record, I don't think that Veterans should EVER be disarmed unless they commit a crime. They should, in my opinion, be allowed to take their service weapons home as a "Thanks from a Grateful Nation."

Jefferson

Kelly J
June 16, 2007, 11:56 PM
Quote:
4. Bad things happening have always been the root of change in this Country, usually the lose of life or the proof of gross negligence over a long period of time, or things that are simply in need of correction, like we here in Missouri just got the old Jim Crow Law removed from the books, which corrects a long over due wrong.


I agree, but we all must take note, that the Virginia Tech Commission no matter how biased it may be, has not even released its findings yet because it can't gain access to Cho's records. Nobody knows the full chain of events, only what the press has reported. At first they said he was on anti-depressants, now we read that he may have never sought his court ordered treatment. In essence the bill is being rushed through when the facts and the problem are not yet completely known.

In Virginia the Governor acted outside his constitutional authority with his executive order, again, before his own commission had even met once! When we are dealing with fundamental rights, at least let the facts settle before we tinker with something so critical. The NRA has got this ball rolling and has said it will not support the bill if the Senate attaches anti-gun bills to it. Well it may be too late. The Horse has already left the barn. You can't put the full faith and credit of a major organization on the line to try to whip up support for its bill and then expect to be able to pull the rip cord at the last minute to escape what you started. The ground is fast approaching.

There are a lot of things that don't go as planed but I would suggest that you step back take a breath and wait for someting to apear before you get all worked up, I feel pretty sure that things will work out but I am not going to be stupid about my optimisum.

Kelly J
June 17, 2007, 12:10 AM
Today, 05:13 PM #16 jselvy , I would agree with you 100% with this proviso, if a Veteran like anyone else is adjuciated as a Mental defective by the Courts then no they should not be allowed to posses a weapon, but if they can get treatment and get a release from the Courts thentheir rights should be restred to them.

As to allowing them to take their service weapons home with them you may want to rethink that, for two reasons, what if the weapon you are in reference to is something like a Bazooka, not exactly a good carry weapon on the street, I know that is an unlikely thing for them to have but, but what if.
2. If we allowed them to keep their weapon we would then have to provide a new one for their replacement and that could get really expensive.

But I like the idea.

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 09:45 AM
Kelly,

I would back them being able to bring even the heavy weapons home because the veteran is never relieved of his (or her) oath to defend the constitution. They have already proven themselves capable of using said weapon correctly by any reasonable guideline. It also equalizes some of the force equation between Government and The People.
As to replacement cost, The true cost of a majority of service weapons is actually quite low, remember to buy in bulk and save. Even if it did get expensive, maybe the DOD could buy fewer $30,000 toilets instead.

Jefferson

Kelly J
June 17, 2007, 10:12 AM
Today, 08:45 AM #19
jselvy

I would not agree that the Service personnel are never relieved of their oath to defend the Country, when the Contracted time is at a end that is also the end of the oath they took, However that brings into play the other side of the equation, the Civilian, we are always under the possibility of serving to defend our Country it was called the Militia, that position even though is not as it once was it still exist, under these conditions if it came to it any weaponry we posses would be our means of defending our Country in the event of an all out war or an armed invasion of our Country.
The other part of this equation is the somewhat lost feeling of Patriotism that we as a People used to have and tat was taught in our schools and homes but it seems that is no longer the case.
I'm not sure I understand your statement of relieving the Force Equation between the Government and the people.
The fact that on paper the DOD bought $30,000.00 worth of toilet seats, you don't actually believe the money went for that item do you, it is a method of covering up how the money was spent, were you ever in the service, if so you know what I am saying if not you don't have a clue.
In my honest opinion as to any weapons kept by our service personnel I would venture to say tat you would hear that this or that weapon would be my choice to keep and take home but in reality if any it would be the small arms and a few nice gadgets that would win out in the end.

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 10:40 AM
Kelly,

We are not truly at odds on our positions.
I am of the opinion that the oath is independent of the service contract. Thus, it has no expiration.
The unorganized militia was originally composed of all citizens. I believe it still is and as citizens we not only have a right but a duty to arm ourselves in preparation for an unexpected muster in times of trouble. That to my mind would include "every terrible weapon of war." Including heavy crew served and anti-armor weapons.
The force equation is easily illustrated through example. The government may use armor against he people to enforce a tyrannical decision, this is a huge advantage over the People who are only armed with light infantry weapons (rifles and pistols), a veteran who kept his bazooka after his term of service partially negates this advantage, thus helping to equalize the force equation.
I, personally, am a naval veteran. I am also well aware that such accounting skulduggery is a way of concealing black budgets. God forbid that this policy would force the DOD to honesty in their accounting.
I understand that the Government would oppose any heavy weapons being released into the general population in this manner, but we are speaking of a hypothetical situation anyway.

Jefferson

Kelly J
June 17, 2007, 12:44 PM
jselvy

So long as it is hyothetical then no problem.
US Navy 59-67 three tours in the Tonkin Gulf Yaught Club and the last tour was on a floating Gas Station USS Plate AO-24, was on the Cuban Blockade on the USS Point Defiance LSD-31, and up the Bancock River in 62 on the same ship. MR2 E-5

jselvy
June 17, 2007, 12:59 PM
Kelly,
Of course its hypothetical, soldiers can't even bring back captured weapons anymore.

USS Missouri BB-62, USS Long Beach CGN-9,
GMG2 E-5


Jefferson

Kelly J
June 19, 2007, 12:04 AM
Yesterday, 11:59 AM #23
jselvy

Now I'm jealous my uncle was on the Missouri when the Japanese Signed the Surrender but I have never got to even see her now she is in Pearl next to the Arizona, and I will never see her, other than pictures but that isn't the same thing.

When were you on the Mighty MO?

We may need to take this to a PM, or an e-mail.
My e-mail address is cobra44@sbcglobal.net

If you enjoyed reading about "HR2640- Does it actually do anything?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!