Very Anti RKBA Law: Cornyn-Schumer-Feinstein-Blumenthal-Murphy legislation, S. 2135.

This bill is the biggest threat so far to disarming the populace, and it all starts off with the innocous sounding reason that we "must do a better job of managing the NICS database". However, under its provisions, millions of us could lose our RKBA rights, for something as simple as a traffic ticket that has not been paid (http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app...SztW-47AfspknlcRMfH60M6XJLTJfahT6U_moAJA&lp=0)

Please consider going to this link and automatically sending your opposition to this bill to your 2 Senators. Very easy to use link:
https://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/take-action?engagementId=421793

thanks

Appendix:
Got this from the GOA Email:
"
The Senate held its first hearings Wednesday on the most serious gun control threat in over a decade.

The bill is the Cornyn-Schumer-Feinstein-Blumenthal-Murphy legislation, S. 2135. And it would bribe the states and force federal agencies to send every possible eligible name to the national gun ban list, NICS.

This means that a whole lot of decent Americans are going to be added into the system.

Some people claim that S. 2135 -- and its counterpart in the House -- are really not that bad. After all, they say, the bills don't contain the words "traffic tickets," "veterans," "senior citizens," and so forth.

But that's the problem. Legislators like Chuck Schumer are not going to tell you this up front.

There's more to it than just reading the bills

Remember the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that harmed so many veterans? That legislation NEVER contained the word "veteran."

But GOA knew what legislators were up to ... we knew how veterans were going to be impacted ... and so we renamed the legislation, more accurately, as the Veterans Disarmament Act.

Sadly, more than 257,000 veterans have now been disarmed, proving that GOA's analysis of that disgraceful law was accurate.

The key is this: You always have to read the legal code and the implementing regulations that are being amended by any particular piece of legislation.

Many gun owners don't realize that NICS is already denying gun purchases to people who have unpaid traffic tickets -- even though you won't find the words "traffic" or "tickets" in the federal firearms code.

Again, the reason Cornyn-Schumer is so horrible is that it bribes states and forces agencies to achieve 100% compliance with current statutes and regulations -- and this is going to result in gun bans for lots of decent Americans whose names are not already in the NICS system.
"

I understand the moderator's reasoning. If needed, I can repost in the activism forum.
I would like to say, please consider that most bills today are in complete legalese, and therefore almost impossible to decipher. The general citizenry HAS to rely on a third party to decipher any bill's intent and implications for us. In my opinion, GOA is a credible, serious source who in this case is deciphering a bill put forward by the republicans, and supported by some left Democrats.

In deference to the moderator's request, I did go to the bill's website and got this text that may be helpful:
"
NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES.—For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal department or agency that has failed to certify compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C), and is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding overtime pay, until the department or agency—

“(i) certifies compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C); or

“(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).
"
In my opinion, this puts financial incentives for agencies to put forth all sorts of categories of names until they are ruled in "substantial compliance" by the federal agency. In other words, power is being shifted to a federal agency over states when it comes to determining "substantial compliance with NICs" with real financial penalties, using our taxpayer money.So, if the federal agency rules that all people on prescription drugs are to be denied NICs, the states HAVE to comply. Same with, say people with unpaid traffic violations.
To summarize, unelected federal bureaucrats would now determine who should be denied NICs, and can penalize states for this.


The bill can be found at:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q={"search":["cornyn"]}&r=1

Thanks for this forum, which I believe is very important for all of us to make each other aware of forthcoming legislation.

I don't like the language that says:
personal bonuses will be with held if not in "substantive compliance".
Who determines the standard for this? the Feds of course. If they rule that compliance includes denying people with this, this and this background, decided by unelected folks and given NO coverage by media, then non-elected bureaucrats decide who gets denied NICs and can punish the state servants where it hurts most: their pocket books.This can lead to a steady erosion of who gets access to RKBA, just like so many veterans were denied slowly but surely.

This is why this bill puts too much power in the hands of the feds, IMHO.

As far as GOA is concerned, my interaction and impression of them has been extremely positive over the years. They (and the NRA) were the only 2 groups to stand against the universal background check bill (a backdoor attempt to get registration) a few years ago after S'hook.
Anyways, just my thoughts, am open to changing them of course. If you feel this bill is a threat to RKBA please consider contacting your senators.

pintler said:

Mods: this is an important topic; I would urge if possible that off topic posts be deleted if possible rather than locking the thread.

"in my opinion, this puts financial incentives for agencies to put forth all sorts of categories of names until they are ruled in "substantial compliance" by the federal agency."

I'd like to hear more detail about the reasoning here. My amateur reading of the bill is that it is trying to make sure that there is more comprehensive reporting of precisely the current categories of prohibited persons, no more and no less - "The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of 21 section 922 of title 18, United States 22 Code.", from the bill.

So I'm a little confused by the opposition. One reason for objection would be that people might object to NICS in general, and would rather that the NICS records be incomplete, even for people like the Sutherland Springs shooter. That's fine, I understand the objection.

But I'm one of the people who, whatever opinion I hold of the value of NICS, figure that if we are going to have NICS, and are going to ban felons et al. from owning guns, then having the records of people like the Sutherland Springs shooter actually be in the system is a good thing. To me, it sounds like part of the 'enforce the laws we have instead of passing new ones' thing.

I'd really like to understand why this bill is problematic from that perspective.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is one of the issues. The current bill refers to subsections (g) and (n) of US code 922, section 18, which can be found here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#
The concern is that once punitive penalties for non-compliance are put in place, these categories can be expanded to include a general category (something vague like: determined by Attorney General, or something) and then the punitive infrastructure will be in place to erode RKBA.

I like a previous post that asked why there are no penalties for over-zealous compliance. That element is missing from this bill, nor am I holding my breath to see it in this or any bill.

pintler said:

abajaj11, can you explain why you say "non-elected bureaucrats decide who gets denied NICs"? For example, where in the text of the law does it say that those bureaucrats get to decide who to report?

The bill says "The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of 21 section 922 of title 18, United States 22 Code." Those sections that list the current categories of prohibited persons - felons, people with dishonorable discharges, who have renounced citizenship, and so on. Those categories aren't changing that I can see, and I don't see any part of the bill that allows anyone to send any names that don't fit one of those categories into NICS. The penalties, as far as I can see in the bill text, are for an executive whose agency isn't sending in the records they have, for people in the current categories. For example, if the Air Force wasn't sending in records for someone court martialed for breaking an infant's skull.

I'd love to hear what language in the bill you feel changes - or allows anyone to change - the categories of prohibited persons.

Click to expand...

Yes, good point. See my post above.

alsaqr said:

Look at the heading. It has absolutely nothing to do with state servants.

SEC. 2. Accountability for Federal departments and agencies.

Half of this bill does not pertain to the states: It spells out detail how federal agencies report folks to NICS. It is specifically aimed at the US military. That dishonorably discharged USAF perp who murdered folks in a TX church was not reported to NICS as required by federal law. As a result he was able to buy firearms from gun dealers.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant the state and federal agencies reporting into NICs, NOT just the states. Thanks for catching that.

Frank Ettin said:

18 USC 922(g) and 18 USC 922(n), and a bunch of other stuff in the Gun Control Act of 1968 are statutes. Statutes are enacted by a bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. They can only be changed by another bill passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. And passing a bill in Congress is a very public activity.

In other words a bunch of elected representatives have to agree on the changes, and their constituents and interested parties have ample opportunity to try to influence the decision. Those categories can't be changed by unelected bureaucrats.

Click to expand...

Yes, the point is: in the future, when the electoral pendulum swings in the other direction, the enforcement groundwork will have been established so a minor change in these statutes to include "determination by the AG," or something like that would result in large categories of citizens being denied the RKBA.
Question is, why LEGISLATE financial penalties for federal agencies and financial incentives for state agencies for under-compliance but NOT for over-zealous compliance?
Isn't adequately complying with NICs just part of their job? If they are not doing it too well, impose penalties at the operational level, not at the legislative level.

Sorry, by operational level, I meant in the course of work, on a case by case basis, and by legislative level, I meant the form of a bill that becomes law.