AG Mukasey: FBI Gun Ban List Doubles

[MD_Willington]

How is this any different to when I fill out paperwork for the licenses I have/had?

When I filled out the forms for my WA State AFL $ CPL, in doing so, I agreed to release any mental health background information for both...

 

[SomeKid]

RH,

I can't tell if that is your third or fourth strawman, but what the heck, I will bite.

Firstly, VT isn't NICS fault. Maybe Cho was DQed from buying guns, however, we all know criminals can get guns other than gun shops. Had NICS blocked him, he could always have gone to the streets. VT was not caused because NICS failed, VT was caused because liberals fought and beat gun owners when we tried to change the law to restrict them from banning certain lawful gun owners from carrying. Have you already forgotten the battle a year before hand in the legislative arena, where the VT had their own spokesperson supporting the ban because it made them safer?

What happened after VT, was gun owners were afraid to politicize the issue by speaking this truth: That VT admin and people like them were at fault. Instead, we allowed McCarthy and her ilk to call it a lack of gun control, and then didn't nail them as hard as we should, while shouting the truth behind VT disarming the victims beforehand. Instead, our 800 lb gorilla went in and compromised on a bill that had been dead, and resurrected it.

If you really care about the rights of gun owners, instead of creating straw-men to knock down, you ought to ask what your ultimate long-term goal is for gun ownership in this country is. If your goal is to let Carolyn McCarthy write the laws for us, then keep blindly supporting 2640, and vociferously attacking anyone who dares contradict your orthodoxy.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I can't tell if that is your third or fourth strawman, but what the heck, I will bite. ...

What happened after VT, was gun owners were afraid to politicize the issue by speaking this truth: That VT admin and people like them were at fault.

SomeKid: learn to read, learn to think, do your homework, grow up, and stop playing in the mud.

If you've read messages in this forum you should have realized long before now that I was either the first person here or one of the very first to say that the Virginia Tech administration and policies were to blame for what happened there.

I've said it repeatedly and forcefully. Other gun owners have said it too. The NRA also has said it. We all have said what you seem to have made into your own insight.

You're good at saying things like "gun owners were afraid to politicize the issue by speaking this truth." The gun owners you're talking about exist only in your mind and the minds of others who share your myopia and narrowmindedness.

All around you are people actively working for Second Amendment rights. Many of us have been doing it longer than I suspect you have been alive. But you don't acknowledge those people upon whose shoulders you stand, and you kick them unless they see the world in exactly the terms you do at the moment.

Since you want to talk about straw men and other manipulations, you didn't begin your participation in this thread by criticizing the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640). What you said was that the appeals provision would be useless because the Democrats would defund it:

You don't honestly think that provision would be any use? The Democrats would just de-fund the new program the way they de-funded the old one. All we would have gotten from compromising our principles, is compromised principles.

Your latest message revises your stance. Now it's the bill that's bad, not that the Democrats would defund the provision. And now you say that the NRA "resurrected" the bill, just as if you don't know that congressional representatives approached the NRA to see if some compromise could be reached that might satisfy gun owners' reasonable concerns--such as an appeals provision and other apparatus that would have allowed mistakes to be corrected. That's what you--and others like you--rejected.

Part of the trouble with what you do is that there's no there there. Your "principles" are whatever sounds good to you at the time to justify your angers. The world obviously isn't what you want it to be, nor is it not so simple as you need it to be, and you can't believe that decent people could disagree with the whirligig of frustrations in you, so you sling mud at the world and anyone who doesn't agree with you and call it "refusing to compromise your principles." Anger and frustration and irrationality and distortion aren't principles. They're symptoms.

Among the straw men you constructed in this exchange are your assertions about my beliefs and motives. It's not even a neat trick or novel either. It's the same tired old mudslinging I--and others--have seen for decades. I didn't say what you say I said and there's no evidence that I believe what you say I believe and there's no indication that my motives are what you say motivate me.

Not all other Americans are enemies simply because they disagree with you. Not all other gun owners are destructive simply because they disagree with you. Disagreeing with you and your highly principled friends does not indicate lack of principles or defective principles. And when you're wrong--as the unfolding of events has demonstrated by the increase in disqualified people who have no way to appeal--you look childish by trying to argue that you were right because the appeal provision and other apparatus wouldn't have worked anyway.

Don't bite straw men. They get in your teeth.

 

[SomeKid]

RH,

Did you even read my last post? I was not "making my own insight", I was reminding you of the past you had ignored. I am not going to waste my time rebutting every little fallacy in your post, least of all your assertions that I am using strawmen. In case you were unable to tell, I was having a rather nice, calm, reasoned (and short) discussion about 2640 with BR.

You have contributed nothing to the discussion ever since you first joined the thread, and quite frankly, just aren't worth discussing things with, as I have yet to see you add anything of value but pathetic sarcasm that adds nothing, straw-man arguments, and rewording my own posts and posting them back.

Since you want to talk about straw men and other manipulations, you didn't begin your participation in this thread by criticizing the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007" (H.R. 2640). What you said was that the appeals provision would be useless because the Democrats would defund it:

Quote:
You don't honestly think that provision would be any use? The Democrats would just de-fund the new program the way they de-funded the old one. All we would have gotten from compromising our principles, is compromised principles.

I post that just because it is a great example of your inability to pay attention. I was attacking a part of the bill. Attacking a part of the bill is attacking the bill. Why did I attack that part of the bill? Because that was the part BR was talking about, and was the part relevant. The Democrats are the main sponsors/supports of this bill, and the ones who would love to screw us. I have been rather consistent with what I have been saying.

When you are afraid to take reasonable steps forward because you fear

I hear leftists use lines very similar to this all the time. After reading your posts in this thread, I must ask, which side of the gun rights debate are you on?

 

[Robert Hairless]

I hear leftists use lines very similar to this all the time. After reading your posts in this thread, I must ask, which side of the gun rights debate are you on?

You've asked and answered your question: from your point of view I must be a "leftist" because I use "lines very similar" to the one you classify as denoting a "leftist." According to you I believe that a NICS check would have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre and I am a "leftist," anti-gun, an enemy of gun owners, possessed of questionable motives, and suffer from an inability to pay attention. You, in contrast, are a good fellow with fine principles that you never compromise. Got it.

You're correct. I was indeed unable to tell that you were "having a rather nice, calm, reasoned (and short) discussion about 2640 with BR" in that first message you posted. It wasn't "nice," wasn't "calm," wasn't "reasoned," and wasn't a "discussion." You made the sneering comment that "You don't honestly think that provision would be any use?" followed by your assertion that "The Democrats would just de-fund the new program the way they de-funded the old one." I did see that what you said in that first post of yours was short, though, and the evidence is that otherwise it would have strained my ability to pay attention. The rest of your posts in this thread carry on an argument with me. If you did it because you were under duress, whoever forced you to do it was naughty or, perhaps, a leftist. We leftists have extraordinary powers.

Can't you even try to work positively towards realistic goals instead of spreading the gospel of negativity and fear? Must you continue to argue that there's virtue in defeat? There is no shame in making small steps forward or in striving for a reasonable future instead of huddling with those who take strange joy in predicting Armageddon.

 

[SomeKid]

RH,

Take your rose colored glasses off, and go re-read my conversation with BR. I expressed disbelief that it would work as he hoped, he referred me to a different thread. What was my response to him? I would check it out. Sounds like I was being open minded that maybe he was referring me to new information, and in case you can't tell, that was that.

Of course, in Post 22, you pretty much accused Sen. Coburn, who is a great ally of gun owners rights, the GOA, and myself of being unable to see beyond our noses.

If only we pitiful peasants would listen to guys like RH, and the NRA, and Rep. McCarthy, we could be lead by visionaries, people who are not afraid to take reasonable steps forward...

Kind of getting the hint on why I think you are a leftist troll? Of course, in your eyes my questioning of your motives has nothing to do with this quote from you:

Can't you even try to work positively towards realistic goals instead of spreading the gospel of negativity and fear?

Nope, because my name has kid in it, I must have never voted, written a legislator, been involved with multiple gun orgs, and fought for the RKBA. Nope, because I came out for something I think is going to be bad law, I am a fearmongerer. If you are not a troll, get a clue.

Regardless, I am done with this pissing match. It is contributing nothing but a stink on THR. If I come back to this thread, it will be to discuss the bill with BR.

 

[antsi]

If a vietnam veteran who suffers from pts cannot buy a gun does that also mean he cannot keep his gun collection too?

Simply having post traumatic stress syndrome would NOT disqualify someone from purchasing firearms. In order to be disqualified, you have to be adjudicated mentally defective.

So, your scenario of a law-abiding but troubled vet vanishes. Instead, we have a vet with ptsd who has been repeatedly in trouble with the law and frequently winds up in court, who has demonstrated that he is dangerous to himself and others, and the court has ruled that he is mentally incompetent; ie, incapable of being responsible for his own actions and decisions.

As far as I know, the law in question only governs the purchasing of firearms. I am not aware of any similar law that covers firearms already owned by the individual.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Of course, in Post 22, you pretty much accused Sen. Coburn, who is a great ally of gun owners rights, the GOA, and myself of being unable to see beyond our noses.

Right. You understood me correctly.

Yes, I'm not only "Kind of getting the hint on why I think you are a leftist troll?" but I immediately understood what you meant and why you think so. Yours is not a kind of thinking that's hard to follow even for someone with an "inability to pay attention."

 

[JohnBT]

"BR & RH were selling HR2640 a few months back when the mantra was no new people would be disqualified -- they were already disqualified. Well, we knew that wasn't true and these additions to the disqualified list prove it. "

That's the damnest bunch of doubletalk you've come up with so far.

You can be disqualified according to federal law and not be on the list yet because your state has refused to report data to the feds. This was the result of a court case over money, not who is or is not disqualified. The people being reported were already disqualified according to federal law/regs.

If you don't know the law then maybe you shouldn't be commenting on it.

John

 

[ServiceSoon]

I don't think this FBI gun ban list is going to make us safer. So why make deals with the devil to pass it?

 

[Dallas239]

A federal agency does the NICS check; but the relief program is run by the state, so it cannot be defunded by Congress.

It doesn't matter. If Congress commands the states to do it, Congress must pay for it. If Congress doesn't send money, the state doesn't have to do it. So Congress could easily pass an appropriations bill saying that none of the state grant money may be used for relief programs.

If the state stops having a relief program for whatever reason, then they also lose the enhanced funding for NICS - so you are back to status quo.

But someone would have to enforce that, right? And why would it be enforced if it was contrary to the intentions of the enforcers.

And if the only good thing that would come out of this bill was relief provisions, then what we really should be doing is fighting to have the provisions already in the law made good. Let's not keep fighting the same battles over and over, giving up ground each time.

All anyone should need to know about this bill is that it was introduced and supported by Carolyn Mcarthy. A woman who has absolutely no purpose in life other than to take your guns away. She doesn't care what the standard is for taking away guns, just that it happens a lot. She's probably overjoyed at the 200,000 new names on the list, and I assure you she hasn't wasted a second thinking about how many are erroneous. In fact those are a bonus since they represent people who otherwise wouldn't be prohibited. Even if I had been led to believe that there was anything good about this bill, the fact that it came from her would be enough to convince me that I must be missing something.

But it doesn't matter much. After we hear from the court on Heller, I predict that whole swaths of 18 USC 922 will be overturned with no need to compromise anything.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But someone would have to enforce that, right? And why would it be enforced if it was contrary to the intentions of the enforcers.

It is written in to the language of the bill that the relief program is a necessary condition to receiving the grant. So please explain what you mean by "someone would have to enforce that."

Are you suggesting that if a state stopped its relief plan, Congress would continue to give them money despite the plain language of the law? This strikes me as unlikely.

She's probably overjoyed at the 200,000 new names on the list, and I assure you she hasn't wasted a second thinking about how many are erroneous. In fact those are a bonus since they represent people who otherwise wouldn't be prohibited.

Yup, and as it stands now, they will stay on that list for the foreseeable future.

After we hear from the court on Heller, I predict that whole swaths of 18 USC 922 will be overturned with no need to compromise anything.

Hmmm, I'm optimistic about Heller but not that optimistic and given the glacial pace of change I don't know how happy I would be waiting for that Court case if I was on the list... how much time passed between Dred Scott and Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[tube_ee]

errr.... No. Not really.

t doesn't matter. If Congress commands the states to do it, Congress must pay for it.

There's a whole long list of Federal programs and statutes which the States are required to administer or enforce that the Federal budget provides no funding for.

Or did you perhaps miss the last 30 years of argument over "unfunded mandates?"

Change "must" to "should", and we'll probably be in agreement, but there is no requirement for that to happen, and it frequently does not.

--Shannon

 

[Phil Lee]

JohnBT says

That's the damnest bunch of doubletalk you've come up with so far.

You can be disqualified according to federal law and not be on the list yet because your state has refused to report data to the feds.

That's amazing -- I said words similar to "You can be disqualified according to federal law and not be on the list yet because your state has refused to report data to the feds" in other threads on this topic. I'm so glad you learned something from me, but not too happy about your senior moment in forgetting where you heard it.

Now, why don't you try a bit of logic to figure out what my "doubletalk" really means. When you get a clue, you might have something informative to say.

It has been said by others on this thread that Congress can cut off money to the appeals process and if Congress does cut off money, the states are not obliged to conduct the appeals process. I said that very same thing on another thread explaining in detail how Congress could do that. Those who continue to assert that the appeals process would continue in places like California, Massachusetts, NY, NJ and certain other states that may not have such a process are deluded. The lack of money would make the process an unfunded mandate and courts would uphold any state refusing to hear appeals.

It may surprise you, but some states already have an appeals process. Supposedly, Maryland does and if the appeal is successful, the state doesn't report the appellant to NICS. Of course, Maryland's process does no one in Virginia any good and does no good for anyone who is a victim of a Veterans Administration or other Federal agency mental illness witch hunt.

HR2640 is a deeply flawed bill whose "benefits" to gun owners (a so called appeals process) are far outweighed by its flaws (federal codifying to deny due process to people accused of mental illness).

The principle benefit of rehashing discussions made earlier on other threads is to continue documenting who is walking/quacking like the Brady duck . . . or has the Brady organization decided recently to oppose this bill and I missed it?

 

[doc2rn]

+1 to what tube said.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Those who continue to assert that the appeals process would continue in places like California, Massachusetts, NY, NJ and certain other states that may not have such a process are deluded. The lack of money would make the process an unfunded mandate and courts would uphold any state refusing to hear appeals.

Phil, would you like to read the title of Section 105 to me? It is on page one of this thread in case you missed it any of the 20x I quoted it to you earlier. If states stop a relief program - for whatever reason - then their funding from Congress to add names to NICS also goes away and we are right where we are at right now. So what exactly is the risk? Stop the appeals process because your state likes gun control - no new money for NICS data. Stop the appeals process because Congress won't give you money for it - no new money for NICS data.

 

[GunTech]

It doesn't matter. If Congress commands the states to do it, Congress must pay for it. If Congress doesn't send money, the state doesn't have to do it. So Congress could easily pass an appropriations bill saying that none of the state grant money may be used for relief programs.

Hahahahaha! Haven't you heard of unfunded mandates? Congress commands states to do things all the time without providing funds.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The problem is that, as a knee-jerk reaction, states may now be reporting to the database people who do not actuallymeet the Federal criteria for denial. Remember, the criteria involve both a hearing and (I believe) confinement in an institution. The fact is that the VA Tech shooter didn't meet the criteria. If "the system" didn't work, it isn't because someone who should have been reported wasn't, it would be because the judge who decided Cho was potentially dangerous didn't impose requirements for treatment and confinement that met the reporting threshold.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Remember, the criteria involve both a hearing and (I believe) confinement in an institution.

Actually not. You must be "adjudicated mentally ill" or "involuntarily committed." Two circuits take the position that a hearing that adjudicates you mentally ill must be an adversarial hearing of the type necessary to involuntarily commit you. Two other circuits and a federal court in New York take the position that an adversarial hearing isn't required to be adjudicated.

Depending on the outcome of Heller, this may be a Second Amendment issue with a circuit split already built into it.

The fact is that the VA Tech shooter didn't meet the criteria.

Actually, the VA Tech shooter met the ATF definition of "adjudicated mentally defective" since he had been found to be a danger to himself or others by a judge in a non-adversarial hearing. However, the state of Virginia doesn't take the same position as the ATF and never intended to permanently deprive him of his rights so they didn't report him to NICS.

Clear as mud?

 

[Phil Lee]

BR says

Phil, would you like to read the title of Section 105 to me? It is on page one of this thread in case you missed it any of the 20x I quoted it to you earlier. If states stop a relief program - for whatever reason - then their funding from Congress to add names to NICS also goes away and we are right where we are at right now.

No, I wouldn't want to waste my time reading any title of Section 105 to you. It appears that you are seriously confused about laws and Constitutions and bills addressing appropriations.

Congress may establish a program in one bill with a law saying "there shall be a program to blah, blah, blah." That gets the program on the books, but no money to execute the program. There is a program for Homeland Security, for example with the Coast Guard efforts under that program for administration purposes. Congress must then appropriate money to fund the program to blah, blah, blah.

Congress is under no obligation to fund "blah, blah, blah" and might decide one year to fund only "blah, blah" or even "blah". Depending on how they word it, they might just say, notwithstanding any law previously past to the contrary, blah and blah will be funded, but no money spent for the third blah.

Now, you jump up and say, that can't happen because Congress has a prior law (if HR2640 passes) that says you can't fund NICS additions from that state if you don't give money for appeals. But, what Congress enacts, Congress can repeal and they can do so just by funding one line in program while defunding another line.

I'm really reluctant to believe you don't know that.

As to Congress passing along unfunded mandates which are the complaints of state and local governments all the time -- its true. But, if a state or local government wants to refuse to act because the mandate is unfunded, they can go to court to get an order saying to the Federalies to put up money or shut up about it.

A little known (and obviously not remembered case) was a case brought by Sheriff Mack against the unfunded mandate to check backgrounds (or supply background information) from the early Brady program prior to the instant check. Mack won and the Federal judge told the Federalies to do their own checking. Unfortunately, that was an alternative under the instant check which was just about ready to start. There three lessons from this case -- one, the federal government must pay for the work they require, but only if you make them; two, the federal government can manipulate money to defund anything that isn't a part of some other process they want to happen; three, Congress can change its mind and if you don't want them to do so easily, you'd better put the provision in a Constitution.

So, if you want to make HR2640 a good bill, change it to insure that those accused of being mentally ill and dangerous should go through a full court commitment process with judges and juries if the accused want for protecting the not "mentally ill and dangerous". And, if you want to have an appeals process, that is also where the adjudication process should be. Finally, there should be a process by which people adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous at one time can gain recognition that they are no longer ill or dangerous and so should be removed from the NICS list. And this process shouldn't be a matter of big court action. Rather, the legal process needs to recognize that cures for illness is possible and there should be a simple examination that can settle the issue administratively, but if there are disagreements the standard should be not "mentally ill and dangerous" unless proven and so the default should be to restore rights unless the government is prepared to undertake the commitment process again.

HR2640 comes nowhere close to the previous paragraph's outline of protections for our fellow Americans. I'd dearly like to read from you, BR, why you think it is ok to offer Americans believed to be ill less legal protections than we give to those accused of murder, rape, robbery or any of a number of vile and illegal acts.

Maybe you think there won't be any mistakes in our humane mental health adjudications process and those protections really aren't necessary since we all trust the government and those nice doctors.

 

[Dallas239]

Bart:

Yup, and as it stands now, they will stay on that list for the foreseeable future.

Not so. Because there is already a (somewhat) functional and funded process for removing incorrect information.

Congress could very easily fix the problem with people with mental health prohibitions by clarifying the statute to correct the ATF's misinterpretation of "mental defective".

I think Phil answered your other questions.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But, what Congress enacts, Congress can repeal and they can do so just by funding one line in program while defunding another line.

So your total argument against this boils down to "One day when Congress has more anti-gun votes they will remove this provision and hose us."?

I would suggest that the day Congress has a majority of anti-gun votes they will hose us regardless of whether this legislation exists or not.

I'd dearly like to read from you, BR, why you think it is ok to offer Americans believed to be ill less legal protections than we give to those accused of murder, rape, robbery or any of a number of vile and illegal acts.

I might ask you the same thing since this is already the status quo and you are the one arguing they should not be offered an opportunity to apply for relief because you don't regard that as a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Phil Lee]

BR says

So your total argument against this boils down to "One day when Congress has more anti-gun votes they will remove this provision and hose us."?

I would suggest that the day Congress has a majority of anti-gun votes they will hose us regardless of whether this legislation exists or not.

You almost got it! Actually, Congress has already hosed us previously by cutting off money for an appeals process through the BATF. That appeals process has been widely discussed, so should be known to you. You should also know that cutting off money to a segment in a program doesn't take a majority of anti-gun votes. It can be done by a minority of determined senators who are willing to oppose passage of a bill until money is cut off from a particular line item (especially if that minority is a majority on the Appropriations Committee of the Senate)

For the reasons just discussed, no appeals process, which isn't a part of some wider and inseparable funded function, is worth a bucket of warm spit. If HR2640 had laws that set the appeals process as being a cause of action in federal court (and defined the criteria sufficiently for a successful appeal), then we might have something to consider.

As for

I might ask you the same thing

about the current status quo, my answer is that I would support (and have said so in several places) a bill that sets Federal civil rights standards that a state would have to meet (and the feds too) before a name could be forwarded to NICS as disqualified for mental health reasons. These standards should include requiring juries (at the request of the "accused") in hearings before judges, with presumption of sanity and non-dangerousness, with rules of evidence, with the ability to have experts examine and testify for the accused, and with the ability of the accused to have a lawyer to protect his rights. HR2640 should require these standards for any name forwarded to NICS (and no name should be forwarded that didn't so protect a persons rights).

Moreover, HR2640 should have a clear statement of a simplified process that can be followed to have a name removed from NICS in the event a mentally ill person recovers and, also, have a right of an appeal process to be removed from NICS in federal court whereby a person might demonstrate (again to a jury) that he is well or not dangerous.

I have stated the needs for civil rights protections previously in other threads. That makes me wonder why you'd post a comment as if it is a great mystery about my position on civil rights? I'm not, as you say

arguing they should not be offered an opportunity to apply for relief

. I think you, and others, selling this HR2640 relief are actually selling snake oil cures for violence that will make a severe civil rights problem worse. And I wonder why you are turning a blind eye to the current mental health civil rights problems and not demanding these problems be fixed as a part of this federalizing of mental health NICS notification.

At least my position has the charm that the Feds will have difficulty enforcing their ban on people having arms who are protected by state privacy laws (in those states that continue to protect their residents). My position also has the charm that I'm not on the Brady side of this fight unlike some we know.

Finally, if the positive effect of HR2640 is that it creates an appeals process, it isn't true that a defeat of HR2640 dooms that process. Like I said earlier, Maryland has an appeals process and I'll bet a number of other states do too. I suggest those of you from other states might check to see whether your state also has some form of appeals process. It would be a heck of a note if every state already had an appeals process and HR2640 didn't accomplish anything for us.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You should also know that cutting off money to a segment in a program doesn't take a majority of anti-gun votes. It can be done by a minority of determined senators who are willing to oppose passage of a bill until money is cut off from a particular line item (especially if that minority is a majority on the Appropriations Committee of the Senate)

Cutting off the money doesn't rewrite legislation though. The language requiring the states to have a relief program to receive grant money would still be in the bill. States would be faced with the choice of funding the relief program on their own dime to get the grant money or stopping the relief program and losing the grant money.

I think you, and others, selling this HR2640 relief are actually selling snake oil cures for violence that will make a severe civil rights problem worse.

And I think you are taking a "give me everything I want now or no deal at all" approach that will mean no deal at all; but there you go. I would rather take part of the deal now and continue to work for more. I do appreciate the insinuation that disagreeing with you on this makes me a Brady supporter. Quite classy on your part; but well within my expectations. God forbid we should just disagree on an issue without slinging nastiness around.

Like I said earlier, Maryland has an appeals process and I'll bet a number of other states do too. I suggest those of you from other states might check to see whether your state also has some form of appeals process.

Can this appeals process remove your name from the NICS list AFTER Maryland has already sent it to NICS? Also is it the type of process Dallas239 describes where only incorrect information can be removed or is it a process that allows someone who has lived a clean, stable life for thirty years to get removed from the list?

 

[Dallas239]

Cutting off the money doesn't rewrite legislation though. The language requiring the states to have a relief program to receive grant money would still be in the bill. States would be faced with the choice of funding the relief program on their own dime to get the grant money or stopping the relief program and losing the grant money.

There's already a relief from disabilities process in the USC. And Chuckie Schumer can still pretty much single handedly prevent the ATF from doing anything with it. This is no different. Federal statutes are not "self executing" and they do not have magical powers. If Chuckie puts in the next appropriations bill that no federal grant money shall be used for relief of disabilities, then that's the law. And I don't know why you think we would have to wait for a new and improved less gun friendly congress, since the current congress (and many before them) have been perfectly willing to pass such appropriations bills.

And no one will take away the state's other money, because a) it would be contary to the intent of Congress, and b) if they did, the state would sue over being required to act without funds. The state would win, and voila! they don't have to have a relief from disabilites program.