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.