Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

Discussion in 'Legal' started by orygunmike, Jun 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. orygunmike

    orygunmike Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon by way of Southern California
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/

    Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
    Measure stiffening background checks would be 1st major reform since '94


    By Jonathan Weisman

    Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

    The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

    Carrot -and-stick proposal
    Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

    To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

    A marriage of convenience
    "The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

    Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby -- she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road -- ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.

    By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

    Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

    Fight has left many lawmakers gun-shy
    The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since.

    This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system.

    On Friday afternoon, the NRA finally signed off.

    "I've been involved with this legislative effort for years, working to address the shortcomings of NICS. I'm confident that this legislation will do it," Dingell said. "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon."

    States would be paid to comply
    Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.

    Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.

    The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.

    Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.

    "I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.

    © 2007 The Washington Post Company
     
  2. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    Yes because all of the other gun laws stopped evildoers from doing evil acts. :rolleyes: I am sorry but what will this new gunlaw do?

    I would like to think that with all the changes in the current NCIS being done according to the article that this is just another little inconvenience that solved a lot of problems some gunowners and potential gunowners had.

    Either way I am still in support of the no comrpomise approach. I know it does not get us very far but the compromise thing has only set us further back. It is time that we took back our rights from the government. I dont want to have to go through more checks and investigations to be able to exercise my rights.
     
  3. MrRezister

    MrRezister Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    I didn't see anything in there that would have changed the VTech situation at all. Are the dems just in a hurry to push out a bill or did I miss something important?
     
  4. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    Did anybody bother to ask where in the Constitution that it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...unless the people fail to submit to background checks, apply for licenses, and pay related fees." ??????

    Oh yeah, thats right, it doesnt say that. I guess the nobody bothered to actually read the Constitution when discussing these "issues of constitutionality".

    The NRA sold out, again.
     
  5. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    Has anyone seen the bill? I just want to know if there has been changes compared to the old bill.

    Any time they screw with the 'mental health' part of NICS it worries me, I have a minor history with that. (I have been prescribed anti-depressants, years ago)
    Always worries me that the law that is supposed to "help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon" will be expanded to include people with minor histories of mental health problems.

    Still, the one very good aspect of this is the 'appeal' process to get your name removed might finally happen. It was supposed to always be there but it was never funded. We all hate NICS but we know it isnt going anywhere, may as well get an avenue to allow people to get their rights back. Maybe the poor guys with 25 year old domestic violence convictions can protect their families again.
     
  6. Jadecristal

    Jadecristal Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    It's been a while since I joined the NRA; I'm only 25, and I must admit that I wondered exactly what all the griping about how they'd behaved in the past was for. Now I see it *real* clearly - they hold talks behind closed doors, working in secret to further entrench the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to fund unconstitutional programs in the same way everyone else does - dangle a carrot in front of the individual states, telling them, "just do it like we want, and we'll give you the money we took from your citizens." Since the states only complain about an increase in the scope of government when it's mandated and not funded, they'll be all too happy to comply. It's getting to the point that I don't even know what to do, since threatening our elected officials with removal from office when they continue to violate their oath doesn't seem to concern them.
     
  7. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    I still dont see this bill going anywhere like its earlier cousin, the Lady of Peace Act.

    The mental health community I suspect is the real reason behind this and every other version's death.
     
  8. illspirit

    illspirit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Location:
    Virginia
    Without taking the Constitutionality of the bill into consideration, it's still insane.

    Whether that's $250M per State or nationally, that's a lot of money to throw at, what, maybe one or two Cho-types a year? Even if this bill had been in place before, does anyone honestly believe someone as intent as Cho would have been stopped by a single NICS rejection? With as much time and premeditation he put into it, he could have went out and stolen another Glock from a police cruiser, bought one from some drug dealer, or just built a bomb.

    Statistically speaking, they'd probably get better results if they spent the money to randomly mail greeting cards with pictures of adorable kittens to college and high school students asking them nicely to please not shoot up the place. that is, assuming their goal really is less deaths..
     
  9. billwiese

    billwiese Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    The politically naive here are missing something.

    This bill may well have gone thru - why not get favorable publicity and ensure it does no harm? No rational politically-wise organization can say they support crazy people getting guns.

    Also, whether this bill fails or flies is likely gonna hinge on HIPPA medical records privacy matters.


    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA
     
  10. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

    BOHICA :(
     
  11. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,487
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    Good for Vermont.

    A quarter billion here, a quarter billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.
     
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Also, whether this bill fails or flies is likely gonna hinge on HIPPA medical records privacy matters."

    I don't think so. The law still requires the reporting of "adjudications", that is court records relating to involuntary committments. NICS doesn't need to know why the court involuntarily committed someone - the specific diagnosis, etc. - only that they were committed.

    With only 20 states currently reporting involuntary committment info, the bill will allow the feds to pay the states to update their records. Half of the mental health info in NICS is from Virginia, so if Cho slipped through here what's going on in those other 30 states?

    This bill, like current law, still doesn't cover voluntary mental health treatment like going to your doctor for meds for depression or anxiety, or going to a psychologist or therapist for counseling.

    John
     
  13. stellarpod

    stellarpod Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    534
    Location:
    OKC, OK
    Ditto what JohnBT just said.

    I'll wait to see how this works out before I start flaming the NRA. They have stated unequivocally that they will pull their support and actively campaign AGAINST the bill if it becomes "a gun control wish list" as it moves through Congress.

    stellarpod
     
  14. camacho

    camacho Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    Florida
    Well, possibly it would. According to the write up above:
    I am not saying that Cho would not have chosen other method of killing people but he might not have been able to legally purchase gun.
     
  15. wdlsguy

    wdlsguy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    TX
    The Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association are both gun control organizations.
     
  16. Mongo the Mutterer

    Mongo the Mutterer Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,242
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Bingo.. They left themselves a big, huge door to walk out of, and the NRA looks to be a "sane" organization by promoting "common sense" reporting.

    Eyewash for the sheeple, folks. Wise up.

    And as far as HR1022, Mary McCarthy brings out her husband and son's bloody shirts every year with this bill, which will go nowhere.

    As far as the Democrats, many were bluedogs elected with Pro 2A support (the useless McCaskill from my state is one of them.) They are not going to go down the road their liberal leaders want to go down. They want to be re-elected.

    Politics needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye at all times. Ask yourself "Why would the NRA do that?" before throwing them under the bus.
     
  17. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Watch out Illinois, our state is pushing legislation that will allow ANY health care professional to report even OUTPATIENT visits for depression as a risk to the state and thus, the Fed database.

    It includes absolution for liability. It has passed the senate in IL.
    So go to the doc, say you're feeling a bit down and might need anti-depressant meds, and bingo-bango---the doc's office can call you in.

    Watch--they will worry about liability for NOT reporting and it will become routine. The receptionist will just send your data off to Springfield after billing your ins company.

    And the ISRA isn't watching it that I've noted.
     
  18. RealGun

    RealGun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,309
    Location:
    Upstate SC
    Here we go again with the VT analysis. Technically, Cho maintained his eligibility to buy a gun, because of the way the court handled his case. He was not disqualified and would not have been reported. Using the case as an excuse to make more people ineligible or caught up in bureaucracy is lame. It actually attempts to redefine the threshold of ineligibility or would have to in order to have made a difference in hindsight.

    This law will not be a reflection of any wisdom at all unless one takes on a temporary suspension of rights while being treated for mental problems. Such suspension should be imposed by or lifted only by those best qualified to judge ones mental capacity. That should be more than one person, and preferably not a Democrat or bureaucrat. :evil:
     
  19. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    755
    Location:
    Ohio
    True. It was a 'loophoole' none of us knew existed. I had no idea a judge could de-facto commit someone, without actually committing him, and it would not put him on the list.

    By the way, I keep on hearing that 'only 4 states regularly report mental health disqualifications to NICS'. Does anyone know what states they are? I was able to find a list of states that 'report mental health disqualifications semi-regularly' - but not which 4 are keeping theirs updated.
     
  20. pcosmar

    pcosmar member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    954
    Location:
    UP Michigan
    No surprise
    The headline I would really like to see, I large friendly letters.

    NRA tells Democrats to SUCK EGGS.
     
  21. jfh

    jfh Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,872
    Location:
    Maple Plain, MN
    You gotta think politically--

    and in light of that admonition, billweise hit a big one: At this stage of the bill-creation process (sausage-making), the NRA has done a big, and very good, PR move. Their involvement and agreement (again, to this stage), makes them / us to be a bit more sane to liberals and sheeples.

    And THAT is a tiny bit of win in the cultures, with potential favorable long-term benefits.

    At the next stage, the gun-grabbers get to appear to be the irrational ones and the obstructionists. And that's a good thing--again, with long-term benefits.

    Finally, the NRA impact on legislation is well-known and revered among the poligentsia--remember their shut-down of the liability bill after poison-pill amendments were added, just two years ago.

    The above is just political-speak; it does not address the common-sense values we all share regarding 'crazies'--I think.

    Jim H.
     
  22. Taurus 617 CCW

    Taurus 617 CCW Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,617
    Location:
    Northern Idaho
    Just a bunch of morons without a cause and too much time/$ on their hands. :banghead:
     
  23. Silver Bullet

    Silver Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,335
    Location:
    Arizona
    From the Washington Post:

    The full story can be found here, but you have to acquire a login:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=democrats nra&
     
  24. damien

    damien Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Northern IL, USA
    I am seriously considering rescinding my NRA membership.

    "Significant concessions " my ass.

    If these guys want to deal, that's fine. Dealing behind closed doors helps in this case because they can float ideas to the other side. But if they want to support this bill, they need to get something in return of equal value. I would deal this for any of the following:

    1. Nationwide reciprocity.
    2. Open up the NFA register again and start registering MGs.
    3. Unambiguous pledges on paper and on FOX by McCarthy, Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Schumer not to support any future AWB, magazine ban, .50 cal ban, or any other gun ban at the federal level.

    But to deal this away for nothing is just plain stupid.
     
  25. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    2,998
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    Hate the NFA? Say 'Thanks, NRA!'
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page