H.R. 297: NICS Improvement Act of 2007...McCarthy at it again!

Status
Not open for further replies.

jpk1md

Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
620
H.R. 297: NICS Improvement Act of 2007...McCarthy at it again!

To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.

Introduced: Jan 5, 2007
Sponsor:
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]show cosponsors (2)
Cosponsors
Rep. Michael Castle [R-DE]
Rep. John Dingell [D-MI]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.
Last Action: Jan 29, 2007: Introductory remarks on measure. (CR H965-966)

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 297

To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 5, 2007

Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr. DINGELL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `NICS Improvement Act of 2007'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 2. Findings.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

Sec. 101. Enhancement of requirement that Federal departments and agencies provide relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Sec. 102. Requirements to obtain waiver.

Sec. 103. Implementation assistance to States.

Sec. 104. Penalties for noncompliance.

TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT RECORDS

Sec. 201. Continuing evaluations.

TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURT SYSTEMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS

Sec. 301. Disposition records automation and transmittal improvement grants.

TITLE IV--GAO AUDIT

Sec. 401. GAO audit.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Approximately 916,000 individuals were prohibited from purchasing a firearm for failing a background check between November 30, 1998, (the date the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) began operating) and December 31, 2004.

(2) From November 30, 1998, through December 31, 2004, nearly 49,000,000 Brady background checks were processed through NICS.

(3) Although most Brady background checks are processed through NICS in seconds, many background checks are delayed if the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not have automated access to complete information from the States concerning persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or State law.

(4) Nearly 21,000,000 criminal records are not accessible by NICS and millions of criminal records are missing critical data, such as arrest dispositions, due to data backlogs.

(5) The primary cause of delay in NICS background checks is the lack of--

(A) updates and available State criminal disposition records; and

(B) automated access to information concerning persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm because of mental illness, restraining orders, or misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence.

(6) Automated access to this information can be improved by--

(A) computerizing information relating to criminal history, criminal dispositions, mental illness, restraining orders, and misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence; or

(B) making such information available to NICS in a usable format.

(7) Helping States to automate these records will reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers.

(8) On March 12, 2002, the senseless shooting, which took the lives of a priest and a parishioner at the Our Lady of Peace Church in Lynbrook, New York, brought attention to the need to improve information-sharing that would enable Federal and State law enforcement agencies to conduct a complete background check on a potential firearm purchaser. The man who committed this double murder had a prior disqualifying mental health commitment and a restraining order against him, but passed a Brady background check because NICS did not have the necessary information to determine that he was ineligible to purchase a firearm under Federal or State law.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) COURT ORDER- The term `court order' includes--

(A) a court order (as described in section 922(g)(8) of title 18, United States Code); and

(B) a protection order (as defined in section 2266(5) of title 18, United States Code).

(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

(3) MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'--

(A) has the meaning given the term in section 921(a)(33) of title 18, United States Code;

(B) includes any Federal, State, or local offense that--

(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;

(ii) has, as an element of the offense, the use or attempted use of physical force, such as assault and battery, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and

(iii) was committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim; and

(C) does not include a crime described under subparagraph (A) if--

(i) the person was not convicted by the jurisdiction in which the proceeding was held;

(ii) the person was not represented by counsel in the case and did not knowingly or intelligently waive the right to counsel in the case;

(iii) in the case of a prosecution for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried--

(I) the case was not tried by a jury; and

(II) the person did not knowingly or intelligently waive the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea, or otherwise; or

(iv) the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored unless--

(I) the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms; or

(II) the person is otherwise prohibited by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held from receiving or possessing any firearms.

TITLE I--TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS

SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

(a) In General- Section 103(e)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `Notwithstanding' and inserting the following:

`(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding';

(2) by striking `On request' and inserting the following:

`(B) REQUEST OF ATTORNEY GENERAL- On request';

(3) by striking `furnish such information' and inserting `furnish electronic versions of the information described under subparagraph (A)'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) QUARTERLY SUBMISSION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL- If a department or agency under subparagraph (A) has any record of any person demonstrating that the person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, the head of such department or agency shall, not less frequently than quarterly, provide the pertinent information contained in such record to the Attorney General.

`(D) INFORMATION UPDATES- The agency, on being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available under subparagraph (A) does not apply, or no longer applies, shall--

`(i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any database that the agency maintains and makes available to the Attorney General, in accordance with the rules pertaining to that database; or

`(ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer applies so that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is kept up to date.

`(E) ANNUAL REPORT- The Attorney General shall submit an annual report to Congress that describes the compliance of each department or agency with the provisions of this paragraph.'.

(b) Provision and Maintenance of NICS Records-

(1) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make available to the Attorney General--

(A) records, updated not less than quarterly, which are relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, for use in background checks performed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and

(B) information regarding all the persons described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph who have changed their status to a category not identified under section 922(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code, for removal, when applicable, from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

(2) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE- The Attorney General shall--

(A) ensure that any information submitted to, or maintained by, the Attorney General under this section is kept accurate and confidential, as required by the laws, regulations, policies, or procedures governing the applicable record system;

(B) provide for the timely removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; and

(C) work with States to encourage the development of computer systems, which would permit electronic notification to the Attorney General when--

(i) a court order has been issued, lifted, or otherwise removed by order of the court; or

(ii) a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
 
Bill Text Continued

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN WAIVER.

(a) In General- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, a State shall be eligible to receive a waiver of the 10 percent matching requirement for National Criminal History Improvement Grants under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601) if the State provides at least 90 percent of the information described in subsection (c). The length of such a waiver shall not exceed 2 years.

(b) State Estimates-

(1) IN GENERAL- To assist the Attorney General in making a determination under subsection (a) of this section, and under section 104, concerning the compliance of the States in providing information to the Attorney General for the purpose of receiving a waiver under subsection (a) of this section, or facing a loss of funds under section 104, each State shall provide the Attorney General with a reasonable estimate, as calculated by a method determined by the Attorney General, of the number of--

(A) criminal history records for misdemeanors and felonies;

(B) State criminal history records with disposition information;

(C) active court orders in the State; and

(D) State records of persons adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.

(2) SCOPE- The Attorney General, in determining the compliance of a State under this section or section 104 of this Act for the purpose of granting a waiver or imposing a loss of Federal funds, shall assess the total percentage of records provided by the State concerning any event occurring within the prior 30 years, which would disqualify a person from possessing a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.

(3) CLARIFICATION- Notwithstanding paragraph (2), States shall endeavor to provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event.

(c) Eligibility of State Records for Submission to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System-

(1) REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY-

(A) IN GENERAL- From information collected by a State, the State shall make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or applicable State law.

(B) NICS UPDATES- The State, on being made aware that the basis under which a record was made available under subparagraph (A) does not apply, or no longer applies, shall, as soon as practicable--

(i) update, correct, modify, or remove the record from any database that the Federal or State government maintains and makes available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, consistent with the rules pertaining to that database; or

(ii) notify the Attorney General that such basis no longer applies so that the record system in which the record is maintained is kept up to date.

(C) CERTIFICATION- To remain eligible for a waiver under subsection (a), a State shall certify to the Attorney General, not less than once during each 2-year period, that at least 90 percent of all information described in subparagraph (A) has been made electronically available to the Attorney General in accordance with subparagraph (A).

(D) INCLUSION OF ALL RECORDS- The State shall make every effort to identify and include all of the records described under subparagraph (A) without regard to the age of the record.

(2) APPLICATION TO PERSONS CONVICTED OF MISDEMEANOR CRIMES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, records relevant to a determination of whether a person has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. With respect to records relating to such crimes, the State shall provide information specifically describing the offense and the specific section or subsection of the offense for which the defendant has been convicted and the relationship of the defendant to the victim in each case.

(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

(d) Privacy Protections- For any information provided to the Attorney General for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, relating to persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, the Attorney General shall work with States and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish regulations and protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided to the system. The Attorney General shall make every effort to meet with any mental health group seeking to express its views concerning these regulations and protocols and shall seek to develop regulations as expeditiously as practicable.

(e) Attorney General Report- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of States in automating the databases containing the information described in subsection (b) and in making that information electronically available to the Attorney General pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c).

SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE TO STATES.

(a) Authorization-

(1) IN GENERAL- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to States and Indian tribal governments, in a manner consistent with the National Criminal History Improvement Program, which shall be used by the States and Indian tribal governments, in conjunction with units of local government and State and local courts, to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations.

(2) GRANTS TO INDIAN TRIBES- Up to 5 percent of the grant funding available under this section may be reserved for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems.

(b) Use of Grant Amounts- Grants awarded to States or Indian tribes under this section may only be used to--

(1) create electronic systems, which provide accurate and up-to-date information which is directly related to checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (referred to in this section as `NICS'), including court disposition and corrections records;

(2) assist States in establishing or enhancing their own capacities to perform NICS background checks;

(3) supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney General concerning final dispositions of criminal records to databases accessed by NICS;

(4) supply accurate and timely information to the Attorney General concerning the identity of persons who are prohibited from obtaining a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, to be used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation solely to conduct NICS background checks;

(5) supply accurate and timely court orders and records of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence for inclusion in Federal and State law enforcement databases used to conduct NICS background checks; and

(6) collect and analyze data needed to demonstrate levels of State compliance with this Act.

(c) Condition- As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State shall specify the projects for which grant amounts will be used, and shall use such amounts only as specified. A State that violates this subsection shall be liable to the Attorney General for the full amount of the grant received under this section.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

(e) User Fee- The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall not charge a user fee for background checks pursuant to section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 104. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

(a) Attorney General Report-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the progress of the States in automating the databases containing information described under sections 102 and 103, and in providing that information pursuant to the requirements of sections 102 and 103.

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Justice, such funds as may be necessary to carry out paragraph (1).

(b) Penalties-

(1) DISCRETIONARY REDUCTION- During the 2-year period beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756) if the State provides less than 60 percent of the information required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

(2) MANDATORY REDUCTION- After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall withhold 5 percent of the amount that would otherwise be allocated to a State under section 506 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3756), if the State provides less than 90 percent of the information required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.

(3) WAIVER BY ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General may waive the applicability of paragraph (2) to a State if the State provides substantial evidence, as determined by the Attorney General, that the State is making a reasonable effort to comply with the requirements of sections 102 and 103.

(c) Reallocation- Any funds that are not allocated to a State because of the failure of the State to comply with the requirements of this title shall be reallocated to States that meet such requirements.
 
That Beotch writes too much!

TITLE II--FOCUSING FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT RECORDS

SEC. 201. CONTINUING EVALUATIONS.

(a) Evaluation Required- The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (referred to in this section as the `Director') shall study and evaluate the operations of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Such study and evaluation shall include compilations and analyses of the operations and record systems of the agencies and organizations necessary to support such System.

(b) Report on Grants- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress a report containing the estimates submitted by the States under section 102(b).

(c) Report on Best Practices- Not later than January 31 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress, and to each State participating in the National Criminal History Improvement Program, a report of the practices of the States regarding the collection, maintenance, automation, and transmittal of information relevant to determining whether a person is prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm by Federal or State law, by the State or any other agency, or any other records relevant to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, that the Director considers to be best practices.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010 to complete the studies, evaluations, and reports required under this section.

TITLE III--GRANTS TO STATE COURT SYSTEMS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL OF DISPOSITION RECORDS

SEC. 301. DISPOSITION RECORDS AUTOMATION AND TRANSMITTAL IMPROVEMENT GRANTS.

(a) Grants Authorized- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to each State, consistent with State plans for the integration, automation, and accessibility of criminal history records, for use by the State court system to improve the automation and transmittal of criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments, to Federal and State record repositories in accordance with sections 102 and 103 and the National Criminal History Improvement Program.

(b) Grants to Indian Tribes- Up to 5 percent of the grant funding available under this section may be reserved for Indian tribal governments for use by Indian tribal judicial systems.

(c) Use of Funds- Amounts granted under this section shall be used by the State court system only--

(1) to carry out, as necessary, assessments of the capabilities of the courts of the State for the automation and transmission of arrest and conviction records, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to Federal and State record repositories; and

(2) to implement policies, systems, and procedures for the automation and transmission of arrest and conviction records, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to Federal and State record repositories.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this section $125,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

TITLE IV--GAO AUDIT

SEC. 401. GAO AUDIT.

(a) In General- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of the expenditure of all funds appropriated for criminal records improvement pursuant to section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) to determine if the funds were expended for the purposes authorized by the Act and how those funds were expended for those purposes or were otherwise expended.

(b) Report- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress describing the findings of the audit conducted pursuant to subsection
 
I read through most of it, but I'm not getting the consequences of it. Collection of (more) diverse federal and state databases into a single NICS system?
 
...absolutely...

...nutz...
Complete registration and sharing of city,state,federal computer records, bans misdemeanor offenders and adds medical records access in some cases...
She is not going to be satisfied until she gets all the guns, ammunition and us stamped, registered and hog-tied... rauch06.gif
 
This is too much. Something needs to be done.

How can we, as a group, impress upon Ms. McCarthy (interesting and appropriate name, hm?) how un-American these bills are? Mass letter campaign? :confused:
 
NRA is IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL!!!!!!!!

Folks, its time to call the NRA and tell them that they are nuts!!!!

I just got off the phone with them and was informed that the NRA is IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL!!!!!!!!

I was told that their lawyers looked it over and that it is a GOOD thing....NOT! They claim that it won't add anything bad and will give folks a way of clearing up bad stuff that gets them rejections in the NICS System.

I have my doubts about expanding this system any further.

Sic 'em! NRA 800-392-8683
 
The NRA has supported this bill for several years now, going back to when McCarthy originally introduced it in 2004. NRA Board of Director member John Dingell was a co-sponsor of the original as well.

The only thing this bill does is take records of people who are already prohibited from owning a gun by federal law and put them into the NICS system.

It doesn't give anyone access to mental health records, it requires states to computerize their court records of people who courts have adjudicated as mentally incompetent (i.e. you are so crazy that we will not hold you legally responsible for your actions). Even on THR, I don't think anyone is going to seriously suggest that people who are mentally ill to a degree that a court has said they are not responsible for their actions should still be able to buy firearms.

Basically this bill makes the list of prohibited persons used by NICS more accurate. Whether you support or oppose this bill depends a lot on whether you think that is a good thing or not. To the extent it removes false positives, it is a good thing for gun owners. To the extent it adds bogus domestic violence convictions to the database that prohibit good citizens from owning firearms, it is probably a bad thing (but you can argue that the real problem there is Lautenberg, not NICS).

From a political perspective, this bill never left committee under the Republicans, despite NRA and Brady support (as well as an NRA BoD co-sponsor). Generally when Brady and NRA agree on a gun bill and it still goes nowhere after 3 years, that is not a sign of a healthy bill with good prospects.

As far as asking NRA to oppose it... well, I think that is a remarkably optimistic goal since you are basically asking NRA to go to a Democratic controlled Congress and say "While we oppose felons and the mentally ill having firearms, we also oppose updating the list we use to prevent them from obtaining them."

Pick your battles folks... asking the NRA to assume a wildly unpopular political position that will get them lambasted in the press over a bill that has gone nowhere in three years despite zero opposition doesn't strike me as a good battle to have.
 
Mr. Roberts,

Tell me, what does this mean?

(3) APPLICATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION- The State shall make available to the Attorney General, for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as mentally defective or those committed to mental institutions to assist the Attorney General in enforcing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.

(d) Privacy Protections- For any information provided to the Attorney General for use by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, relating to persons prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, the Attorney General shall work with States and local law enforcement and the mental health community to establish regulations and protocols for protecting the privacy of information provided to the system. The Attorney General shall make every effort to meet with any mental health group seeking to express its views concerning these regulations and protocols and shall seek to develop regulations as expeditiously as practicable.

I oppose all gun control, even NRA sanctioned gun control. This is an intrusive expansion of NICS.


David
 
Tell me, what does this mean?

It means that states must computerize their court records of people who have been adjudicated mentally defective (a court declares that you are so mentally ill that you will not be held legally responsible for your actions) or were involuntarily committed by a court to a mental institution (court sends you to an asylum).

You could make a good argument that this section would also apply to people who are voluntarily committed to mental institutions; but since there aren't any legal records of that to be computerized I don't think it would have any practical effect even if you did take that interpretation.

I oppose all gun control, even NRA sanctioned gun control.

I certainly understand that view. My point is simply that this is the wrong fight to pick for a variety of practical reasons.

This is an intrusive expansion of NICS.

Intrusive how? All of these are already public record in the courts. This just requires the records to be computerized and made available to NICS.
 
Given that Caryolin McCarthy never had anythng going for her other than the sympathy vote, how long does that last, I wonder as to how she retains her seat, the stupidity of the electorate and the Republican Party notwithstanding.
 
Intrusive how? All of these are already public record in the courts. This just requires the records to be computerized and made available to NICS.


Exactly so. Why should the state make these records available (at the tax payers expense for which almost half a billion dollars has generously been set aside)? Are these state records? What say does the federal gov. have in how the state keeps its records and how they should be made available? Certainly I call it intrusive.


David
 
Given that Caryolin McCarthy never had anythng going for her other than the sympathy vote, how long does that last, I wonder as to how she retains her seat

Unseating an incumbent member of Congress is a difficult undertaking at best. Given the party demographics of McCarthy's district (Long Island, NY) and her party affiliation (D), I'd say, realistically, the seat is hers until she decides to retire.

The only likely scenario where she might lose her seat in an election is if she were to piss off the nutroots and they find a Ned Lamont type to run against her. In which case, the replacement would likely be even worse.
 
NICS an unconstitutional reality

Making the NICS better, nicer and more user friendly is what many including the NRA want to do. Well, if one believes that the NICS is unconstitutional, why would one want to improve it at American citizen/taxpayer expense? NICS is another TOTALITARIAN ENACTMENT, meaning it has no basis on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. I am tired of reading about so-called friends of the SECOND AMENDMENT in support of the present NICS and further expansion of it. When will it end? It will end when the American Citizen is legislated out of owning any type of firearm. Now, with all of the these unconstitutional laws for the good of the many, we as citizens have to ask for permission to "bear arms"? Read the below from Gun Owners of America on their take on H.R. 297.

oae :banghead:

Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert
-- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.

On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it than were their predecessors.

This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the elapsed time since the disqualifying event."

Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and other records.

NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this bill.

For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.

Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for self-defense.

The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.

The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the federal government all of these indictment records, updated quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this, too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.

Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.

This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.

Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people, as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown how these people will be categorized in the future.

The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'

Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that our private data gets added into government computers, the more likely we are to have our identity compromised.

Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of 'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.

Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all relevant data related to who is in this country illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not relevant?

In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment records, library records (we've already seen how these have been deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an illegal.

The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.

Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact, the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report" entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows Criminals to Get Guns."

This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years, look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.

The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second Amendment rights.

ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you contact your representative immediately. Please take action today and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.

You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Representative a pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
 
uhhhh...

...I agree in principle about pickin' yer' fights, but I do worry about the way it leaves the ball in their court, so to speak re: mental health records...
If they are gonna' be opened for any reason to the gov, they can be abused...once they are looked into by someone, aren't they permanently available? Say, if a therapist (not an MD) becomes concerned about a client, contacts the psychiatrist, and he then enters notes onto a record, doesn't that satisfy the qualification for this? Anyone can be held for 96 hrs to be evaluated, right?
It just looks like to me that MurphysLaw applies...
If it can be (screwed with and abused) it will be...

I think there are enough rules allowing us to be abused already...I'm just leary of anything that says, 'we're willing to work with you later if you let us have what we want now'...
That's just a prelude to ohwellwehavethepowerscrewemanyway...
...jadedinmyoldage... rauch06.gif
 
We could always use this as a vehicle to attach pro gun amendments.

Sorta force the antis to eat a poison pill.
 
yup...

We could always use this as a vehicle to attach pro gun amendments.

...I can see it in that light...but, not in a blind hope that they'd take the high road with our information...
Tit for tat, before the agreement...They can't be trusted after the fact... rauch06.gif
 
Sounds like an ideal vehicle for repealing the '86 MG ban.

Here is the practical problem with that. In the House, it is almost impossible to amend a bill if you aren't the majority party. In fact, that is how we got the 1986 MG ban in the first place. The Democrats controlled the House and used that control to slap a poison pill into the Firearm Owners Protection Act on a controversial voice vote.

In order to add a poison pill of any kind to this bill, we would have to wait until it gets to the Senate and then offer an amendment from the Senate floor. To attach the amendment, we would need 51 Senators willing to go on record supporting a repeal of the 1986 ban (which I'm pretty sure we don't have).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top