alan
Member
Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act
After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.
The NICS Improvement Act does the following:
Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.
Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.
Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.
Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.
Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.
Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.
Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:
Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.
Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.
Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.
Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.
Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.
Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.
Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
-------------------
The following items/questions jump to my mind upon a quick read of the above.
1. Re the award of attorney's fees to the "injured party" arising out of court action brought against a Federal Agency that improperly denied "relief from disability", how about PUNATIVE DAMAGES AWARDS levied against the INDIVIDUALS responsible as well as against the agency.
2. Have monies to operate this relief from disabilities business been included or will that be open to obstruction by Senator Charles Schumer and others of his ilk, as has been the case in the past, and still is today?
3. Seems that there is a hellish long "time lag", 1 year is mentioned, allowed to federal agencies to drag their feet re relief from disability, before the individual can take the thing to federal court. This business has the sound and the smell of another of those congressional Dog and Pony Shows. I could be wrong re this conclusion, I suppose.
4. Once again, on important legislation, legislation on which there is significant argument, part of the national legislature, (Senate) passes important, disputed and otherwise questionable legislation on a "voice vote", presumably unrecorded. What is going on here seems an all to reasonable question.
5. Finally, there are seemingly significant differences between the House passed version, a voice vote there too, and the Senate version. There seems however, no mention of or references to the seemingly required House-Senate Conference Committee, out of which in the past, have come some rather strange pieces of legislation. Is something here being "glossed over"? Has the NRA blown it, some would add here AGAIN, re their support of this legislation?
After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners.
The NICS Improvement Act does the following:
Permanently prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for NICS checks.
Requires all federal agencies that impose mental health adjudications or commitments to provide a process for "relief from disabilities." Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed "strong concerns" over this aspect of the bill-surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.
Prevents reporting of mental adjudications or commitments by federal agencies when those adjudications or commitments have been removed.
Requires removal of expired, incorrect or otherwise irrelevant records. Today, totally innocent people (e.g., individuals with arrest records, who were never convicted of the crime charged) are sometimes subject to delayed or denied firearm purchases because of incomplete records in the system.
Provides a process of error correction if a person is inappropriately committed or declared incompetent by a federal agency. The individual would have an opportunity to correct the error-either through the agency or in court.
Prevents use of federal "adjudications" that consist only of medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are dangerous or mentally incompetent. This would ensure that purely medical records are never used in NICS. Gun ownership rights would only be lost as a result of a finding that the person is a danger to themselves or others, or lacks the capacity to manage his own affairs.
Improves the accuracy and completeness of NICS by requiring federal agencies and participating states to provide relevant records to the FBI. For instance, it would give states an incentive to report those who were adjudicated by a court to be "mentally defective," a danger to themselves, a danger to others or suicidal.
Requires a Government Accountability Office audit of past NICS improvement spending.
The bill includes significant changes from the version that previously passed the House, including:
Requires incorrect or outdated records to be purged from the system within 30 days after the Attorney General learns of the need for correction.
Requires agencies to create "relief from disabilities" programs within 120 days, to prevent bureaucratic foot-dragging.
Provides that if a person applies for relief from disabilities and the agency fails to act on the application within a year-for any reason, including lack of funds-the applicant can seek immediate review of his application in federal court.
Allows awards of attorney's fees to applicants who successfully challenge a federal agency's denial of relief in court.
Requires that federal agencies notify all people being subjected to a mental health "adjudication" or commitment process about the consequences to their firearm ownership rights, and the availability of future relief.
Earmarks 3-10% of federal implementation grants for use in operating state "relief from disabilities" programs.
Elimination of all references to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulations defining adjudications, commitments, or determinations related to Americans' mental health. Instead, the bill uses terms previously adopted by the Congress.
-------------------
The following items/questions jump to my mind upon a quick read of the above.
1. Re the award of attorney's fees to the "injured party" arising out of court action brought against a Federal Agency that improperly denied "relief from disability", how about PUNATIVE DAMAGES AWARDS levied against the INDIVIDUALS responsible as well as against the agency.
2. Have monies to operate this relief from disabilities business been included or will that be open to obstruction by Senator Charles Schumer and others of his ilk, as has been the case in the past, and still is today?
3. Seems that there is a hellish long "time lag", 1 year is mentioned, allowed to federal agencies to drag their feet re relief from disability, before the individual can take the thing to federal court. This business has the sound and the smell of another of those congressional Dog and Pony Shows. I could be wrong re this conclusion, I suppose.
4. Once again, on important legislation, legislation on which there is significant argument, part of the national legislature, (Senate) passes important, disputed and otherwise questionable legislation on a "voice vote", presumably unrecorded. What is going on here seems an all to reasonable question.
5. Finally, there are seemingly significant differences between the House passed version, a voice vote there too, and the Senate version. There seems however, no mention of or references to the seemingly required House-Senate Conference Committee, out of which in the past, have come some rather strange pieces of legislation. Is something here being "glossed over"? Has the NRA blown it, some would add here AGAIN, re their support of this legislation?