NRA & Democrats Reach NICS Deal
That, in and of itself, is enough to make me wary. From the Washington Post:
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.
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.
Read the whole thing. As I asked the other day in this post about a similar measure at the state level in Illinois, I’m not against such a bill like this per se but. . . What’s a “minor infraction?” As many of you pointed out in the comments to that post: Will this deter people from seeking help for an emotional problem? If you tell your doctor that you feel a little depressed and he prescribes Valium for you — are you suddenly considered “suicidal?” None of us want psychos to have guns but will this bill allow doctors and state database contributions to distinguish between the dangerous and not dangerous?
Here’s another problem: The NRA will support the bill in its current form. They would withdraw their support if various congress-critters start tacking on other anti-gun amendments. That is almost CERTAIN to happen and here’s why: Support from the general public will be overwhelming for keeping the NICS records up to date, especially with data on people who have been judged as mentally unstable in light of the VA Tech rampage. No legislator in his right mind would vote against the bill in it’s current state if they hope to get re-elected. This give carte blanc to anti-gunners such as Feinstein and McCarthy to tack on their gun control measures as amendments. A new “assault weapons” ban comes to mind. Pro-gun congressmen will have fears about close elections or worry about a backlash from any liberal constituents in their districts will (no doubt with great vocal reluctance) pass the measure anyway.
We need to follow this carefully.
10 Responses to “NRA & Democrats Reach NICS Deal”
on 10 Jun 2007 at 12:24 pm # PN NJ
There are lots of reasons to be wary about such a compromise. In particular, the NRA needs to nail down a very precise definition of what constitutes a reportable mental illness or infraction. Otherwise, unsubstantiated allegations become sufficient to deny any purchases by law-abiding citizens (and, potentially, sufficient to seize guns already owned).
For example, a divorce lawyer could threaten to make such allegations during divorce negotiations or litigation. Cranky neighbors, vindictive individuals, political opponents, take your choice. There’s no shortage of people or groups that would seek to take advantage of such a gray area if given the opportunity.
on 10 Jun 2007 at 12:49 pm # PN NJ
One more thing (since my wife is a psychotherapist). Mental health counseling or treatment, and/or taking certain prescription drugs, should not be entirely sufficient by themselves to disqualify an individual.
Of course there will be some individuals receiving treatment or drugs who should be disqualified, but not just because these two factors occur.
on 10 Jun 2007 at 1:26 pm # TAF
If one is going to make a deal with the devil, the least one can do it get something for it.
How about adding in 50 state reciprocity for carry permits, just to make the risk of such legislation worth taking?
on 10 Jun 2007 at 4:56 pm # anon
TAF has it right: Once again the NRA fails the gun community by not getting something in return. What kind of ‘bargain’ is it when only one side gives? What did the NRA get for us in return? Nothing?
on 10 Jun 2007 at 10:06 pm # jed
Regardless of my thoughts about the NICS, etc., if you read the last paragraph of that quote, it doesn’t sound like “nothing” to me.
I suppose the value of those concessions depends upon how you look at the system. Funding the process should result in more names in the database. But the additional appeals process could balance that out. On the whole it sounds like mostly a wash, but would have been worse.
On the whole, I’m upset with the NRA for not being more hard-line, and for other reasons. But if they can get in there and have a positive affect on a sure-to-pass bill, then they’ve done something decently.
We’ll see how they react when the amendments start getting tacked on.
on 11 Jun 2007 at 9:42 am # Gringo_Malo
“None of us want psychos to have guns but will this bill allow doctors and state database contributions to distinguish between the dangerous and not dangerous?”
Obviously, the answer is no, and that’s not the intention. The purpose of the bill is to disarm as many people as possible. If your name gets on the NICS denial list, you’ll have a hell of a time getting it off.
I wonder whether PJ NJ is aware that federal law (18USC922(g)(1), I believe) already forbids anyone subject to a temporary restraining order to possess a firearm. TROs against the husband are routinely issued in divorce cases. The new bill could and probably would put anyone who’s ever been subject to a TRO permanently on the NICS denial list.
on 11 Jun 2007 at 3:13 pm # anon
jed, it does look like there were some concessions from the brady bunch on this bill, but those are concessions on a new bill. We aren’t getting anything new here - and we aren’t getting anything back. The article makes a big deal about the possibility for some people getting off the list, but that possibility has always been there - the useless fecks in congress just never gave funding for it. Now, if this bill does provide funding for it, great. But if that’s the case - then why is Wyoming having so much trouble doing just that? Wyoming is fighting the ATF to give minor offenders back their rights, and IIRC they aren’t getting anywhere. In the end, this Bill will put more people on the list. It’s time for the NRA to grow a pair, and get rid of the various local bans (pistol/.50/AWB/hi-cap mags,sporting language, class III, etc) around the country. The anti’s just keep chip, chip, chipping away. Granted the NRA has made great strides with carry & castle doctrine at the state level, but it’s all for naught if the feds keep chipping away at the basic rights and availability. A driver’s license is good nationwide, why not a carry license? NRA or GOA or SAF needs to get a nationwide reciprocity rider on this bill. If that’s a poision pill, fine, but we need something positive in it for us. As it is, no politico is going to vote ‘no’ on a bill that ‘improves the background check’, just like nobody would vote ‘no’ on something called the ‘Patriot Act’. This bill is going to be a done deal, and the only real effect is to spend more of our money taking rights away from more citizens.
If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and loonies, then you need to keep criminals and loonies off the streets - pure and simple. Gun control is a losing game. All it does is restrict the law-abiding and the right thinking - exactly the people you don’t need to worry about. Bills like this erode our rights with no benefit to society. This is just a wrong-headed approach.
on 11 Jun 2007 at 5:15 pm # straightarrow
The opportunity to challenge is an empty promise. Did anyone see any criteria describing the conditions for grant of return of rights. NO! and you won’t, either.
on 11 Jun 2007 at 5:17 pm # straightarrow
it sounds like you are getting something until you try to see how it works, then you realize you got screwed.
on 15 Jun 2007 at 12:27 am # jonathan
I’ve read the bill, and I support it in its current form.
As I’ve written in my blog: The bill would add people involuntarily committed to a mental institution and those ruled “mentally defective” and are a danger to themselves and others. I think that is specific enough. “Allegations” won’t be enough.
Also included are misdemeanor domestic violence offenders, wife beaters, and people who have and/or broke their restraining orders. No firearms for these people.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I would like to see the appeal process more clearly defined.