<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic_atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2012://1/tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675-</id>
  <updated>2012-03-24T15:39:07Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for More on the NICS bill.</title>
  <subtitle>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</subtitle>
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.12</generator>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=7675" title="More on the NICS bill." />
    <published>2007-06-17T13:08:45Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-21T12:30:03Z</updated>
    <title>More on the NICS bill.</title>
    <summary>I know many of you are strong supporters of the GOA (Gun Owners of America), and I seem to be in a minority on the new NICS bill. But I&apos;m still with the NRA on this one - the devil is always in the details, and the anti&apos;s will have to be watched carefully in the Senate, and I&apos;m sure, in the Conference Committee, as I doubt the Senate will pass the bill without some attempt to stuff something in it that will be unpalatable. The NRA&apos;s official position. On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R....</summary>
    <author>
      <name>The Armorer</name>
      <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Gun Rights" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p>I know many of you are strong supporters of the GOA (Gun Owners of America), and I seem to be in a minority on the new NICS bill.  But I'm still with the NRA on this one - the devil is always in the details, and the anti's will have to be watched carefully in the Senate, and I'm sure, in the Conference Committee, as I doubt the Senate will pass the bill without some attempt to stuff something in it that will be unpalatable.</p>

<p><br />
The NRA's official position.<br />
<blockquote><br />
On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote.  H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others.  Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).</p>

<p><br />
While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth.  The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.   </p>

<p>Here are the facts:  H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records.  <strong>Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.</strong>    </p>

<p>The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible.  While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms.  H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:<br />
<blockquote><br />
  -Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms.  Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm. </p>

<p>  -Excluding federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform.  (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.) </p>

<p>  -Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court.  This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years. </p>

<p>  -Ensuring-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade.  While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year.  This provision would not expire. </p>

<p>  -Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.<br />
</blockquote></p>

<p>Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:</p>

<blockquote>
  -Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to any mental institution."  Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments.  Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws. 

<p>  -Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a "commitment."  Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose "unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct." </p>

<p>  -In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help.  No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.<br />
</blockquote></p>

<p>This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.  NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system. </p>

<p>If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!<br />
</blockquote></p>

<p>Emphasis in the original.</p>

<p>Of course, there is the hurdle of getting the FBI/ATFE to actually do what they're supposed to do, too.  They have their own vested interests here, which, *especially* for younger ATFE agents, seems to be "The more people we can ban, the better!"</p>

<p>The Brady types are already floating proposals that all misdemeanor convictions should be disabling from a firearms perspective... traffic tickets and less that 4.0 report cards are probably next.</p>

<p>Heh.  I only *wish* that was pure hyperbole...</p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675-comment:61260</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html#comment-61260" />
    <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-06-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>John of Argghhh!</name>
        <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com">
        Concerns like yours, JTG, were actually central to some of the hardests discussions during the negotiations on the bill.


    </content>
    <published>2007-06-18T09:21:43Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-18T09:21:43Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675-comment:61257</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html#comment-61257" />
    <title>Comment from Justthisguy on 2007-06-18</title>
    <author>
        <name>Justthisguy</name>
        <uri>http://enemiesofthelibrary.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://enemiesofthelibrary.blogspot.com">
        As someone who&apos;s pretty sure he&apos;s a bit neurally divergent, I look at these kinds of laws with some suspicion and fear.  This one _seems_ Ok, as they describe it, but I&apos;d rather not have the unconstitutional (IMHO) NICS thing at all.
    </content>
    <published>2007-06-18T06:05:22Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-18T06:05:22Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675-comment:61252</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html#comment-61252" />
    <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-06-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>John of Argghhh!</name>
        <uri>http://www.thedonovan.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.thedonovan.com">
        I&apos;ve some discussions with Boyda about that...
    </content>
    <published>2007-06-18T02:31:33Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-18T02:31:33Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
  <entry>
    <id>tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675-comment:61246</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:www.thedonovan.com,2007://1.7675" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/06/more_on_the_nic.html#comment-61246" />
    <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2007-06-17</title>
    <author>
        <name>Heartless Libertarian</name>
        <uri>http://heartlesslibertarian.blogspot.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://heartlesslibertarian.blogspot.com">
        Given that Sen. Mikulski is working to strip the Tiahrt Amendment (which, for some idiotic reason, must be renewed annually) from legislation in the Senate Appropriations committee, I&apos;d love to see it attached-permanently-to HR 2640.
    </content>
    <published>2007-06-17T18:37:58Z</published>
    <updated>2007-06-17T18:37:58Z</updated>
  </entry>
  
</feed>


