Senate passes HR2640

[NineseveN]

Received via e-mail today....

The U.S. Senate today voted to pass their version of the NRA supported NICS Improvement Act (H.R.2640).

The bill now must go back to the House to resolve differences between the versions passed in the two bodies.

NRA, NSSF, and the Brady Bunch are calling Senate passage a victory, while GOA, many grassroots gun groups, and the more radical gun control organizations like the Violence Policy Center are calling the bill a sell-out. These groups opposed to the bill are calling for in-depth hearings on the bill to be held in the House.

When this bill originally passed in the House, it did so on a voice vote with only one Representative speaking against its passage or reportedly voting against it; that one Representative was Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.

There will doubtless be much said about this bill over the next few days and it will be interesting to watch. While gun rights groups have taken to calling the bill the "Veterans Disarmament Act" and anti-gun forces claim it will open a flood-gate of mentally challenged people regaining access to firearms, the truth is that, like so many bills passed in Washington, this bill wastes a lot of money to little effect.

We'll keep you posted as the political drama unfolds and more information becomes available.

Yours for the Second Amendment,
Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition

[LittleRedToyota]

but i just got an e-mail from the NRA bragging about how they pushed this piece of "pro-gun" legislation through...


sometimes the NRA really cracks me up.

[GRoPA]

It's like the NRA bragging that they could fit their d!ck up their own a$$.
"Look how I can screw myself"

[NineseveN]

Update via e-mail...

On Wednesday evening, by unanimous consent, the U.S. House accepted
the Senate amendment to H.R. 2640. The legislation is headed to the
President's desk for his signature into law.

[Sebastian]

I just don't believe this bill is a net loss for gun rights, even in the original version. The improvements made in the senate make it better than it was for us still. Here's what the VPC is saying about the bill in their press release:

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, states, "This bill was intended to be Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people murdered. But rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others. Once a solution, the bill is now part of the problem."

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, adds, "It is ironic that the gun lobby has coerced the Senate into providing resources to rearm mentally disabled veterans during a time when the VA is struggling to provide adequate mental health care to those in need."

Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community Against Violence, comments, "The bill's original intent, to increase reporting of state records to the NICS database, is an important objective that would improve enforcement of federal laws governing persons prohibited from possessing firearms. The changes made by the gun lobby risk undermining those laws, and we call on the House to have a full debate on the merits of this legislation."

Like I've said before, the law doesn't change who is and who isn't prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and provides remedies that never have existed before for getting rid of a mental health firearms disability. I still don't see how this is a loss.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

I just don't believe this bill is a net loss for gun rights, even in the original version. The improvements made in the senate make it better than it was for us still. Here's what the VPC is saying about the bill in their press release:

Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, states, "This bill was intended to be Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech that left 32 people murdered. But rather than focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others. Once a solution, the bill is now part of the problem."

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, adds, "It is ironic that the gun lobby has coerced the Senate into providing resources to rearm mentally disabled veterans during a time when the VA is struggling to provide adequate mental health care to those in need."

Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Legal Community Against Violence, comments, "The bill's original intent, to increase reporting of state records to the NICS database, is an important objective that would improve enforcement of federal laws governing persons prohibited from possessing firearms. The changes made by the gun lobby risk undermining those laws, and we call on the House to have a full debate on the merits of this legislation."

Like I've said before, the law doesn't change who is and who isn't prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and provides remedies that never have existed before for getting rid of a mental health firearms disability. I still don't see how this is a loss.

My reasons have nothing to do with the fear-mongering from the NRA's competitors, I base my assessment on 2 simple premises;

1. Never judge legislation based on the benefits or advantages it claims to provide, but rather, judge upon what harm can be done it if is abused or misused, (or even further amended to facilitate such harm) because inevitably, it will be.

2. All federal guns laws are unconstitutional, and more to the point, destined to fail beneath the weight of government inefficiency, corruption and bureaucracy; thus inherently bad regardless of how good or positive it seems.

I would not support a Federal law designed to mandate nation-wide LTCF/CCW reciprocity any more than I would support an assault weapons ban or the piece of federal bloat in question.

There's a saying that makes the rounds often in grassroots politics; all politics are local. That may have been true at one time, however, part of the reason we're in the trouble we're in is because we're standing on a road paved with good intentions. Politics, as it concerns the right to keep and bear arms is no longer local, because we keep ceding it to the Federal government with the 800lb effort of the NRA and some of our other would-be advocates and to the cheers of their respective membership and supporters.

The more power and responsibility you give to the Federal government, the more god-like it becomes; and what the lord giveth, he can surely take away...or just work in mysterious ways, which can be equally as bad, if not worse.

The impact this has is that instead of fighting these issues on a grassroots level in a playing field that can be accessed and affected by the common citizen, you end up running against the brick wall that is the Federal Government. The things you can do locally, or even on a state-wide basis (electing or retaining State Supreme Court justices for instance), or the kind of pressure you can put on local and state politicians have virtually no impact on the Federal Politicritters unless it's sound byte time during an election season. Civil lawsuits and other remedies that can be substantially effective where it concerns the state have significant, and sometimes impassable barriers when the venue begins and ends on the federal level. When you lobby for or support such a transfer, succession or continuance of power to the Federal Government, you're digging your own grave with a shovel bought and paid for by your taxes. And when you actively support compromise at that level, you're telling the politicians

Call me delusional, idealist or just plain insane, I don't care; they're my rights too, I'll think of legislation impacting them what I will and I'll support it or not as I see fit.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

1. Never judge legislation based on the benefits or advantages it claims to provide, but rather, judge upon what harm can be done it if is abused or misused, (or even further amended to facilitate such harm) because inevitably, it will be.

Pretty much any legislation can be misused. Parts of the FOPA were misused too, but that doesn't mean it wasn't worth passing

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I would not support a Federal law designed to mandate nation-wide LTCF/CCW reciprocity any more than I would support an assault weapons ban or the piece of federal bloat in question.

I wouldn't either. I agree Congress has no power to do this, except as an exercise of its 14th amendment powers to just declare all laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms unconstitutional. All the current laws use the commerce power improperly.

I wouldn't call you delusional or insane, because I don't disagree that the reasons you spoke of are the reason our federal government was intended to be one of limited and enumerated powers. We've gotten far far away from that. But what to do? You can either work within the system to take baby steps back toward a constitutional republic, or can stand outside the system, and demand everything you want politically right now, because there can't be any compromise on these matters, and never get anywhere. Those are really the choices.

[RugerNiner]

from the NRA website

Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act, House Concurs

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

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.

Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within.

The NICS Improvement Act does the following to benefit gun owners:



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.
On Wednesday evening, by unanimous consent, the U.S. House accepted the Senate amendment to H.R. 2640. The legislation is headed to the President's desk for his signature into law.

[RugerNiner]

I think I'm going to call the NRA today and cancel my membership.

[ALS]

All this has done is convince people who would normally seek professional help from a mental health expert, NOT TO.