HR 297 Expanding Data Collection For Brady Background Checks

[Bearjing 0]

This legislation has failed multiple times before, but is being fast tracked after VTech.

 

H.R. 297: Expanding the records included in the NICS database.

 

The bill provides a variety of incentives for states (I think it's 250,000,000 per state) to catalog and report additional records to the NICS system. The Federal government cannot mandate the states to report this information because such a requirement oversteps the bounds set for the federal government by the constitution. (The supreme court ruled in 1997 that states could not be forced to supply this information to the Fed.)

 

The fed can, however, use funding to "encourage" the states to comply. In the case of the legislation currently under consideration, the bill both provides funding specifically for the collection and reporting of this information and authorizes the withholding of other federally provided funds for those states who refuse to comply.

 

 

HR 297

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...d?bill=h110-297

 

Title 18, 922

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...22----000-.html

 

Please fight this, it isn't inevitable, it's been defeated several times before and we can do it again if we speak out.

 

 

I believe background checks further the idea that the right to bear arms is a less important right than the others we hold-- one that can be restricted further and further by creating lists which selectively grant that right only to those judged worthy.

 

I do not trust the government to determine who is worthy and who isn't. Historically, the NICS list hasn't been static -- new categories of "unworthy" citizens have been added a number of time since Brady was enacted. I think it's always hideous when the federal government oversteps its consitution bounds using this "bribe the states" loophole to extend their power, and just to make it a little worse, this isn't going to make anyone safer. We all know someone like Cho is very capable of getting a gun illegally, NICS database or not.

 

So what does this legislation do? It spends millions of our tax dollars to create a *better* list of "not worthy" citizens who aren't good enough to exercise their RIGHT to bear arms.

[RangerM9 1]

i gotta say, i'm not a fan of more ways to keep law biding sane people from owning guns, but after VT, i'm pretty much on board with funding reporting of mental illnesses....that fuck never should have gotten his hands on any gun, the laws that we have should have worked, but the reporting of mental illnesses broke down...... i'd rather fund programs that we already have to make them work than have them create new laws that interfere with those of us who are sane and follow the laws.

 

Call me a hipocrite if you like, but keeping guns out of the hands of those who have been ruled a hazard to themselves or others, just makes sense.........

[Bearjing 0]

I'm against background checks, period. I believe they're a form of prior restraint which prevents people from exercising their RIGHT to bear arms. If people have the right to defend themselves, then people have the right to defend themselves-- and that goes for 45 year olds who were convicted of a felony at age 19, as well as those who were committed to a mental hospital, say, after being brutally raped. I get it that it's easy to come up with reasons why this guy or that gal isn't worth to bear arms -- I have my idea of what the standards should be and I'm sure everyone else does to. But if it's a right, there'd better be a damn good reason to say THAT guy doesn't qualify. Remember, there are many MANY people in this country who don't think ANY of us are sane enough to protect ourselves. Hell, if you want to own guns at all, many -- including many in the psychiatric community-- think you're a loon. And remember, too, this list isn't static -- Veterans who have PTSD were added by the thousands in 98. Those with *any* domestic abuse conviction, including misdemeanors which can include pushing and even in some (rare) cases verbal abuse are now included, but were not when the idea for NICS was initially floated-- then, it was felons only.

 

How long until something you did gets you taken off the "Has Right" and put only the "Does Not Have Right" list? Maybe you'll be lucky, and your definition of responsible is exactly like the governments but frankly, I'd rather not take the chance.

[kresk 10,063]

......keeping guns out of the hands of those who have been ruled a hazard to themselves or others, just makes sense.........

 

That would seem specific and appropriate enough to be warranted.

[G O B 3,516]

Be afraid of any law that requires common sense from a government agency. We have an excellent "shall issue" law. UNFORTUNATLY it was polluted with a clause that allows the State Police to decide if anyone has a "good and substantial reason"

to carry. They have ruled that a woman who has been raped- and the perp still loose does not have a "good and substantial reason", however anyone politically connected does.

[Bearjing 0]

Generally, people on generally pro-gun sites seem to regard this law as nothing more than "Forcing the states to abide by the law as it already exists". It really isn't quite that, but it does change the incentive structure to make it more appealing for the states to send data to NICS. Apparently a lot of otherwise like minded people think that's an OK move for the federal government to make, even if it costs many millions of dollars of tax payer dollars, has a marginal (at best) effect on safety, further enshrines the idea that restrictions on the right to bear arms are acceptable, discourages people who need mental health treatment from seeking help, and creates a list of "mental cases" who are forever barred from exercising their right to bear arms.

 

I guess they figure it's OK mostly because people either think the Brady Background checks are a good idea (I don't) or they think that this approach to appeasing the gun control nuts is a good one (I don't).

 

Although legal statutes which make you into a felon (or a domestic violence offender, since misdemeanors domestic violence crimes are included) are reasonably well defined and depend upon facts and evidence for a conviction, mental health is a notoriously POORLY defined notion. One psychiatrists idea of "threat to oneself / others" is far different than another's. And rather than being able to rely on facts and evidence to convict someone of "suspect mental health", we're reliant almost entirely on the word of so-called experts, who commonly disagree, to determine what counts. This isn't a sufficiently objective standard to use to deny someone their rights. You may think you know what it means to be "defective" mentally, but remember, many (including those in the psychiatric community) believe that ownership of guns is de facto evidence that you're a danger.

 

 

And just to make it a little worse, this isn't going to make anyone safer. Do you really think the millions of dollars which will likely be spent on this effort will prevent a single death? Don't you think someone like Cho will be smart enough to get a gun illegally -- I mean, this is what we say (and I believe it) every time someone talks about making guns harder to get. It's merely one more piece of feel good legislation which will cost many millions of tax dollars, restricting many good citizens rights and setting a terrible precedent in the name of "we might as well try" and "what does it hurt" without making a single person any safer.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Bearjing

[RangerM9 1]

Virginia Governor Closes Gun Loophole

Email this Story

 

Apr 30, 12:36 PM (ET)

 

By BOB LEWIS

 

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The governor on Monday closed the loophole in state law that allowed the Virginia Tech gunman to pass a federal background check and buy the weapons used in the massacre.

 

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine issued an executive order requiring that a database of people banned from buying guns include anyone who is found to be dangerous and ordered to undergo involuntary mental health treatment.

 

Seung-Hui Cho had been ordered to undergo psychiatric counseling after a judge ruled that he was a danger to himself.

 

But because Cho was treated as an outpatient and never committed to a mental health hospital, the court's decision was not entered into the database that gun dealers must check before selling a weapon.

 

The database "should include any determination that someone is mentally ill and so dangerous to himself or others as to warrant involuntary treatment," Kaine said in a statement.

 

Cho, a 23-year-old Virginia Tech senior described as a troubled loner, bought his guns legally through gun shops. He gunned down 32 people in a residence hall and a classroom building before killing himself.

 

No motive has been established for his rampage.

[S12.308NSC 0]

while on the surface it sounds like a fair and correct thing to do, the problem is that it sets a dangerous precedent. for now they're only trying to add mental health records. later who knows what they'll add. your voting record. your religious background. etc, etc. adding these kinds of things will be much easier once they have a precendent and a "similar" law in the books already. this is how the man gets ya, a little bit at a time.

 

i think adding the records of people who are dangerous to themselves and others is fine too. it is already a question on the form you have to fill out to get a gun, and obviously this Cho guy lied. and he's probably not the only one. i just wish i could trust the legislators, lobbyists and special interest minority groups to stop there.

[RangerM9 1]

while on the surface it sounds like a fair and correct thing to do, the problem is that it sets a dangerous precedent. for now they're only trying to add mental health records. later who knows what they'll add. your voting record. your religious background. etc, etc. adding these kinds of things will be much easier once they have a precendent and a "similar" law in the books already. this is how the man gets ya, a little bit at a time.

 

i think adding the records of people who are dangerous to themselves and others is fine too. it is already a question on the form you have to fill out to get a gun, and obviously this Cho guy lied. and he's probably not the only one. i just wish i could trust the legislators, lobbyists and special interest minority groups to stop there.

 

 

agreed, that is why we have to keep watching what they are up to.

 

this step i just can't object to since it was essentially on the books already, all this did was mandate reporting of the data to the database, not add a new catagory of htose not able to purchase a gun.

 

i'd rather see the current laws work as intended than have new ones written.

[DaGroaner 2]

I'm against gun control period. I am not against criminal control or psychopath control. This represents the latter. I was stupid enough to take it on faith that this was already part of a Brady background check. Which proves once again that liberals can't get a fucking thing right. Idiots.

[jrance@iacwds.com 716]

"The big question to ask about proposals for new laws and policies is not whether they sound reasonable, but what damage they can do when they are used unreasonably."

-Thomas Sowell