General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Liberal Gun Club: We support Fix NICS
https://www.theliberalgunclub.com/2018/02/28/we-support-fix-nics/Ed Gardner
There is currently legislation being pondered in the Senate called Fix NICS.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a United States system for determining if prospective firearms or explosives buyers name and birth year match those of a person who is not eligible to buy. It was mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993 and launched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1998.
Source: Wiki
When you buy a new firearm, the FFL runs these checks in real time with the FBI to determine if you are prohibited from buying a firearm. The FBI tells the FFL to Proceed with the sale, Deny the sale, or Defer the sale. In the case of the Defer, the FBI has 72 hours to give a definitive answer or the sale is allowed to proceed, so its critical that data be available, complete and accurate.
There have been several shooters who should have been prohibited from purchasing their weapons prior to their murders. Charlottes perpetrator had a drug conviction that hadnt been reported appropriately to the FBI, so the Defer apparently turned into a Proceed. The Texas shooter had a military conviction that the sentence alone put him in a prohibited class. There are other examples, but these that come to mind immediately.
This bill seems to address one of our central positions, the completeness and accuracy of the NICS system. We know that not all relevant records make it into NICS, from states who were reluctant to submit adjudicated records, to agencies like the Department of Defense simply failing to report convictions.
This bill seems to address those issues to some extent, and as we said after Texas, its the sort of thing that might actually have an impact, eliminating the legal avenues that bad guys bent on killing have to acquire ANY firearm. The summary from GovTrack:
-Establish a new Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative in order to better prevent those convicted of those crimes from obtaining weapons.
-Publicly report any federal agencies that fail to upload relevant information to the system, and withhold certain pay from political appointees who neglect to upload the info.
-Establish new measures to verify the accuracy of existing records already uploaded into the system.
The full text of the bill in the Senate can be found here*, a version has passed out of committee in the House.
We support this.
So, apparently, does the NRA and the folks at Sandy Hook Promise. With support from a broad range of organizations from across the spectrum, there is no reason for this bill to be delayed. Dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Will Congress act? Have you called your representatives?
*https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text
blake2012
(1,294 posts)Fixing NIC is nice, but a very tiny tentative step which does very little to address mounting gun violence.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Fix NICS is something that can be, and should be, done now
blake2012
(1,294 posts)EX500rider
(10,810 posts)Maybe you mean "mass shooting rate"...which is a tiny fraction of US homicides.
blake2012
(1,294 posts)In 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Also, the largest contributor to homicides are guns.
If you look at homicide rates in US, UK, and other countries, our vastly larger gun arsenal and homicides with guns make up that huge difference.
Our homicide rate may have hit historic lows in 2014. But they are on the rise and MUCH worse than other countries.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-34996604
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)US rate: 4.8 per 100,000
European rate: 3.0
The high countries in the world are near or over 100 per 100,000
And the Euro countries with very low rates, the US kills more with knives or hands and feet then those countries.
The American continent is a violent place with the highest avg rate per continent at 16.3, making the US rate look pretty good.
And if you blame it on poverty that doesn't explain the rates in Palestine or Indonesia at .6 and .5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
And yes you can cherry pick a few European states with low rates, but you can do that with US states also, New Hampshire is 1.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state
And the US rate isn't up so much as some large cities rates:
The US murder rate was up againand 20% of the national increase came in Chicago
https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205600#post54
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205600#post55
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion
This fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, or during a debate as a filibuster. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing.[1] Modern politics contains many examples of proofs by assertion. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points", which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.[4]
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)I'm going to let that RAND study speak for itself. We need more research because the NRA/GOP banned fed funding.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)because they are public health concerns. Just like guns - which kill our kids.
Question: do you have a kid or grandkid in an elementary or preschool? Have they had "active shooter" drills? Have they asked you about bad men and why they have guns?
p.s. Koch and Waltons (who both fund pro-gun-violence work) have combined net worth around $250B, 500% of MB.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In Bloomie's case, that would be $502 million dollars.
ISTM he's selling you lot the sizzle and not the steak- and you believe you're getting a fine dinner.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lovejoying&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
These people did:
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/about#mission
Sandy Hook Promise is a national non-profit organization founded and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.
Based in Newtown, Connecticut, our intent is to honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children from gun violence.
By uniting people of all beliefs and backgrounds who value the protection of children to take meaningful actions in their homes and communities, we will prevent gun violence and stop the tragic loss of life.
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/sandy_hook_promise_applauds_bipartisan_bgc_bill_fix_nics
Newtown, CT November 16, 2017 Earlier this month, as the investigation unfolded in Sutherland Springs, TX, we learned that the deadly shooting could have been averted had authorities properly reported the shooters violent history. However, due to this lapse in the system, we witnessed the heartbreaking and grave consequences.
In light of this incident, we praise U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX,) Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) along with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) for introducing the Fix NICS (National Instant Background Check System) Act.
The legislation aims to strengthen background checks, hold agencies accountable for reporting a perpetrators violent past, as well as looks to create a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share all relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing a firearm.
In the past 45 days, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in modern history. I applaud these Senators for taking the crucial step to introduce this commonsense legislation that will improve background checks, keep all agencies accountable, and most importantly create a safer America. We have lost too many innocent lives. The time to act is now, said Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, and the mother of Dylan, who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Ad hominem: a rhetorical fallacy; last refuge of the incorrect.
i'm sorry that a nonpartisan study showed your arguments incorrect.
EX500rider
(10,810 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Get the military weapons of mass killing off the streets of America!
I'm a liberal gun owner, fuck the terrorist org NRA!
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Over 30% of gun sales are by private sales.
That 72-hour time is ridiculously not enough to do a thorough background check for far flung criminal records, etc. It should be at least a couple weeks. Canada requires 28 days minimum.
And mental illness diagnoses, not just mental incapacity adjudications, need to get reported to the database.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It would be, if the checks were done properly to begin with. See the summary from GovTrack
for what would be done differently.
Or is it that a weeks-long wait isn't long enough to discourage gun sales?
I've heard someone express similar sentiments recently. Who was it that said that? Oh yeah, now I remember:
Are there any other pesky bits of due process that you feel ought to be delayed?
Purely out of concern for public safety, of course...
Involuntarily committing those whose guns were just taken?
Kettling, arresting, and charging peaceful demonstrators en masse?
ICE rounding up people without hearings?
Police stopping and frisking random pedestrians?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Who said there would be no due process? The individual could be given notice that their diagnosis is about to be reported to the database, and given an opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the diagnosis before it goes to the database. Virtually every civilized country has mental illness diagnosis reporting for gun background checks, including Canada, Australia and Switzerland. And in none of those countries did that cause the list of due process abuses you suggest.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That's prior restraint of an enumerated right, one that's been confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Nixon tried that tack against the Washington Post in re the Pentagon Papers.
And got slapped down, if you recall.
None of those countries have gun ownership enumerated in their constitution. Like it or not, we do.
That's because there is no due process for rights not explicitly encoded into law
in Canada, Australia, Switzerland.
This is starting to remind me of the way the right wing tries to erode Roe v. Wade-
by nibbling it to death.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)If you are trying to analogize to it, you're still wrong. No one would block you from buying a gun before your hearing disputing any submission of mental illness diagnosis. There is no prior restraint. You would have full due process.
I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun.
Canada, Switzerland and Australia all have robust due process principles in their laws. Just because they do not have a Bill of Rights like we do does not mean they do not implement due process concepts. We did not invent the concept. Again, none of that list of horribles you suggest has come true in those countries despite the fact that they have had strict gun laws for decades.
The right to buy a gun is not absolute, even in our land of gun nuts. Even under the current misreading of the 2nd Amendment by the conservative SCOTUS majority, it is always weighed against other societal interests, like safety. That is not "nibbling away" at your rights, that is recognizing that other people have rights as well.
And please don't equate any right to a gun to a right to an abortion. Such an analogy is deeply offensive and will win you no converts among progressives. No one ever slaughtered a theater of people by having an abortion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)What part of 'no' did you not understand? Here, I'll even highlight it for you:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19
"No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth"
Are your other posts of similar intellectual honesty?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)How do you propose to prevent schizophrenics from buying guns?
And sorry, I misread your no as objecting in general. No "intellectual honesty" there. Just reading your post as a whole, it seemed you were against barring the mentally ill from buying a gun because you thought it was some sort of "prior restraint."
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)How would a court have jurisdiction if there is no pending lawsuit between the parties? We're talking about a schizophrenia diagnosis. Why would a court be involved?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Which was done in the case of the VT shooter- but was *not* reported to the FBI by
the Virginia courts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html
Chos Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Michael Luo
WASHINGTON, April 20 Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justices order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginias Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun...
Virginia tightened up their reporting. Fix NICS would enact this nationwide.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)The vast majority of people with severe mental illness who would be dangerous with a gun are not undergoing involuntary treatment.
Do you want the database to list people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia or don't you?
People involuntarily committed or forced into treatment by court order are already required to be reported to NICS.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The ACLU agrees with me on this, and has expressed it far better than I could:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel
& Susan Mizner, Disability Counsel, ACLU
February 20, 2017 | 10:45 AM
This month, Congress repealed a rule that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities, who have others manage their benefits, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from owning firearms.
The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety...
...The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data none show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular....
...The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.
...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)I just want to confirm this since you excoriated me for suggesting that earlier and now you appear to have proved me right.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:36 AM - Edit history (1)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Why can't you answer a simple yes or no question? Do you think schizophrenics should be able to buy a gun?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)You have offered nothing constructive.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You're also stating that your plan is the best way to stop the dangerously mentally ill from
obtaining firearms. I disagree.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)All you have suggested is some cryptic requirement for a "court order" before a mental illness diagnosis is reported to NICS. That is already essentially the case, so you are really not offering anything.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)And Scalia was bought by GOP gun-lover billionaires (died on a GOP billionaire funded shooting trip). And even his wrong Heller decision still allows for LOTS of gun regulation. So we can stop talking about the constitution now.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Hurr durr, who needs the 14th amendment anyway.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I remember when they were doubleplusungood here- until guns were mentioned
Then they became 'reasonable' and 'common sense'...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)You're late to this party, X_Digger. I've already explained all this to the OP poster. I don't intend to repeat myself with you.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I know, I know, you don't even consider it an actual right, therefore there's no right to be infringed.
Adjudicated "mentally defective"- not a 'notice', not a hearing. Removing a right should be a rigorous process, and a diagnosis of a mental illness doesn't fucking qualify.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)General.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Certain mental illnesses are mild and do not make a person a danger with a gun, such as agoraphobia, etc. But any mental illness that dangerously disassociates a person from reality, like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and clinical depression, should preclude the patient from buying a gun. The vast majority of mass shooters are mentally ill. The LA Vegas shooter's doctor thought he was bipolar. The Parkland shooter was clinically depressed, a very common illness among mass shooters.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)After all, if it's good for the Second Amendment- why not also apply it to the First, Fifth, or Eighth?
It could help solve a lot of crimes, reduce recidivism, and help cut down on those annoying demonstrators...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)However, the dangerously mentally ill are the vast majority of mass shooters. You know that.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...based on one article in the LA Times.
Mere 'argument from authority'.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Are you disputing that the Parkland, Aurora and Las Vegas shooters were mentally ill? Are you really claiming there are no statistics confirming that the vast majority of mass shooters are mentally ill?
I am not talking about the average shooting, I am talking about the really horrific mass shootings that have terrorized our schools, theaters and public spaces. I know the average homicide is not by a mentally ill person.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In fact, you stated that you were proud of her, did you not?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)And she is demanding more.
Have fun researching me? I'm honored...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Then again, if one does not wish for ones' words to be quoted it would be
prudent not to have uttered them in the first place.
P.S.: Snaps for the "Animal House" reference...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Says a lot about you right there.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I don't seem to recall any nondisclosure agreement in DUs Terms of Service.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It sure makes disagreements easier, I suppose.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Calling me "the Opposition" is not simply disagreeing in a debate.
I debate and disagree with fellow DUers and have for years, but no one here has ever called me "the Opposition" until now, let alone bragged about stalking me on the internet to get "Opposition Research" on me.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Or are you putting words in folks mouths again?
That seems to be your m.o. in this thread.
edit: "a fellow DUer "Opposition." " -- So, you've morphed from a fellow DU'er to now being all Democrats?
LOL!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...who act as if they're running the place.
I've noticed that these these types usually end up getting the keys to the street from the real
management...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)You just dove into this thread to hurl insults. Maybe you don't have anything better to do with your time, but I do.
Bye.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)When you clearly get caught trying to put words in others mouths, it's smart to tuck tail.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...against other Democrats:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-republicans-steele-dossier_us_59f0b675e4b092dad3bb0d82
Hillary Clintons presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund an opposition research effort against Donald Trump that culminated in numerous damning allegations against him, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
You also appear to have ....'missed', shall we say... several reports of Democrats doing opposition
reasearch against Democrats right here at DU:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1127107386
Democrats Have 700 Pages Of Opposition Research On Zinke, All Ready For Interior Hearings
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028568030#post5
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10289369
...The DCCC recently published an opposition research memo on it's website against Moser.
The contentionthat "Democrats don't do oppo research against Democrats" is, frankly, a crock of shit.
hexola
(4,835 posts)If you transfer a weapon outside the system - and it gets used in a crime...you got problems!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and give private sellers two incentives for using it: 1) A 'safe-harbor' provision indemnifying sellers who
use it against liability if the buyer passes the background check, and
2) No safe harbor for those who don't use it, and criminal charges for those who sell to someone who fails the checks.
IOW, a carrot and a stick- such a plan might get enough support that making background checks universal
would actually happen. We can only hope- and work like hell to make it happen.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)They could have had universal background checks years ago if they ever put forth to do it by opening NICS.
But they dont really want universal background checks alone. Because they know they wont affect crime.
What they want is to make it as hard as possible to own a gun and to criminalize lots of things that nobody thinks of as criminal, like loaning a gun to someone to hunt or even handing it to them to look at as an illegal transfer.
That is why every so-called universal background check law they propose is way overboard on how it gets there and criminalizes loans between friends and makes any sales as hard as possible by requiring trips to a gun store and fees, when simply putting NICS on an app would do it.
hexola
(4,835 posts)If you hand an idiot a gun and they shoot somebody - you got problems.
If you loan a gun to someone to hunt and they shoot somebody - you got problems
The legality of the transfer seems another issue.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Let me give a real world example.
I teach firearms safety and other related classes to all kinds of audiences. I know a lot of other instructors that do as well.
A friend of mine who is also an instructor was asked to teach a class to security officers at a hospital specifically on how to unload and make safe a wide variety of handguns. Because while they train on one style of gun they carry that doesnt mean they know how to operate any others, and all kinds can come into an ER.
He needed a few examples of more unusual guns he didnt have. Specifically a couple of top break revolvers (one top latch and one side) and one that was a swing out/push eject revolver.
I had examples of all 3. 1 made in 1900 and the other two made in WWII, all 3 in calibers that are odd and cant be bought in most gun shops. Collectors pieces all of them but still ones of a kind they guards need to know how to make safe.
We are both residents of the same state. He is also a cop and has a NC CCW so I know he isnt a felon or prohibited person. I met with him on a Sunday and gave him the 3, he taught the class 3 times to get all the shifts, we met that Friday and he gave them back and bought me dinner as thanks.
Had Tommey-Manchin, the most well know UBC proposal passed, I would have committed 3 felonies when I gave them to him and he would have committed 3 felonies when he returned them.
If Toomey-Manchin had passed we would have isntead had to go to a gun store, have the gun store process the 3 loans just as if he was buying 3 guns from the shop and pay the shop $20-35 per gun in transfer fees, then when he returned them do it all again like I was buying them and pay $20-35 per gun in fees again.
And the thing that makes that more absurd? We both have NC CCWs, that means we dont have to do the NICS check just show them to to dealer. So we would spend a few hours doing paperwork and pay $120-200 in fees and there wouldnt even be a background check done since we are both exempt!
Weed Man
(304 posts)All morons ignore it.
Instead, teach them martial arts or defense against a gun.
Good luck, Lee-Lee.
I'm just going to give you an example and leave you thinking. Columbine. Parkland. Teachers have been killed defending their students.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I was wondering if the 'abstinence-only' crowd would show up...
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Under existing liability laws.
It's why I won't loan my chainsaw.
hexola
(4,835 posts)And then make the transfer, sign it, done.
Sounded like you had only a few days to complete the transaction.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Let people who will be selling guns register as users and then they can do the checks.
It really can be that simple and there isnt any reason for a more complicated system.
If you sell a gun without using it, then you are criminally and civilly liable for any criminal misuse by the next owner, or if the person you sold it to was a prohibited person when you did even if they dont commit any crimes.
LexVegas
(6,031 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You two must have really hated what President Obama had to say on the matter in 2016:
http://time.com/4168056/obama-gun-control-speech-transcript/
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Like I said up the thread, it is deeply offensive of you to equate the right to a gun to the right to an abortion. No one ever slaughtered a theater of people by having an abortion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your level of intellectual honesty has been clearly demonstrated upthread
(The disinterested reader is invited to note the time stamps on the following posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post17
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 12:11 PM
17. So you're fine with schizophrenia patients having the ability to buy guns?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:23 PM
19. No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post28
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:04 PM
...I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post30
Thu Mar 1, 2018, 04:15 PM
30. "I notice you refuse to answer my question about whether a schizophrenic should have a gun." I did
What part of 'no' did you not understand? Here, I'll even highlight it for you:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210304692#post19
"No, and I'll thank you to take *your* words out of *my* mouth"
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)As I said up the thread, it appeared you didn't want the mentally ill barred, with all your talk of "prior restraint." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10307119
I see you resort to hyperventilating insults and sophistry since you cannot defend your analogy that buying a gun is the same as getting an abortion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...hardly entitles objectors to the moral high ground.
YMMV.
For examples of what might have been prevented if the mooted reforms had been place:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html
SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the mans domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.
Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson he had cracked the childs skull should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html
Chos Mental Illness Should Have Blocked Gun Sale
Michael Luo
WASHINGTON, April 20 Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective, as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.
A special justices order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginias Commission on Mental Health Law Reform. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also said if that if found mentally defective by a court, Mr. Cho should have been denied a gun...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/01/02/gun-mentally-ill-database-nics/1805487/
If a judge's order that Cho get mental health treatment had been sent to the national database used to run checks on gun buyers, he'd have been disqualified. Because of a glitch in Virginia's reporting, that didn't happen.
Virginia rushed to fix its system, and today it feeds more mental health records per capita into the database, known as NICS, than any other state. But the shock waves from the deadliest shooting in U.S. history faded away at the Virginia border.
As of October, a third of states had reported fewer than one record for every 100,000 residents to NICS. Rhode Island has failed to report any. Five states Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Dakota and Pennsylvania have each reported one.
Denying guns to people who've been judged mentally ill or committed to an institution, as federal law requires, is one of the least controversial gun controls imaginable. More than 90% of the public supports preventing people with mental health problems from owning guns.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/06/us/how-people-with-mental-illness-are-able-to-obtain-guns.html
Mental health records are overwhelmingly under-reported to the federal and state databases scanned during a background check. For example, while the majority of states now have laws that require them to submit records to the F.B.I.s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, there is little enforcement, and the comprehensiveness of those records vary significantly.
Mr. Obama said Tuesday that the Social Security Administration would start to look at how to link mental health records with criminal background check data. He is also requesting $500 million from Congress to improve basic mental health care.
Also...
You seem unaware that one of your declared goals is at least partially now law:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/06/2015-33181/health-insurance-portability-and-accountability-act-hipaa-privacy-rule-and-the-national-instant
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
A Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 01/06/2016
https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/hipaa-change-permits-mental-health-reporting-to-background-check-system
The Department of Health and Human Services has modified the HIPAA Privacy Rule to permit certain covered entities to disclose to the FBIs National Instant Criminal Background Check System the identities of individuals who are prohibited from having a firearm, for reasons related to mental health.
Under the Privacy Rule modification, certain covered entities are now permitted to disclose limited information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which reviews criminal records and other prohibiting data to determine whether federally licensed firearms dealers can legally transfer a gun to a prospective purchaser.
Office for Civil Rights Director Jocelyn Samuels made the announcement on Monday. According to Samuels, the information that can be disclosed to NICS is the minimum necessary identifying information about individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others, or who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.
Although states have generally reported criminal history information to NICS, many report little information about individuals prohibited by federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons.
Fix NICS attempts to make such report required, and recommends sanctions against states and entities that
don't do what's required.
I've been more than polite in regards to the "the perfect is the enemy of the good" mindset
evinced in this thread.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)No one is trying to derail reform. On the contrary, with some wind in our back finally, we are trying to get some real background check reform instead of, to borrow your words, nibbling around the edges. What is the harm in asking for significantly expanding NICS when there is so much public support for it?
I don't see how the "NICS fix" being proposed would have prevented the Sutherland or Virginia Tech mass shootings. I'm not saying we shouldn't do the NICS fix, I just don't see how it would have prevented the Sutherland or Virginia Tech mass shootings.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The VT shooter should have been reported to the FBI, but was not.
Virginia fixed that, as noted in the linked USA Today piece.
Failing to notify the FBI about the Sutherland Springs shooter was on the head of the Air Force,
who admitted their failing in a public statement.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)We need mental illness diagnoses reported, not just involutary treatment/commitment adjudications. The Parkland and Aurora shooters had mental illness diagnoses, but no involuntary treatment adjudications.
And again, I don't see how the NICS fix would prevent the human failures that resulted in the nonreporting of mental incapacity adjudications. It does not create some sort of streamlined computer link from courts to the database, for example, or give states money to help with reporting (staff, equipment, etc.).
But most problematic, the NICS fix fails to require the reporting of mental illness diagnoses.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel
& Susan Mizner, Disability Counsel, ACLU
February 20, 2017 | 10:45 AM
This month, Congress repealed a rule that would have registered thousands of Social Security recipients with mental disabilities, who have others manage their benefits, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from owning firearms.
The American Civil Liberties Union does not oppose gun control laws. As an organization dedicated to defending all constitutional rights, we believe the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions to promote public safety...
...The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data none show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular....
...The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)If we want to avoid another Parkland or Aurora or Las Vegas, we have to get diagnoses of severe mental illness into the NICS database. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html
Looks like all that fury of yours earlier was over nothing, eh?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 3, 2018, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)But be honest about what this is.
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)The 17 kids in Parkland have civil rights too. Rights to not be dead, killed by guns. That rules over 'civil right' to own a gun for fun. It's not about civil rights, it's about a lot of Americans really wanting to have guns.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The Journal for Cultural Research published an article in 2010 by Debra Ferreday,[28] which was republished in the 2011 book Hope and Feminist Theory.[9] According to Ferreday, media use of "Won't someone think of the children!" had become common in a climate of moral panic.[9] She suggested that the phrase was becoming so common that it could become another Godwin's law.[9]
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Link to tweet
(In addition, Heller is wrong. But even if we allow it for argument, it doesn't block gun restrictions)
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)I disagree with ACLU's stance on the Social Security mental incapacity reporting rule that Trump repealed. The ACLU is wrong about the data. We don't have a lot of data since the CDC is barred from studying the causes of gun violence, but what do know is that the vast majority of mass murderers are indeed mentally it.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html
Sure, they tend not to have Downs Syndrome, which that ACLU quote mentions as one of the nonviolent disorders that the Social Security reporting rule would have covered. But even the ACLU doesn't try to argue that those with schizophrenia should have a gun.
Now please stop playing this gave of hide and seak.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...or Michael Bloomberg's 'stop and frisk' program.
Robert Bolt had something to say about mindsets like that:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)No, its not the same as the terrorist watch list. I said up the thread that before the diagnosis would be posted in NICS the patient would have notice and an opportunity to dispute the diagnosis. This can be done administratively, so that it does not require the person getting a lawyer and can be done quickly. Administrative appeals provide due process and are quick and much cheaper than litigation. But if the patient is not satisfied with the administrative appeal, then he or she can appeal to a local Court. This sort of process has been upheld as constitutional in many contexts and it would be in this one as well.
I have no idea what you mean by only by court order and apparently neither do you. It is now apparent you do want the mentally ill buying guns and you are just playing games with me, posting movie clips.
You won't answer my question about who the parties would be in such litigation. You do not appear to know what you were talking about. A court order can only be obtained where the court has jurisdiction and you do not say how the court would have jurisdiction in this situation. A doctor would not ever file a lawsuit to report a patient. That would just not happen because such a requirement would be an insurmountably onerous burden to reporting. Hell, we can't even get everyone to report criminal convictions and mental incapacity adjudications to NICS, which is pretty easy.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Shades of the Patriot Act...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)What is clear is the pro-gun groups think their guns are more important than people's lives.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)This was not talking about right to buy guns, but about something a person needs even more, food to live. If a pre-termination administrative hearing hearing is sufficient for due process purposes for that, it would certainly be sufficient for the right to buy a gun.
Here are the basics of the holding:
i. The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be condemned to suffer grievous loss, and depends upon whether the recipients interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the government interest in summary adjudication
ii. Consideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.
iii. Termination of aid while a person waits for hearing has the ability to deny an eligible recipient the aid he needs to survive. The governmental interest in conserving fiscal and administrative resources do not override the welfare needs
iv. However, we note that the pre-termination hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial
1. Pre-termination hearing only has one function: produce an initial determination of the validity of the welfare departments grounds for discontinuance of payments in order to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of benefits
2. Need only minimum procedural safeguards: notice setting out reasons for possible termination, oral presentation and confrontation of adverse witnesses, possibility of counsel
Full text of case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/254/case.html
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)in a health care facility, and c) the subject has a right to counsel, as see Gideon v. Wainwright
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)As SCOTUS held in Goldberg v. Kelly:
"We do not say that counsel must be provided at the pre-termination hearing, but only that the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney if he so desires." (Goldberg, 397 U. S. at 271.)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The NRA gets 99% of the publicity, but the SAF is the org that wins the court cases
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... that the the case you cite is one that makes it easier to deny welfare benefits.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)And Straw Man, you are totally wrong about this case. It did not make it easier to take away welfare benefits. Just the opposite. The appellants were the welfare recipients, who were demanding a pre-termination hearing before their welfare benefits could be cut off. That is what the Supreme Court gave them.
The case was a victory for due process. This is a seminal due process case taught in every first year law class, as it lays out what is required in the administrative, as opposed to criminal, context. That is why I brought it up, since we are talking about administrative due process with regard to NICS posting. It is telling that the folks here claiming to be such big fans of due process did not even know about this case.
Didn't you have anything better to do late on a Saturday night than swooping in late in this thread to try to hurl a clueless insult at me?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I may be called Straw Man, but I'm not that straw man.
Mixed bag, as I read it. I quote:
(b) Counsel need not be furnished at the pre-termination hearing, but the recipient must be allowed to retain an attorney.
Not judicial or quasi-judicial, and therefore subject to the whims of the welfare system. Economically disadvantaged clients are "allowed to retain an attorney"? How magnanimous.
There was no insult -- merely the observation that when it comes to matters of the individual vs. the state, you reflexively side with the state.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Establishing a right to a pre-termination hearing in the administrative context was a victory for due process. It certainly could have gone further, but it still dramatically increased the due process rights of not only of welfare recipients, but all individuals facing administrative agencies.
What you said was a stupid insult, just like your ignorant and incorrect claim that "when it comes to matters of the individual vs. the state, you reflexively side with the state." If ever looked at non-gun posts, such as abortion posts, you would realize how wrong you are.
Regardless, I am not "siding with the state" over the individual when it comes to guns. I am siding with the individuals who don't want to get shot by nuts with guns.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)It could have gone much further. Do you think it is sufficient? I don't. It allows bureaucrats to dictate rights, outside of the legal system.
Odd -- when others have looked at your posts elsewhere, you accuse them of stalking you. Far be it from me to indulge in such behavior. I'm judging from your reaction to this case and this case alone.
Let's see: clueless, stupid, ignorant ... Nowhere did I apply language like that to your posts. I think your insult meter only works in one direction.
You certainly are "siding with the state." You are talking about abrogating, without judicial oversight, the rights of people who have committed no crime. And you claim that this is to be done in the name of potential victims. Crime victims have rights. What statute covers the rights of potential victims?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)And I AM siding with potential gun victims. Gun Control protects them.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Surely you know the difference between "the state" in the abstract and the ruling party. And where did I ever say I want "no gun control"? That's a big huge straw man who is no kin to me.
And now we're down to cartoons and meaningless truisms. Yes, if there are no guns, no one can be shot. Are we no longer talking about due process and diagnoses of mental illness? I missed where that discussion ended.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)You expressed your position that for gun purchase blocking, Gideon v. Wainwright protections must apply, namely government-provided counsel, even though it is well-established that the Constitution does not require that for welfare benefit termination.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10315076
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)That's a progressive possession, is it not?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Even non-citizens, in the case of immigrants.
Incorporate Gideon v. Wainwright into the Constitution.
That's a progressive possession, is it not?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Any inference beyond that is mere slander.
Considering the source, I do not take offense...
Do inform us about your efforts to help ensure legal assistance to welfare recipients, mmkay?
Question for you: How does one go about getting wholesale discounts when obtaining straw?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)You demanded I cite a case to support what I was saying, showing your cluelessness on the subject. When I cited you the case, with an explanation of its holding, you still didn't think it was enough, demanding Gideon v. Wainwright protections for gun purchase blocking. You did not say Goldberg v. Kelly should be overturned, rather, you demanded special protections from gun purchase blocking that are not even afforded for food, something people literally cannot live without.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Again, you have inferred things that were not said.
I suggested a mechanism for remedating the inequities inherent in Goldberg v. Kelly
(i.e., further extending the protections ofGideon v. Wainright)...and *still* you complain!
Presumably because you don't like "those people"...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)I grew up on welfare. You did a shitty job of "Opposition Research" if you didn't know that. I have first hand experience that the poor suffer the most from gun violence. You did not "suggest a mechanism for remedating (sp) the inequities in Goldberg v. Kelly," you just tacked on more roadblocks to the process for keeping guns from the mentally ill, specifically, you said:
in a health care facility, and c) the subject has a right to counsel, as see Gideon v. Wainwright
You offered nothing to help welfare recipients (you had "no problem with that" process), just gun buyers with mentall illness diagnoses.
Now you cynically insult me by suggesting I "don't like" welfare recipients, what you call "those people," which is both offensive and false.
This discussion has devolved into you flailing and insulting me, after showing you don't understand due process law. Given your insults and lack of knowledge, there really is no point in maintaining this conversation with you. You have wasted enough of my time.
Bye.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...to the conversation will not be missed, at least by me.
Also, I suugested that you don't like *gun owners*, not welfare recipients- and I stand by that suggestion.
sl8
(13,679 posts)By Amber Phillips
February 28 at 9:36 AM
...
Even though one of their own is co-sponsoring the Fix NICS Act, which would punish federal agencies that don't submit criminal records to the national criminal background check system for firearms, Senate Democrats have spent their first few days back in Congress this week dissing the bill.
What will prevent future tragedy? Comprehensive background checks will. The Fix NICS bill will not, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday on the Senate floor. Lets not set our sights too narrow or squander this moment.
...
Murphy doesn't want his own bill brought up for a vote without a guarantee from Republicans to allow votes on other Democratic priorities, like universal background checks. If we were only to debate the Fix NICS Act, Murphy told reporters Tuesday, we would be slamming the door in the face of all these kids who are demanding change.
That's a sharp turn from what Murphy said in November, calling his bill the most important piece of bipartisan gun-control legislation since the Senate voted on (and didn't pass) a universal background check proposal after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conn.
...
More at link.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And 'nothing' is *exactly* what they'll get with that attitude.
FFS, do they not remember the last go-around on the same damn issue in 2013?
A cynic might suggest that they feel there's more political mileage to be had by appearing
to have been stopped by the eebil NRA than by actually *gasp* negotiating the matter.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)It does not expand what is reported to NICS, nor provide resources to improve reporting.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...in order to keep the "evil GOP/NRA keeping us from doing anything" trope going?
After all, if Fix NICS was passed and found to work it would make ginning up support for
gun bans even more difficult than it is already.
The NRA aren't the only people making bank by making their audience fearful...
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)But I won't let the gun crowd lie to me about what a great deal I'm getting. Nor will I "take a dive" for the NRA.
You understand what "take a dive" means, right?
sarisataka
(18,501 posts)Would have been prevented if NCIS had been updated properly.
Unfortunately such bills, of they make past Republican committees, can't just get a vote on their own. A popular gun control move just isn't enough for some and they must add more bans and restrictions that have far less support.
Isn't the mantra "if it saves one life it's worth it"? If that is true then let's get an NCIS bill up for a vote. It would have saved over 80 lives lost in church and school shootings.
Crunchy Frog
(26,578 posts)No amount of fixing NICS will make much of a difference.
Is there any interest in closing the gun show loophole?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Let private sellers access the check system, and indemnify them when they use it properly.
Punish them if it is found that they have not
I would remind the disinterested reader that the number of gun owners in the US at least
equals or exceeds the number of people that voted for Clinton in 2016.
IMO, to expect them to agree to, or at least acquiecse to, criminalizing what most of them
can now do legally *without* a strong incentive is naive in the extreme.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Response to Hoyt (Reply #51)
Hoyt This message was self-deleted by its author.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)not proven reliable in past, most willing to sell to anyone with a fistful of cash.
An FFL will also properly check IDs, etc. Most private sellers -- assuming they even go through the process -- will just want a link or piece of papers saying they did the minimum required.
If one is not willing to pay the $35 or so to an FFL to insure some degree of accountability, maybe they just shouldn't be selling guns. That's the problem with way too many gunners, they aren't nearly as responsible as they want us to believe.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)You certainly do know how to spark a black market of sales though. Make it cost prohibitive for a private seller to do a background check on a potential buyer.
"If one is not willing to pay the $35 or so to an FFL to insure some degree of accountability,..."... you seem to think that if an FFL dealer sells to someone who passes a NICS check...and then pulls a Parkland shit show... they are somehow legally responsible for the illegal actions of the freak that killed a bunch of our school kids.
It doesn't work that way. It's not like a bar/gin joint that allows a drunk a'hole to pile into a vehicle and kill a Ford Explorer full of kids.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Not George zimmerman, randy weaver, Timmy mcveigh, David Koresch, Darren Wilson, and a host of others gunners like.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Zidiot...FFL, Weaver got in trouble for sawed offs, McVeigh a truck bomb, Koresch had illegally altered firearms, Wilson was a cop....
You are NOT making your point to make it costly to do NICS checks on private sales....but you know that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)actually going to deny a sale if it comes back negative or the system is down. A licensed dealer is the only secure way to go, because Joe Gunner isn't going to care because he never has before.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because the kind of people who are already running about victimizing society as criminals because they have no care but for what they want and are willing to harm everyone else to get it dont care about whatever law you pass.
Its not the gun owners who society needs to worry about. It is the people like that who have already proven they dont care about societies rules or who they harm. They will just steal anything that they want anyway.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)responsible gun owners make it easy for criminals to get guns. Fewer guns, less criminals with them. Stop now, and we'll be better off even it it takes decades for full effect.
No, society needs to worry about white wing gun fanatics and their right wing agenda and hatred.
Time gunners do something for society.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...Hell will be forever for rent.
Same as it ever was...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Going through an FFL will never make the FFL dealer liable for actions of a rampage freak after a PASSED NICS check. That's NOT how it works...and you SHOULD know that.
Was the dealer that Lanza's mother purchased her firearm held responsible for what her f'kwaddle kid pulled?
Was an FFL dealer charged in connection to McVeigh renting a truck and buying fertilizer?
Do we have to go through..AGAIN.. your other examples? NONE of which is an FFL issue let alone a NICS issue
You aren't good at this....you are arguing AGAINST yourself, not me.
I'm Ancient..not old...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to lose their business by saying, "Oh you didn't pass, but I'll sell it to you anyway, who is going to know," like a gunner is apt to do. Plus, FFLs won't get away with not keeping the proper records.
Pay the $35, it's good for society. That's the problem with gunners, always wanting what works for them, even if it is a detriment to society.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 5, 2018, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)
But you have stated you know what robbers do. Slam the door. hell lock it on law enforcement....hmmmm? You said it's what you have done.
You certainly show you don't know how NICS chks are done or the info included.
It's an easy process....look at a 4473 form....seller and buyer names are on it.
If as you claim.. that a failed NICS chk would be ignored and the sale/transfer occur...there is IN FACT a record should that happen.
The buyer and the "transforee" have done a NICS chk that went through a DOJ process.
If a free NICS can be done in a private sale, have the private seller keep a copy of it until it may be sold again....unlike your claim though...if a passed NICS chk happens the "dealer" isn't responsible for the illegal actions of the buyer.
U-Haul wasn't responsible for what McVeigh did with their truck in Ok.City were they?
United or American wasn't responsible for what a pack of freaks did to the WTC were they?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Its not that hard.
There is no legitimate reason to mandate use of an FFL to to the exact same checks that we can let anyone do if we just allow access to the system.
The arguement that is has to go to an FFL because a tiny portion of people wouldnt do the checks is an idiotic arguement. So you think if the law says they can do a check themselves they will ignore the law and possible punishment, but if the law says they must go to an FFL they will suddenly follow it? No, of course they wont. The same person who wasnt willing to do the easier route of a check themselves isn't going to suddenly fall in line and become law abiding and comply with an even more burdensome law. They will just break the law still. In fact the harder and more burdensome you make it to follow the law the more people will fail to follow it.
But a lot of rapid anti-gun types dont want that because their goal really isnt to get background checks done- especially robbers and such who already know that criminals are scumbags who will just steal guns anyway- but they really just want to put as much hassle and bureaucracy in front of people who are perfectly law abiding in order not to actually stop criminals from getting guns but to make it as hard as possible for anyone to get guns.
Making it hard for the law abiding to be armed is a wet dream of many anti-gun types. As well as many criminals who want to be able to be safer when committing their robberies and rapes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If you want to unload a gun, pay the $35 and do it right.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I know an FFL who charges $35 for NICS on a purchase from another retailer, shipped to him for the transfer. He only charges $10 for walk-in private transactions. He figures that they aren't his competition, whereas other retailers are. That's a step in the right direction, IMO.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)My buddy Hoyt isn't interested in actual NICS checks though...he thinks a $35 charge will stem private sales and suddenly make the FFL dealer legally "at risk" or "accountable" but it doesn't work that way....when in fact what he will do is CONTINUE private sales with NO chks.
He's the guy that admits he locks doors of others peoples homes so cops can't get in.... https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)FFLs should do background checks, not some gunner hoping to unload one of his lethal weapons for a fistful of cash.
Pay the $35 and do it right.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)As I said you don't know how NICS checks are done.
Here's a hint...NICS...National Instant Criminal Background Check System NOT my local Sports Shop check system....be it a Gun shop in Albany or my neighbor down the road it would go through DOJ-ATF.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)ATF gives "proceed" or "deny." A "proceed" gets in transaction #, which goes on the paperwork. Seller keeps the paperwork to prove compliance and avoid liability. Probably a good idea to give a copy to buyer as well.
sl8
(13,679 posts)FBI Services - National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics
NICS Participation Map
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics-participation-map.pdf
spanone
(135,795 posts)so this law was mandated 25 fucking years ago and NEVER implemented....
what utter bullshit.
support it? fuck that, just implement it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In fact, non-dealers are prohibited from using it.
That last bit needs to change, imo.
spanone
(135,795 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)In fact, non-dealers are prohibited from using it.
The only argument I've heard against allowing private sellers to go through NICS is that the data might be used maliciously, such as to slander a potential buyer, etc. I find that to be an unfounded fear, since the system as currently configured only delivers a "proceed," "delay," or "deny."
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)But its the only excuse the people who dont want that solution have because they dont want to admit the real reason they oppose it as a solution.
The truth is if I have all the info needed for a NICS check for $15 I can have way, way, way more info on you than any NICS response would give me.
moriah
(8,311 posts)... who likely holds an FFL, by having them run the check?
1) While my state has a very open records policy -- you can search yourself and find TROs no longer active and dismissed, attempted proceedings in mental health court even if the person agrees to a voluntary admission or a hearing finds they don't need treatment enough to do an involuntary, etc, things NCIS doesn't flag -- not every state does. Some feel our records are *too* open. Other states don't publish the uncoroborrated allegations in a temporary restraining order that isn't converted, because of due process and privacy considerations.
2) Individuals may not be aware of recordkeeping requirements, and having an FFL holder complete those for a reasonable fee is a safeguard for the individual, like a lawyer. No, it's not saying the FFL or the private party should be responsible if the check system fails, but it is allowing the FFL holder to do something that they're far more familiar with than the average citizen when it comes to recordkeeping. Yeah, they do have incentive to do their jobs under the law because losing their license would hurt, but their job isn't mind-reading.
3) There would likely still be a data charge if NCIS were made public and you had to register an account to run a firearms check (to prevent it being used nefariously and to give proof a check was done if we wanted to make that count ss recordkeeping.) Access to PACER is a certain amount per page, and there'd be startup costs for designing the interface for individuals that might make checks more expensive than paying an FFL to do it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...for those that don't want to do it themselves.
Making it a criminal offense for sellers *not* to do a NICS (or, like now, go to a FFL) would be an
incentive.
moriah
(8,311 posts)They'd certainly object more if they were forced to pay "the government" to have the checks run.
I wouldn't object if the county sheriff's office could also run the check and document it for a small fee. But part of the check process is a theoretically objective or legally obligated person verify the buyer's identity in person. I'd rather have someone used to looking at IDs and judging if they were faked, such as a person who regularly does the checks already or a police officer, be physically verifying the person is who they say they are, rather than a person just going on a website.
Still, using existing FFL holders as the intermediaries would reduce need for new infrastructure expenses to start the project.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)laws. They are not particularly diverse either, judging from their FB page and other photos.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/04/liberal-gun-owner-enthusiast-second-amendment-politics-2017-215784
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalGunClub/
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Or at least not until January 2019 at the very earliest
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)All it does is offer to publish a list of federal agencies who fail to report someone they should have. Like anyone reads that. It's a cynical attempt at public shaming of the rights favorite nonexistent boogeyman, the federal Deep State, and not much more. The vast majority of agencies who report to NICS are state agencies/courts, yet the feds. And even if they were included, how does putting them on some federal list facilitate reporting?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Educate them about their false consciousness, and how they're being used in a "cynical attempt at public shaming"
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/about#mission
Sandy Hook Promise is a national non-profit organization founded and led by several family members whose loved ones were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012.
Based in Newtown, Connecticut, our intent is to honor all victims of gun violence by turning our tragedy into a moment of transformation by providing programs and practices that protect children from gun violence.
By uniting people of all beliefs and backgrounds who value the protection of children to take meaningful actions in their homes and communities, we will prevent gun violence and stop the tragic loss of life.
https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/sandy_hook_promise_applauds_bipartisan_bgc_bill_fix_nics
Newtown, CT November 16, 2017 Earlier this month, as the investigation unfolded in Sutherland Springs, TX, we learned that the deadly shooting could have been averted had authorities properly reported the shooters violent history. However, due to this lapse in the system, we witnessed the heartbreaking and grave consequences.
In light of this incident, we praise U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX,) Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Scott (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) along with Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) for introducing the Fix NICS (National Instant Background Check System) Act.
The legislation aims to strengthen background checks, hold agencies accountable for reporting a perpetrators violent past, as well as looks to create a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative to ensure that states have adequate resources and incentives to share all relevant information with NICS showing that a felon or domestic abuser is excluded from purchasing a firearm.
In the past 45 days, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in modern history. I applaud these Senators for taking the crucial step to introduce this commonsense legislation that will improve background checks, keep all agencies accountable, and most importantly create a safer America. We have lost too many innocent lives. The time to act is now, said Nicole Hockley, co-founder and managing director of Sandy Hook Promise, and the mother of Dylan, who was killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8B934829-8152-4ED9-82BD-F219EEE4F335
Nov 16 2017
Washington - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined an effort led by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to introduce the Fix NICS Act to ensure federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill penalizes federal agencies who fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting. The bill also directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)typical gun owners trying to fool people into believing they are something different in an attempt to keep the guns flowing to gun addicts and profiteers.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Wouldn't stealing other peoples stuff be an addiction or profitable?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to read in context.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and as dismissable as a Trump tweet.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)this small so-called Liberal Gun Club is a bit more conservative than the name implies. They certainly display the diversity one expects at a conservative rally.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Examples, please...
The same could easily be said about your photo collection.
Do you go to a lot of conservative rallies to take your photos?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NRA, etc., and even the so-called Liberal Gun Club.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If so, you have a collection of 'white gun owner porn'
Also, you didn't answer the question asked. Here, let me refresh your memory:
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)The Cornyn-sponsored bill doesn't do universal background checks.
Pass this bill, but don't think it will move the needle much. It's basically the GOP and NRA trying to do the minimum.
Instead advocate for UNIVERSAL background checks.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It failed in 2013, and unless the Dems get veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress
in November it will fail again until 2021 at the earliest.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)It does nothing to expand background checks or facilitate reporting. It appears to be just window dressing to make it look like a pro-gun group is for gun control, when that is a lie. Nice try.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Senators Introduce Fix NICS Act to Enhance Compliance, Ensure Accuracy of Existing Background Check System for Firearms Purchases
Nov 16 2017
Washington - Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined an effort led by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to introduce the Fix NICS Act to ensure federal and state authorities comply with existing law and accurately report relevant criminal history records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill penalizes federal agencies who fail to properly report relevant records and incentivizes states to improve their overall reporting. The bill also directs more federal funding to the accurate reporting of domestic violence records.
Still proud to have her as your senator? Or do you feel she's now "trembl(ing) at the feet of the NRA."?
https://www.democraticunderground.org/1251294903#post3
Star Member SunSeeker (27,832 posts)
3. I am proud to have Dianne Feinstein as my senator.
The 1994 AWB made a difference. This one would have too. It is a shame our representatives still tremble at the feet of the NRA.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Would you rather a) hold out for reasons of doctrinal purity, or b) actually do something that might save lives?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)I'm not surrendering to your fatalism.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)You want to energize the gun peeps...make that "demand"...you won't get the crumbs.
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...beacuse 'they don't go far enough'" ?
SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)SunSeeker
(51,523 posts)Those were YOUR posts to me.
I am not your political opponent in a race for office. This is a discussion board for Democrats. We're all supposed to be on the same team. It is very odd for you to use that language. Like I said, it is the first time someone has said that to me in all my years on DU.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and many faction fights, and always has.
As Will Rogers put in the 1930s:
"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they'd be Republicans."
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Remember if you buy guns or ammo your money contributes to NRA funds that promote kids' deaths.
Are you with us, or against us?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)My conscience is clear on that count, I haven't owned a gun or bought ammo in over 35 years
sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)If we both support all these things, we good.
And good on the gun purchases. Good for you. Even if you had given money to gun companies, its a relatively small offense relative to the blood gun CEOs have on their hands. As Canada does, I do support people who like guns being able to fire them at ranges.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and action on handguns awaits the overturning of Heller v. DC
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Boy Scouts Summer Camp ranges...supporting kids deaths?
A Christian kids summer camp not far from me..Deerfoot Lodge shooting range...supporting kids deaths?
EVERY PD in the Nation shooting range...supporting kids deaths?
You didn't think this out did you?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)While outlawing drugs doesn't make their distribution cease, it does drive up pricing.
If it's universally illegal to transfer a firearm without going through a local FFL (whether you have to get a license yourself or not), we can start actually putting pressure on those selling to anybody on Gunslist. It will drive uo the price of black market firearms while adding such a small burden (it's $35 at the local pawn shop for them to receive a gun by mail and run the check) to legal private party transfers, and giving gun owners the opportunity to give business to their favorite range, that being against such a law is insanity.
I also would like a National Victim Notification Registry, where people who have had restraining orders, even temporary ones, against individuals can be notified that the person they took steps to get an order against has purchased, and free background checks offered to people alerted by the registry if they feel in danger because of it. No location information about the purchaser to the person notified, just that a firearm purchase was made and the date. Similarly, I think any action in a mental health court, completed or not, should result in a "defer and notify treating physician of purchase". A TRO, like a mere petition for evaluation for involuntary commitment, is public record but not enough to cause an outright denial because the defendant/respondent hasn't yet had the opportunity to respond with a lawyer. However, a lot of times that's as far as DV or mental health proceedings go -- if the person subject to a 72-hour hold simply agrees to treatment, they don't lose rights.