Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

[suthdj]

People have no problem with convicted fellons loosing rights. Why would there be a problem with court mandated psychiatric treatment being reported, as long as it is deemed they are a viable threat to themselves or the public? Certain schizophrenia should be reported also.
Personally I think that a convicted fellon once they have completely served and fullfiled all obligations of their conviction and are "clean" should be able to petition the court for reinstatement of all rights. The same for psychiatric patients.

or maybe instead of a petition it should be automatic with penalties for failure to remove.

[Beiruty]

I cannot understand how folks cannot see the word ADJUDICATED in there. Not just because a doctor said so, or on some "list", but after going through COURT. I vehemently oppose simply slapping someone on a "list" or letting a doc make the call without any checks and balances.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It should be the same background check for Internet access, including smart phones. A reasonable restriction on the Bill of Rights is reasonable for the whole Bill of Rights or none of it.

Thanks for that very constructive observation and suggestion. That will save the Second Amendment for sure.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I cannot understand how folks cannot see the word ADJUDICATED in there. Not just because a doctor said so, or on some "list", but after going through COURT. I vehemently oppose simply slapping someone on a "list" or letting a doc make the call without any checks and balances.

Because they don't want to see it!

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

American gun owners are in the biggest fight to save the Second Amendment we’ve seen in the history of our country. The Sandy Hook shootings have given a political and emotional boost to the anti-gun crowd that has provided the both a bully pulpit as well as unlimited funding to advance their cause. The only thing standing between gun owners and the loss of the Second Amendment is the NRA. People bashing the NRA are allies of Schumer, McCarthy, Bloomberg and the entire anti-gun crowd, whether they admit it or not. Weakening the NRA and public support for the NRA doesn’t promote constitutional government, it increases the likelihood of sweeping anti-gun legislation.

A small percentage of Americans are truly anti-gun in the sense of Bloomberg, Schumer, McCarthy, and their ilk. The vast majority of Americans support the Second Amendment, but with varying levels of dedication. Some will accept significant gun control laws so long as total bans are not imposed. Others will accept only the least restrictions possible and only when compelling evidence supports those restrictions. The majority of Americans fall somewhere between these positions.

Unfortunately, the massacre of 20 six year old children and 6 adults has greatly increased the number of people who, during the heat of passion and grief, will support much wider and more oppressive gun control. This isn’t theory, it’s an absolute fact. While the Bloomberg types want complete bans regardless what they claim) and and no carrying of self-defense handguns. The strongest Second Amendment supporters want no new gun laws; i.e. we want no changes in response to Sandy Hook because 1) they violate the Second Amendment; and 2) they won't work. The vast majority of Americans do not agree with either camp.

Americans overwhelmingly do not want additional gun laws that restrict types of firearms, ammo, or magazines, but they most definitely want laws that are designed to keep crazy people from possessing firearms. Who can rationally oppose a law that prohibits a criminal defendant from owning firearms when he/she plead “not guilty by reason of insanity?” If you do oppose such a law, then please keep it to yourself, lest someone think you represent the majority of gun owners. Do you think the majority of American voters want to allow people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess firearms? If you do, then you have no clue of the pressure being put on elected officials in Washington.

Of this we can be certain, “do nothing” isn’t an option after Sandy Hook. To the chagrin of the Bloomberg types, securing schools, especially by putting “good guys with a gun” in schools, is resonating with Americans all over the Country. This is a response they never could have imagined, as evidenced by their first response to the NRA proposal to put armed COPS and volunteers in the schools. Some school districts are allowing their teachers and staff to carry firearms, with or without special training. The NRA message and solutions to school shootings are working and Americans recognize we are actually doing something constructive, rather than trying to politically profiteer while dancing in the blood of innocent victims.

This excellent response to the NRA proposals will reduce the likelihood of sweeping gun control laws --- this session. But there is an election coming in 2014 and the money behind the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition will keep up the pressure on our elected officials and their Coalition will find, support, and campaign for rabid anti-gun candidates to run against our friends in Washington. The media, major TV networks, and Hollywood will do their part to keep up the pressure for gun bans and other oppressive gun laws, so that 2014 could very well see many pro-Second Amendment House Members swept out of office. The only way to avoid this is 1) grow the NRA; and 2) pass legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by Americans, i.e. laws that are geared to preventing crazy people from having guns. The focus needs not to be on the gun. The American public has made it clear, “Do nothing” is not an option.

Chas.

[mojo84]

Mr. Cotton, I agree with what you say. I believe strengthening the laws already on the books and better more consistent enforcement of the laws while prosecuting those that break the law is fine. My concern is that I would like to see the actual bill as it is proposed and am having trouble locating it.

If in fact, the law only applies to those that have been "adjudicated" as being mentally defective or having a mental illness that precludes them from owning or carrying a gun, I can live with that.

As an insurance agent and dealing with quite a few clients, I've come to realize many people are taking prescription medication for depression,ADD, anxiety, panic attack and other issues that do not necessarily make them a danger to themselves or others. This along with the move to electronic medical records, it would be very easy in the near future to mine the medical records data and determine many people are disqualified from owning firearms or having a CHL.

Any direction you can provide would be appreciated.

Edited: add CHL

[mamabearCali]

[BeanCounter]

.... I would like to see the actual bill as it is proposed and am having trouble locating it.

This apears to be the proposed bill...

The NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The press release about the bill
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Slowplay]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want someone who has been adjudicated by a federal court to be a danger to themselves or others, or someone who has been in a federal court pleading guilty by reason of insanity....I don't want either OUT ON THE STREET AT ALL!!

[RX8er]

Here'a thought I haven't seen talked about yet.

Is it / would it be possible to list all the mental health illnesses and assign a category to the severity to them? Then, this could be used to say: You had dunlap disease as a category III. You are disqualified for 5 years from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Or, you were diagnosed with Schizophrenia and can never purchase or possess a firearm.

Many on this forum approve of the government keeping any type of arrest for ever, would it be the same for certain types of mental health?

[Wes]

I personally like seeing the NRA take a stance on something like this which will positively sway opinion our way. We need all the support we can get, and a hard line in the sand won't do it.

(36)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term ‘has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or has been committed to a psychiatric hospital’, with respect to a person—

‘‘(i) means the person is the subject of an order or finding by a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body

As has been mentioned, this line provides some check and balance which IMO makes this a good bill. As good as it can be anyways. I too would love to say all or nothing but its unrealistic. That and I know I don't want to be the one to run in to a schizo with a gun under his shirt, I bet most others wouldn't either. If this bill gets states to start proper reporting then I say great!

(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding

This section which describes how said adjudication can be reversed further shows the opportunities a person has from this bill to get their rights back. I fully support the view that people can be treated and get better from some mental issues (some) and putting the power back to the courts gives opportunity for them to show this. Are the courts perfect? No, but its a lot better than letting a doctor decide.

[SewTexas]

I don't know how I feel about this one....on the one hand I, like everyone else, don't want some psycho carrying a gun, but on the other I recognize that the psycho probably isn't going to go get a gun from the "normal" places. the other thing is there are supposedly tons of background check violations that never get researched or prosecuted. And they just say "oh, we don't have time to do that, it's a low priority" so why the heck are they even proposing more laws to do more bgchecks to add more work that won't get done? ....I know, I've said it, Ted Cruz has said it, and no one listens...

[bizarrenormality]

Debating these people is as productive as the Founders trying to debate King George about the error of his ways.

[K.Mooneyham]

Debating these people is as productive as the Founders trying to debate King George about the error of his ways.

I whole-heartedly agree with you when speaking of people such as Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, the "Brady Bunch", and the rest of that ilk, as well as their dedicated (rabid) followers. However, not everyone is in that camp; in fact, a lot of folks don't really know what to think, except what they see the ideological bums in the media rattle on about. So, its up to us, the educated firearms owners and patriots who support the Second Amendment to help sort those folks out. But, if we were to go off like some "Michigan militia members", all it will do is reinforce propagandistic stereotypes that the liberal-progressive media has spewed around. Form solid arguments, and work with the FACTS as much as possible. Ignore the hard-core antis and focus the energy where it matters.

[mojo84]

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr329


Here's the actual text of the bill. Not sure I have too much problem with it. Seems like it its in line with what LaPierre said early on after Sandy Hook.