National Instant Check System Improvement Act of 2005
Publicola says it’s bad ju-ju:
I’ll get to the point; it’s bullshit. All this will do is open up more records for inclusion in the NICS system. In other words they’re hoping that more folks will be disqualified because of Lautenberg, mental health records or possibly because they’re being investigated for “terrorism”.
The last part may leave you in the cold. Here’s where I get that from:
“…and (3) the Secretary of Homeland Security to make available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination that a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm and information about a change in such person’s status for removal from NICS, where appropriate.”
I can only assume that this is an effort to grease the wheels of that “terrorism watch list’ being made at least a temporary disqualification. Why else would the department of Homeland Security be involved?
He has more. Not sure about his assessment but it is possibly a particularly slippery slope.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:28 am
The problem I have with the line of reasoning is that all NICS does is electronically enforce current law. If you’re a Lautenberg case, and you go and purchase a firearm, whether or not you get rejected by NICS, you just committed a Felony. The courts won’t care whether or not the NICS system thwarted you. The same for the PTSD vets that were adjudicated mentally incompetent.
It seems to me that, althought I won’t support this bill, because I don’t think it would really accomplish anything toward its proported goal of reducing crime, it’s not something to get worked up about. Getting worked up about improving the data in NICS seems to me to be a losing proposition. The problem isn’t with NICS, it’s with Lautenberg, and the fact that people who are currently “prohibited persons” have no legal recourse for altering their status.
I’m a bit disturbed by the possibility the terrorist watch list could be used here, but that seems to me to be an unsubstantiated assertion based on what could just be bad reporting. There’s no legal force behind adding that list to NICS, so I suspect that would be illegal. If they try that shit, we should come down on them hard. It’s already bad enough that list stops good people from being able to get on airplanes.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:34 am
The problem with prohibited persons is that they slipped it under the door 40 years ago in GCA 68 with the felon prohibitions, which were upheld with little publicity because well, felons are evil you know. Then they started adding to it in the clinton years with the addition of background checks. Legal challenges that might have been open if they did the whole enchilada at once in the 90s (with all the bad consequences laid bare) were closed to us because of all the precedents that built up over the years upholding the concept of prohibited persons.
We really need to kill prohibited persons, but we need to get the 2nd recognized as an individual right first.
Also, I am really annoyed at the number of shitty pro-gun bills this year. First we had that “MGs and DDs for blackwater” bill and now we have the NICS improvement bill being promoted as pro-gun.
June 16th, 2006 at 10:40 am
I’m also annoyed we aren’t gaining any ground. It might have been nice to trade improvements to NICS for something more substinative, like getting rid of Lautenberg or maybe the “sporting purposes” crap. Getting rid of Lautenberg probably will never happen though, because the sound bite will be:
The “gun lobby” want wife beaters to be able to have guns!
And that will be enough to kill it. Most people don’t know or care enough to look into it, or really think about it. “Of course wife beaters shouldn’t have guns!”, is all that will matter.
June 16th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The Second Amendment is not a right. It hasn’t been a right since the 1934 National Firearms Act. The 1968 Gun Control Act, NICS, ATFE, CCW laws, etc just prove you need State permission to exercise your gun PRIVILEDGES. The State decides when and how and if you are allowed to own and use guns. That’s not a right. That’s a priviledge that the State can (and does) revoke whenever it feels like.
All hail the Master State!