NSSF: Background checks need to be fixed
We are in the third year of our industrys national effort to ensure that the system has all the appropriate records put into it. We call the initiative FixNICS and we have been successful through our direct efforts to convince 16 state legislatures to pass legislation to ensure that there are no statutory, regulatory, administrative or procedural impediments to entering all appropriate records criminal and mental health into NICS.
Yes. The gun lobby did that. We prefer to be called the firearms industry, but yes, we did that. We dont expect the gun control groups to provide any credit to our industry. It runs counter to the narrative that they proffer, and that is too often accepted without challenge by reporters who should know that verifying information should be part of every story they file.
And yup.
July 31st, 2015 at 4:17 pm
Be a damned shamed if the wrong people got guns wouldn’t it? Like all those New Yorkers that refused to register for the SAFE ACT, or folks that bounce checks in Alabama for over $300, or idiots who pick up an eagle feather and claim they didn’t know mere possession was a felony, not to mention those dastardly importers of lobsters in plastic instead of cardboard, or those women who slapped their cheating boyfriends and got taken to court over it…
The NICS and its basis – the prohibited persons list – needs to be eliminated, not fixed. Someone really should tap the NSSF and other alleged allies on the shoulder and remind them the bridge they’re trying to shore up lies over the Kwai river.
July 31st, 2015 at 7:03 pm
Publicola said it better than I. Eliminate the prohibited person laws.
July 31st, 2015 at 7:21 pm
It’s a false argument, People. NSSF is playing the Republican Party game by embracing the enemy’s false premise.
“The NICS and its basis – the prohibited persons list – needs to be eliminated, not fixed.”
Yes, this ^^.
Lets try multiple choice (since we all like choice, right?).
Deprivation of rights under color of law is,
a) a good thing, and should be encouraged so long as it’s done efficiently.
b) wrong, and should be prohibited.
Choose wisely.
August 1st, 2015 at 1:03 pm
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say a thing about background checks or prohibited individuals. It says “shall not be infringed”. What part of this don’t the NSSF @$$holes not understand?
August 1st, 2015 at 1:06 pm
do … not understand, not don’t … not understand