ScottDLS wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:[quote="RoyGBiv]
Respectfully... There is nothing in that post that comes from the new bill. All of your worries are possible in current law.
Please... Show me NEW infringements in the NEW bill. There are none, AFAIK.[/quote]
Exactly right. The Bill does not add one single grounds for denying Second Amendment rights. The Bill 1) creates national reciprocity; and 2) tries to get states and federal agencies to comply with CURRENT reporting requirements. Anyone opposed to No. 2 is arguing that current law should not be enforced.
If the NICS current law contains everything that Cornyn's bill has, then why is it necessary? You are correct in that my problems with the NICS law pre-date Cornyn's bill, and they have more to do with how it is being interpreted vs. what the law says.
The term "adjudicated mentally defective" retains its original meaning from the GCA 1968 as amended. My argument is with the way it is currently being interpreted in the CFR. Adjudicated should not be an administrative process, especially post-Heller, when the adjudication can be by administrative fiat (VA, SSA, etc.). You are depriving someone of a fundamental right under the 2nd amendment by "putting them on a list" of mental defectives. Theoretically without any recourse or ability to challenge the adjudication.
The NICS improvement act didn't actually change 18 USC 922(g)(4), but it did suggest through its reporting improvement language that current interpretations in CFR which are IMO vague and contradictory should stand.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
The new bill puts time requirements, review schedules, funding for training and other compliance requirements and measures onto current law.
Current law has no compliance measures.
The new law does not add any new ways for adding you to the denied list, it only enforces agencies to comply with current rules and sets schedules, measures and funds some training.
You should go read it.