Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks RINO Graham. Thanks RINO Flake. Thanks socialists Begich and Prior.

Thanks for the stab in the back, NRA.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... a-backing/

Washington (CNN) – New legislation introduced Wednesday aims to close one loophole in the process of purchasing a gun.

The bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham and three other bipartisan lawmakers expands the scope of mental health information submitted to the background check system used by gun sellers. It has the backing of the National Rifle Association, and background check-related legislation has been considered the most likely of the various gun violence proposals to survive the legislative process.

Sometimes I wonder just who is supporting who.

Can someone explain why the NRA is supporting this legislation?

I am physically ill

Anygunanywhere

I've sat down at my computer three times, typed a response, deleted it and walked away. I can't seem to craft something that doesn't violate our rules. I don't think I've ever been madder about a post in my life. This is the most absurd thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

Stop now; stop your personal attacks. Don't apologize, don't send me a PM apologizing, just stop now.

Chas.

[jimlongley]

I am sure I will catch flak for this but ... I have always been a supporter of closing the FTF sale "loophole" Too many dishonest buyers and sellers out there. It wont stop all gun sales to criminals, but it will stop quite a few.

Besides, this might be enough to quell the cry for more gun laws.

In the first place, if it was designed that way, it's not a loophole, and in the second, have you been paying attention to what's going on the the gun grabber world? They will see this as nothing more than "An important first step." as they so often have in the past.

[LSUTiger]

I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.

I am not saying I don't understand the rationale behind this but I would still disagree. The 2A is not something we can compromise on. This is just another way around it. They are not going to stop here and then its all said and done, this will not quell the cry for more gun laws. They won't stop until we are all disarmed. Therefore, it's just another case of compromise (political realism) and lose a little more ground until the next fight.

We may have just slowed down the leak in the dam a little, but sooner or later it will collapse. Now they can call anybody crazy for any reason and you lose your right to own firearms, or just make stuff up, interpreting any past medical history they want to justify disarmorment.

Example, I took pain meds after a knee surgery and they say "We have to disarm you until we can study the residual effects of the narcotic pain medication you took because it may cause adverse affects and therefore you could be a threat to society." So then I am disarmed while the FDA conducts inconclusive studies and the situation is never resolved.

Take the case of Mr. David Sarti, I do not know all the details, I don't have all of his medical records, but at least on the surface (what info I can find) he seems to have been targeted for his beliefs. You may not be a prepper and consider him extreme in his beliefs but that alone does not make him crazy. His situation happened shortly after appearing on the Doomsday Prepper TV show. This looks like a good case to illustrate how easy it will be to be disarmed, perhaps more than it already is. If anyone has any better info on this case, please share. I really would like to know more about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7O9FcUobZ8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://truthfrequencynews.com/doomsday- ... defective/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/i ... t_02142012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I took an aspirin because I had a headache at work thinking about my dead relatives and low bank account now I am crazy, no just human? Where does it all end? When will people get their head out of the sand and see whats happening.

I wish a tinfoil hat was all it took to stop tyrrany. To those who said "it can't happen here", guess what, it's happening here. Conspiracy theory, it's no theory.

[OldGrumpy]

With a right to bears arms comes a responibility to insure that my right does not infringe on someone else's right to life. I personally see no problem with whatever provisions we can add that insures everything possible is done to keep the mentally incompetent from legally buying guns. True, they may get them by other means but let's not make it easy for them. I applaud Senator Graham for taking a stand on the side of reasonable responsiblity. His guidelines are very narrowly defined and does not leave "wiggle room" for liberal interpretations.

[RoyGBiv]

I think something is being missed here. CNN tried to contact Brady Campaign on this and they wouldn't respond. Some of the other anti-gunners are ticked that it doesn't stop private sales. However, a LOT of people have said, in effect, "We need the law to keep crazy people from getting guns". All of you KNOW that this has been said by a LOT of people. Well, this would be that law. Please note, I am not saying it would be a fully effective law. I am not saying it would stop crazy folks from getting guns and shooting innocent little kids. Not saying that it cannot be abused by a Federal government bent on abusing just about anything they see fit to abuse in the law. What I am saying is that it seems like some Republicans, and the Democrats from some of the "redder" states are trying to head stuff off at the pass, so to speak. And perhaps the NRA realizes that, as well. The important part, and what liberal-progressives probably don't like about it, is that it uses the word "adjudicated". That means someone who has been shown in a court to be with less than a full deck of mental faculties, not just some doc somewhere saying it. You all had to know they were going to "do something" about this "gun problem"...well, here it is.

Exactly.

This bill is about putting the conversation back on point. It talks about restricting access to guns for people who should not have them. It's not perfect. But it will do our side much good politically.

I understand the desire towards absolutism on 2A, but I am inclined to support this bit of political realism.

I am not saying I don't understand the rationale behind this but I would still disagree. The 2A is not something we can compromise on. This is just another way around it. They are not going to stop here and then its all said and done, this will not quell the cry for more gun laws. They won't stop until we are all disarmed. Therefore, it's just another case of compromise (political realism) and lose a little more ground until the next fight.

We may have just slowed down the leak in the dam a little, but sooner or later it will collapse. Now they can call anybody crazy for any reason and you lose your right to own firearms, or just make stuff up, interpreting any past medical history they want to justify disarmorment. <snip>

I don't disagree with your slippery-slope worries. Not one bit.
I'll summarize here a follow up I made two posts after the one you quoted.

1. Don't give an inch politically unless you've first fought your best fight to keep every inch.
2. Make the best deal you can. Give as little as possible, get as much as possible.
3. Even after you've made the politically best deal, fight it in court if there's grounds to do so.

I've come to understand that "NONONONONONONO" is a losing proposition.
When it comes to 2A, I don't like it. But it's reality.

That said.... Folks who take the "NONONONONONONO" position are doing a great service to the cause as well, just by their standing opposed. But it's not useful (or warranted, IMO) to throw the NRA under the bus for this bill. Think about it.... Of all the horse-poop that's been proposed so far, combined with the political realities of having to constructively contribute or be marginalized, I'm hard pressed to come up with something better. It appears narrowly focused, targets a real problem (not just a perceived or "one-element" problem) and requires "adjudication" (5th/14th Amendment due process) before you lose your rights. It does provide a crack into which the anti's can attempt to put their crowbar, but it's a very small crack.

Politically, this is an incredibly well-reasoned and on-point proposal. It is nearly impossible for the anti's to refute. I would like to know if we're "getting" anything in return for this other than using it to quell the anti's fire.

And we still have the ability to appeal it through the courts on Constitutional grounds if necessary.

[KaiserB]

Maybe we should all take a deep breath and look at this logically.

1. Read this news article and watch the video: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... -snag?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2. Keep in mind many states do not fully report information to the NICS, if they even report. Some states do not USE the NICS system
3. HIPPA laws and hospital policies do not always allow doctors to report that someone has a mental defect (I am not talking about depression, I am talking about Schizophrenia, etc.)
4. Lindsey Graham is asking that the people adjudicated (been before a judge and had a hearing) be added to the NICS system.
5. Before you single out Lindsey Graham (someone who has done a lot to protect gun rights in the senate) you may want to start right here at home because this follows Ted Cruz's recomendations from January http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -gun-sales" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cruz's recommendation focuses on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), an FBI database through which licensed gun dealers are required to screen potential buyers before making a sale. Under federal law, felons, illegal immigrants, spousal abusers and the severely mentally ill are barred from buying or owning firearms.
The system remains largely voluntary, however, as states are encouraged — but not required — to report such information. And the maximum penalty for states failing to report at least 50 percent of relevant records is a mere 3 percent cut in certain Justice Department grants designed to bolster law enforcement efforts.
Additionally, unlicensed gun sellers are able to skirt the requirement to conduct background checks entirely — an enormous hole in the screening process that allows most anyone to purchase firearms.
The voluntary nature of NICS has created vast reporting discrepancies between states. Virginia, for instance, has submitted more than 170,000 mental health records to the system, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an advocacy group headed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. Idaho, by contrast, has submitted none.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... z2MsLKT42a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

This is not moving down a slippery slope this is forcing the states that should already be complying with the NICS law (enacted in 1993) ENFORCING the existing laws. Is it needed, well it should not be, this should be a common sense no brainer for most states to report he status of people who have been adjudicated mentally defective.

If you want to be mad at someone about this, aim your anger in the correct direction. Perhaps you should start with those who helped END the mental healthcare treatment facilities in the US. (I will let you do your own research on that).

[RoyGBiv]

A link to NBC news?
Keeping your enemies close?

[suthdj]

I have no problem keeping the them form buying guns as long as due process is followed, however will this loss of right be forever or until cured(not controlled with meds) if not forever is there means to be removed from the NICS system or is this going to be like the no fly list? It needs to be figured out BEFORE we make it a law and see how it works.

[RX8er]

........This gives the POTUS a feather to stick in his cap and say "look we did something"

And this is exactly what they hope for. Just enough people to give a little here, a little there and before you know it is ALL gone. I keep seeing the avatar of user Jumping Frog here and his reference to the boiling frog....

[old farmer]

[baldeagle]

First of all, the NRA has supported background checks for decades. So this is not a change in their position or a "sellout".

Yes, the federal government cannot be trusted, but that's not an issue that passing or not passing background check laws would change. The clear flaw in the present NICS system is the incomplete and missing information on the mental health of people who buy guns. IF this legislation addresses that problem (and it's a big if - after all, it's CNN reporting this - I'd recommend reading the actual bill before reacting to the news), then what we're talking about is improving the current system not adding new restrictions.

Secondly, I personally am in favor of requiring that all sellers at gun shows who have rented booths be required to run all transactions through NICS. Every FFL dealer already is. Those "private" sellers who buy, sell and trade guns at gun shows are acting as FFLs without having to comply with the requirements, which gives them an unfair advantage over those who do register. But this law doesn't even go that far, so I don't see how you can be so mad at the NRA.

Yes, in an ideal world we wouldn't have any checks at all and every sale, trade or purchase would be between the two parties and the government wouldn't be involved. We don't live in an ideal world. So long as we're going to have a NICS system in place, it at least ought to work the same for everybody. Obama aside, even if you had a Republican President and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, I doubt seriously you can successfully dismantle the NICS system. The arguments against it are far too persuasive to convince the majority of Americans that it's a good idea.

[JALLEN]

Like almost all proposals aimed at "doing something," this one doesn't seem to promise any real effectiveness.

This law won't stop "some dude" who stole my pistol from selling it to the perp who got caught with it, having bought it for $200, no background check, no paperwork, no ten day wait, probably not even a cancelled check. The perp was good and ineligible, underaged, a prison record already. They weren't going to use an FFL, NICS or any other formality, and don't give a flip what the Legislature wants, Congress wants or anything else.

This and similar transactions, the ones we really do want to stop, will go on unimpeded, while some otherwise lawful transfers will be stopped.

[VMI77]

I am sure I will catch flak for this but ... I have always been a supporter of closing the FTF sale "loophole" Too many dishonest buyers and sellers out there. It wont stop all gun sales to criminals, but it will stop quite a few.

Besides, this might be enough to quell the cry for more gun laws.

I can tell you exactly when the cry for more gun laws will stop: when owning a gun is illegal. Then the cry will be to ban bows, knives, and swords.

[VMI77]

Allow me.

1. Federal government defines the system to track those defined individuals.

2. The feds appoint the judges.

3. The feds define the mental illness.

4. The Feds run the background check system that approves the purchase of firearms by all citizens.

Wow. What was I thinking? There is no possibility here that the fed will use this arbitrarily. We can simply ignore all of the discussions on the fed ignoring constitutional rights to kill US citizens without warrant, without due process.

Good bill? With this administration? The term is oxymoronic. This government wouldn't know good legislation if it kissed them on the forehead.

NOTHING that comes out of dc is worthy of a bucket of warm spit (Thanks TAM!)

You can believe all you want about how beneficial this crap is, Beiruty. Don't think ill of me if I decide not to consider your opinion. The odds are grossly in my favor that I am right.

Anygunanywhere

In this instance I am with you! It would be fine if the rest of the system was not so stinking corrupt.

As I recall the soviets used "mental illness" to detain/disappear many of their opponents. I don't trust these wretches, not one inch. This is how it could go down. They grab a 2nd amendment blogger on some trumped up charge, find them mentally incapable of standing trial, and like magic all his guns are taken away and he is never permitted to own them again. All done without that person having any recourse......not good.

I think the current system is a reasonably large hurdle for getting many people adjudicated as mentally ill. The danger as I see it is this: the administration will claim that regular courts can't handle this burden and set up special courts to make the decisions --something like a FISA court, where such decisions can be rendered wholesale.

[KaiserB]

I have no problem keeping the them form buying guns as long as due process is followed, however will this loss of right be forever or until cured(not controlled with meds) if not forever is there means to be removed from the NICS system or is this going to be like the no fly list? It needs to be figured out BEFORE we make it a law and see how it works.

The NICS reporting requirement has been a law for 20 years. NICS does not use the same mechanisms as the no fly list.