Smith And Wesson Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Please contact your US senator to oppose the "Fix NICS" legislation, Senate bill S.2135 and contact your congressional representative to oppose house resolution HR.4477.

If your senator or representative is a sponsor of this deeply flawed legislation, ask them to drop their sponsorship.

This article contains a good analysis of the deep flaws in this lightly camouflaged gun control bill.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/fix-nics-act-solves-nothing-by-itself-and-ignores-fundamental-problems/

The core problem with the bill is that it continues to encourage agencies to report otherwise law abiding people (many without any violent background) to the system, making them prohibited persons without due process. The lack of due process ends up interfering with second amendment rights and setting up a very expensive and time consuming process to restore those rights.

Agencies like Social Security and the Veteran's Administration have reported huge numbers of non-violent people to NICS without due process. This law will just make the problem much worse, especially if and when we get a less firearms friendly government administration that has the goal of civilian firearms confiscation and elimination.

NICS is a badly conceived and operated system that can never stop crime and terrorism. It's more likely to incorrectly identify people as prohibited and could well become the progressive liberal gun grabber's mechanism of choice for gun control.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,091 Posts
Interesting articles with two different explanations of the legislation. After reading both I tend to agree with 1av8r. From what I can see the legislation does not prohibit due process to law abiding citizens, rather makes it more difficult for those who shouldn't have firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,534 Posts
^ good on you 1av8r. We have a number of persons from paroled felons, mentally challenged, etc. walking the streets. We have the CDC wanting to declare an epidemic. The product liability folks and injury lawyers panting.


I do not know where we currently stand the subject of persons who are no longer able (or willing) to manage their own affairs. Nor am I aware of the status of persons seeking treatment and/or disability through the Veterans Affairs medical system for mental health issues. If any knows these answers please speak up.

To the degree that disqualification is based on genuinely objective rather than shallow subjective criteria is indeed a worthy fight. I too identify with the NSSF position as stated. I also know this will be a word by word fight every time legislation is considered.

Head-in-the-sand rhetoric solves nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
If the NSSF (or any other entity) wants gun owners to be onboard with some new legislation, they should articulate what exactly the new legislation entails.

Just my opinion but "due process" seems to get tossed around pretty carelessly these days.



Travis
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,680 Posts
Travis, in this context, due process requires a court hearing to determine mental capacity. That's what Obama and others were trying to get around when they allowed bureaucrats to deny veterans and Social Security recipients their 2nd amendment rights. They were (and are) denying many citizens due process. Fix NICS does nothing to take away the right of due process.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The problem with the NICS bills is that they open up NICS to easy abuse by a number of agencies and individuals. It will be bureaucratically easy to put someone on the list as prohibited, and remain prohibitively expensive to regain your rights.

Agencies and individuals will have a simple mechanism to use to report people that is decentralized and very difficult to monitor and controll. All it will take to violate due process and put someone on this list will be agency rules or the opinion of a mental health worker. A future administration that is not friendly to gun owners will find it simple to increasingly prohibit people from owning firearms.

This is a slippery slope, and greases the skids to gun prohibition and confiscation. Regardless of NSSF and NRA's judgement and support of the bill, you - the gun owner - are the target of this bill. It may not affect you today, but it could easily be abused to affect you in the future.

If you trust the gun grabbers that are behind the bill, speak up now. I'd like to understand how they convinced you...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Travis, in this context, due process requires a court hearing to determine mental capacity. That's what Obama and others were trying to get around when they allowed bureaucrats to deny veterans and Social Security recipients their 2nd amendment rights. They were (and are) denying many citizens due process. Fix NICS does nothing to take away the right of due process.
Thank you for responding.

My follow up to that would be what type of hearing is going to be held? Is it akin to a civil case where 51% makes me lose my Constitutional right? And if I haven't been convicted of any crimes, how am I losing my rights as an American citizen?

I'm not trying to be argumentative I just honestly don't know the details of the bill. If anybody has a link to the actual proposal I would like to read it.



Travis
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #13 (Edited)
Historically, hundreds of thousands of military veterans that have assigned their benefits to be managed by a spouse or other person were reported to NICS as prohibited people by the VA with no judicial due process. The reason for assigning benefit management to another was not due to criminal conviction.

Here's my video of our NC Senator Burr discussing the isssue in 2010:


Social Security under Obama did a similar thing with a large number of citizens that nominated a custodian to manage their finances. The false logic is that if someone cannot manage their own finances, they cannot be trusted to defend themselves and are a automatically a danger to others.

A judicial hearing on competence was not part of the disqualification process.

This system, as designed, is ripe for abuse. The bill increases the risk that NICS will be abused in the future. An agency, at the direction of an anti-gun administration, could easily be directed to start reporting more lawful citizens to NICS without judicial oversight.

Remember that the system itself is completely ineffective at stopping crime or terrorism. Propping it up with additional funding and agency requirements does nothing to stop crime or terrorism, and diverts considerable resources that would otherwise be used to stop crime and terrorism. Worse than this, the system interferes with the rights of law abiding citizens that should not have their rights interfered with.

You can be confident that the anti-gun progressive grabbers are very pleased with themselves at splitting the pro-gun community around this issue while, at the same time, opening up a ripe and potent path to gun prohibition.

Background checks simply do not work. Resources dedicated to this end may "feel good" but they are ineffectively wasted, and take away from work that would stop crime and terrorism.

You can find the Senate bill text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135

The house bill is at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4477/text
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,534 Posts
I have read the link and it appears to be what the short title indicates. Your claims with regard to the value of background checks, dismissing the as completely ineffective, would run into the several instances like VA Tech, Giffords and most recently the Texas church shooting where the system failed. I am not so naïve as to think straw purchases, theft, inheritance, informal sales and DIY kits can walk around the system. What I do not believe is that there are any practical number of persons who will support the simple notion of chucking the entire system in favor or what, nothing?

On the other hand the operative language in the CGA'68 is "adjudicated". And, therein is one of your objections and I share that concern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,200 Posts
I don't see anything wrong w/ NICS that needs fixing, especially by adding a lot of other flimsy reasons to be disqualified. What needs fixing is the other agencies that fail to report - such as w/ the Texas church murderer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,176 Posts
I don't see anything wrong w/ NICS that needs fixing, especially by adding a lot of other flimsy reasons to be disqualified. What needs fixing is the other agencies that fail to report - such as w/ the Texas church murderer.
Limiting my observation to Texas, the church shooter could have been turned away by Academy had NICS popped up his name. Then he could have gone to any number of gun shows, or responded to any number of Craigslist ads, and bought what he needed face-to-face from a private vendor or other private party. That's the "gun show loophole" bandied about. That NICS could have popped up his name is meaningless - it is not a crime to attempt the purchase. The crime is in the actual purchase, or possession. So no LEO would have been warned, and he would not have been apprehended.

There is no reasonable fix to the "loophole" as registering sales, trades, or loans between private parties just cannot be enforced absent draconian levels of police resources. Just ask Oregonians who had that very sort of law passed, and for which the response from LEOs was "we don't have the resources, so we are not going to enforce it".

I have to side with Marc here, NICS today is ineffective. As such, it's a waste of resources - so is a waste of time and money for negligible return. It makes people feel good about "doing something" with no measurable result (just like pert-much every gun-grabber law, or CDC studies of guns as a disease). What WILL yield results is heavy prosecution and mandatory, no-deal, no-parole prison sentences for using a gun in a crime. 5-10 for felony robbery, becomes 20-30 for aggravated felony robbery, with no parole. Get the bangers off the street, put the fear of serious jail time into the rest, and you will see guns in crimes diminish. The Texas shooting incident may not be one of those deterred, but if the guy hoped to live through it, maybe it would have.

Just be aware - NICS returns "yellow" values along with reds - I was present when another purchaser was yellow-flagged for having his middle name match someone in the system. Yep. For his middle name (they sold him the gun). If you just cannot see eliminating NICS, then require a red-flag NICS decline turn into a LEO encounter. Have a police officer investigate every red-flagged NICS request. If the guy is an ex-con, non-resident, or whatever, then lock him up for attempt to violate federal law. Would be interested what our LEO's think of that....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
The notion that a handful of politicians are capable of drafting fixes to technically complex problems is laughable in my opinion. The laws are on the books and the system is in place. If they suspect that the existing system isn't working, they can order their employees to fix it.

I don't see how these perceived problems require new legislation.


Travis
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
So, the real truth in all this is to look at the number of prosecutions (which would logically be much higher than the number of convictions) that were initiated by a prohibited person that attempted to purchase a firearm from a dealer being caught by a NICS check?

This was studied in excruciating detail and an audit report was published in 2016:

https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1632.pdf

Considering that every time a prohibited person attempts to acquire a firearm is a crime, Of the over 202 MILLION NICS checks that have been performed, here are the results relating to illegal attempts to acquire firearms from dealers:

From page 32 of the audit report:

"Each USAO has substantial discretion in deciding whether to prosecute criminal cases and usually requires that a potential NICS denial case involve aggravating circumstances. The USAOs accepted for consideration of prosecution cases involving 254 of the total 558 subjects referred by ATF resulting from NICS checks during the 8-year period from FY 2008 through FY 2015. We found that while the overall number of NICS denial prosecutions is extremely low, the number has dropped significantly since FY 2003, and that there was no significant change in the number of NICS cases pursued for prosecution the President’s January 2013 plan to reduce gun violence. "

So - of 558 cases referred to the Attorney General for Federal prosecution, 254 were accepted for consideration.

If you think all the millions of dollars spent by the FBI, ATF and related agencies over the years is intended to stop crime, all you have to do is take a look at the results. Over seven years only 254 were even considered for prosecution.

When you consider that the gun grabbing progressive liberals are behind beefing up this bill, and that one of the outcomes can be to deny people their second amendment rights without any judicial involvement or due process, and that such a small percentage of the actual violators are even considered for prosecution, much less actually prosecuted I think it's pretty clear that you - the law abiding citizen - are the target of this system and legislation.

With the odds of prosecution somewhere around 0.00002 percent (that's 2 100 thousandths of a percent) I don't think that the system has much impact on crime.

How many criminals and terrorists were stopped in their tracks by this system? I think it's safe to say none.

How many criminals and terrorists were able to commit crimes and terrorist incidents because the resources wasted on this system were not available to actual criminal investigation, arrest and conviction of the perpetrators? I think it's safe to say that quite a few successfully violated a number of laws and got away with it.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time - but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time..."

It doesn't say "In Government We Trust" and certainly doesn't say "In Shumer We Trust" or "In Pelosi We trust" or even "In Bloomberg We Trust" does it?

The system is a prop for politically correct politicians while they continue to plot to violate your self defense rights.

Don't try and tell me that we need to prop up this failed system of self-flagellation, or even need such a system at all. Criminals and terrorists ignore it. Federal prosecutors ignore violations of the law associated with what the system catches. The only people it impacts are law abiding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Injunbro
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top