“Fix NICS” bill.... relax, will ya?

[v0lcom13sn0w]

im just excited to not have to ride dirty if i go to another state if i so choose(i work during the week so its tough to get to WA to grt a CHL)

pretty dumb when i cross the bridge i to WA, i have to unload my pistol and put it in the back instead of on me.

 

[Will_White]

Having read the bill, there's only one new thing that could be abused in the future, although unless something changes there won't be anything to use to abuse, and that's the "bump stock" reporting which could be used as evidence to ban them. This bill doesn't add anybody new to the restricted persons list.

 

[Stomper]

I know you aren't calling anyone out by name but since your post was immediately following mine and there were some paraphrased quotes, I'll just speak to my perspective.
POTENTIAL for abuse: What I see here isn't likely to be immediate but down the road as the pendulum swings the other way and a more anti regime comes into power. I will expect the definitions of restricted persons to morph which will exclude more people that may be no threat. Then if we put up any objection we'll be told, "Well, the NRA supported it so STFU and take your medicine." Will it happen? Don't know -- but the potential is there.

Diane, Chuck and Nancy: Dude, seriously? We just invited them to apply more scrutiny. That doesn't make you the least bit nervous?

Good or bad, these should have been separate bills. I'm just tired of always being on the side that has to compromise and take what I'm given.
Do I want dangerous excluded individuals to fall through the cracks? Hell no. Do I think that free people should have to give up their rights based on which side of an imaginary line they happen to travel across? Hell no. Do I trust government to make an accurate distinction between who is allowed to carry what and where and who isn't. Oh, hell no!

As I stated earlier, my official position is wait and see.

Yours was just the last in a conga-line of "this bill is dangerous" retorts, but you're the first to actually articulate anything substantial. That's all I was asking for, thanks!

 

[Stomper]

im just excited to not have to ride dirty if i go to another state if i so choose(i work during the week so its tough to get to WA to grt a CHL)

pretty dumb when i cross the bridge i to WA, i have to unload my pistol and put it in the back instead of on me.

Oh.... there's nothing wrong with a dirty ride... once in a while.

 

[Heyjoe]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject. This will be my final comment because of the sensitive nature and my own inability to communicate clearly from a 2" screen.

Here goes: I was under the impression that we had plenty of votes to pass this bill as it was originally intended. Apparently this is not the case?

 

[Dungannon]

Some may not like the fact that this legislation would grant nearly 1 billion dollars to the feds and there agencies ... How much faith have you that big brother won't abuse this ??

I'm happy to see this actually, for several reasons.
First, legislation without funding means nothing will be done - it's the favorite tactic of politicians that want to 'send a message' without having to actually do anything constructive. In government, the budget is the ultimate policy document, because words cost nothing but spending money reveals where your priorities really lay.
Second, spending money to implement this bill means they aren't spending the money on some pork-barrel project named after the sponsoring legislator.
Third, appropriating money is done one year at a time. So, let's get real here - do you expect this administration is going to make a study of bump-stocks a priority for spend that money? I hope they spend every nickle appropriated on getting all the bad guys in the database to prevent them from purchasing firearms.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

Oh.... there's nothing wrong with a dirty ride... once in a while.

thats what im talkin bout

 

[The Heretic]

I have not read the bill (yet), but I have read news articles that mention the VA, Social Security and a direction to the DOJ and ATF to make a determination on the legality/etc. of "bump fire" devices.

Has everybody forgot the criticisms of the having the VA and Social Security, et. al., sending info and mental capacity determinations to the NICs system/etc. when Obama was in the WH, or is it just okay now because Trump is there and/or we get reciprocity?

Is it ok to have a law that directs the DOJ/AG/ATF to make a determination on devices that increase the rate of fire when the ATF already has?

Has everybody forgotten that we have elections right now, next year, and then again in 2020 and that the balance of power is changing daily due to people resigning and retiring? Or do they think that Trump/Pence will be in the WH for life?

I agree that reciprocity is a good thing, but not at the cost of having some doc in the VA put some poor vet on a list in NICs so they can't have a gun because the vet has PTSD or the doc just doesn't like the vet. Ditto with SSI and somebody saying they would like to have someone appointed to take care of their finances.

Have you forgotten about these issues, or do they just not matter to you anymore because you think reciprocity is worth the compromise?

Think a little further than your nose or today. Look at the bigger picture. The anti-gunners have done this before. They did it with the GCA. They did with FOPA (a disaster for NFA owners). They want to do it again. I do not trust Schumer or Feinstein - if they put something in a gun bill, it is because it will be bad for gun owners.

 

[Slobray]

Please excuse my ignorance on this subject. This will be my final comment because of the sensitive nature and my own inability to communicate clearly from a 2" screen.

Here goes: I was under the impression that we had plenty of votes to pass this bill as it was originally intended. Apparently this is not the case?

Remember, back in 2015 all but 1 ea. Republican in the Senate voted to repeal obamacare, yet when the same bill came up in 2017, 6 or 7 of those same RINO's voted against it, because they knew it would be signed into law this time. You can damn well guarantee that those same RINO's will do the same exact thing when it comes time to vote on reciprocity. They all talk a good game, but that's all it is............ talk lies.


Ray

 

[UserNameInUse]

Obama added anyone he could to the list of prohibited persons. He did not need FixNICS to do it. A Democrat President is going to do it with or without FixNICS.

 

[Dungannon]

Has everybody forgot the criticisms of the having the VA and Social Security, et. al., sending info and mental capacity determinations to the NICs system/etc. when Obama was in the WH, or is it just okay now because Trump is there and/or we get reciprocity?

I haven't forgotten, as I was responsible for handling my father's finances while he was receiving benefits from the VA and Social Security. What Obama did was to use his executive authority to direct agencies to act without due process.

This bill does several things that are needed.
First, it says "The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code" So, by law, the records can't be expanded by executive action as it is limited to the specific language in the law.
Second, when you look at (g) and (n) the operative word is "adjudicated" with regard to those with diminished ability [which actually isn't limited to just the VA and SS). This act, if passed, also ensures that anyone denied the right to purchase a firearm can appeal and collect damages, including reasonable attorney fees.
Third, the bill requires the Attorney General to verify whether or not the information submitted by an agency is correct, and remove erroneous records, within 60 days of receipt. There are also several places where agencies are required to 'pre-validate' any information forwarded to NICS so the FBI isn't unduly burdened with verifying the accuracy of data submitted to NICS.

 

[Goosebrown]

I have not read the bill (yet), but I have read news articles that mention the VA, Social Security and a direction to the DOJ and ATF to make a determination on the legality/etc. of "bump fire" devices.

Has everybody forgot the criticisms of the having the VA and Social Security, et. al., sending info and mental capacity determinations to the NICs system/etc. when Obama was in the WH, or is it just okay now because Trump is there and/or we get reciprocity?

Is it ok to have a law that directs the DOJ/AG/ATF to make a determination on devices that increase the rate of fire when the ATF already has?

Has everybody forgotten that we have elections right now, next year, and then again in 2020 and that the balance of power is changing daily due to people resigning and retiring? Or do they think that Trump/Pence will be in the WH for life?

I agree that reciprocity is a good thing, but not at the cost of having some doc in the VA put some poor vet on a list in NICs so they can't have a gun because the vet has PTSD or the doc just doesn't like the vet. Ditto with SSI and somebody saying they would like to have someone appointed to take care of their finances.

Have you forgotten about these issues, or do they just not matter to you anymore because you think reciprocity is worth the compromise?

Think a little further than your nose or today. Look at the bigger picture. The anti-gunners have done this before. They did it with the GCA. They did with FOPA (a disaster for NFA owners). They want to do it again. I do not trust Schumer or Feinstein - if they put something in a gun bill, it is because it will be bad for gun owners.

It does NOT tell the VA and SSA to send in names en masse like Obama did. Thats the thing. You're being lied to by the pond scum at GOA.

If you are a danger, they could send in your name last year, this year or next year. That's good. What Obama was doing was getting names of anyone that needed even someone to help with finances. This doesn't do that.

 

[CHLChris]

But you have to follow their rules about where to carrry like not in schools or whatever.

No, it actually specifically says that folks who are licensed are exempt from any state laws barring school zones. Now, concerning, other no-go zones (like bars, or churches, or whatever nonsense some states have), you have to comply. But schools and national parks are specifically allowed.

 

[ikemay]

And then, there are people like this:
Menendez: Throw CCW Permit Holders Into Prison For A Long Time If They Enter Jersey

Who obviously haven't read the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the 2nd Amendment IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution, you'd think people would not make ignorant comments, especially a publicly elected official who swore to uphold the Constitution.

Sadly and unjustly, someone will probably get locked up even if it passes. Then it will go through the court system, say the totally unbiased (sarcasm of course) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if it were to happen in California, Oregon, or Washington ...... who will put the brakes on it and claim it's not Constitutional (even though it is), eventually it will make it's way to the Supreme Court where it will finally be codified (hopefully).

Test case here we come.

 

[Goosebrown]

No, it actually specifically says that folks who are licensed are exempt from any state laws barring school zones. Now, concerning, other no-go zones (like bars, or churches, or whatever nonsense some states have), you have to comply. But schools and national parks are specifically allowed.

My bad I was searching for something the state might designate gun free and I picked specifically the wrong thing. Maybe a church or bar is a better example.

 

[Stomper]

And then, there are people like this:
Menendez: Throw CCW Permit Holders Into Prison For A Long Time If They Enter Jersey

Who obviously haven't read the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the 2nd Amendment IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution, you'd think people would not make ignorant comments, especially a publicly elected official who swore to uphold the Constitution.

Sadly and unjustly, someone will probably get locked up even if it passes. Then it will go through the court system, say the totally unbiased (sarcasm of course) 9th Circuit Court of Appeals if it were to happen in California, Oregon, or Washington ...... who will put the brakes on it and claim it's not Constitutional (even though it is), eventually it will make it's way to the Supreme Court where it will finally be codified (hopefully).

Test case here we come.

Bubblegum that jackwagon right up his bubblegum with a cactus.

 

[The Heretic]

Since the 2nd Amendment IS delegated to the United States by the Constitution, you'd think people would not make ignorant comments, especially a publicly elected official who swore to uphold the Constitution.

To 99.9% of politicians and other gov. officials, said oath is just another "promise" (lie)they make , so they do not really care about the underlying assertion/content/etc. since they have no intention of keeping/abiding by it.

I.E., it means nothing more than a mechanism to get them elected.

And yet, people still vote for them and have hopes that the person they vote for (and the people the candidate appoints) will magically somehow this time turn out to be someone who keeps their promise. So the populace really have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[Dungannon]

And then, there are people like this:
Menendez: Throw CCW Permit Holders Into Prison For A Long Time If They Enter Jersey

Bob Menendez is a slimeball. The Menendez case: A double standard vs. Roy Moore?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

OK, I keep hearing about "undeniable potential for abuse", and have YET seen one bubblegumming specific example laid out.

I'm not calling out anyone in particular (seriously), but SOMEONE map out a "potential for abuse" that already isn't there with the current "arrangement" other than "if Chuck and Nancy are for it, I'm against it", argument.


Motherbubblegummer, c'mon people... spell out a specific argument why, I really wanna hear it!!

OK, how about this scenario:

1. The bill passes and we have all reached the promised land.
2. People from Oregon and Idaho, and other places that harbor barbarians with guns start visiting CA and NY and NJ and walking around with GUNS!!!!
3. CA, NY, and NJ start complaining to their congress-critters that we need to have a nationally standardized CHL process.
4. CA, NY, and NJ have a large voice in writing the new and improved national standards for obtaining what amounts to a national CHL.
5. After these improvements it now costs $3000 and takes 40 hours of range time, along with the achievement of Distinguished Marksman, with EACH weapon carried, in order to get a CHL.

That's what I worry about.

 

[ikemay]

Bob Menendez is a slimeball. The Menendez case: A double standard vs. Roy Moore?

Oh yeah, he is a real slimeball alright.