“Fix NICS” bill.... relax, will ya?

[Goosebrown]

Ok fix the definition then. That does make sense b

 

[Inquisitor]

Ok fix the definition then. That does make sense b

One thing at a time; get national reciprocity FIRST, then start working on fixing 18 USC § 922 - Unlawful Acts.

 

[Heyjoe]

What branch.....
Never mind, better judgement kicked in.

 

[Inquisitor]

Ok fix the definition then. That does make sense b

Here's a start:

Federal law [18 USC § 922 - Unlawful Acts] needs to be changed such that the only prohibitions are: people who are adjudicated in a court of law to be a threat to themselves and/or others are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition. Exceptions and limitations to the adjudication rule shall be:

• Persons convicted of crimes in a criminal court are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any incarceration is complete. This ineligibility may be extended by the court to include any parole and/or probation sentence is complete, only in cases of violent criminal convictions.
• Persons certified as a danger to themselves and/or others as a result of mental defect or incompetence either by voluntary individual certification or a court of law, are ineligible. This ineligibility ends after any commitment unless the court determines that the ineligibility extends until any supervised outpatient treatment is complete.
• Fugitives from justice, when charged or convicted of a violent crime.

Revocation of US Constitutional rights, beyond what is identified herein, is separably subject to review and appeal in Federal Court.

 

[Goosebrown]

Not bad.

 

[The Heretic]

TL;DR

No. Being a fugitive is. Pay your parking tickets. Geez is it that difficult?

So hypothetical and quite probable scenario.

You park downtown, get a parking ticket - the wind blows away the ticket. You never know you got a ticket. DMV gives the city the wrong address (DMV still can't seem to get mine quite right, and I've had them change it twice - same address though). The city sends the warning and then the summons to the wrong address and recipient throws it away because it isn't anything they need to worry about. Or the mail person delivers to the wrong address (something my mail person did for months - delivering the the same numeric address, but on a different road).

All very feasible. You never know you have a ticket/warning/summons.

You move from Portland to Vancouver. You have now crossed state lines and you are now a fugitive. You are now possibly on the NICS bad person list.

Is it that difficult for you to understand how ridiculous this is when the initial cause is a silly parking ticket?

I used to work in downtown Seattle. I don't believe I have any parking tickets, but maybe I have one I have no clue about. It's been almost 7 years since I have been anywhere near Seattle. Seattle doesn't have my current address, because WA DOL doesn't have it because I am not a WA state resident anymore and I have moved twice since I moved to Orygun.

I could very easily be a "fugitive from justice". Hell - I may be on the ten most wanted list.

Because of a parking ticket?? Really?

Is it really that difficult to see how ludicrous that is?

 

[wired]

Happened to me. More or less. Got a ticket in Portland for driving in a bus lane ( I hate Portland ) . Went back home. Forgot about it and paid the ticket 3 days late. 15 years later against my better judgement I move to Oregon . Friends told me not to do it . The schools suck and the taxes are too high but I was tired of Seattle in a big way so I disregard good advice and do it anyway ( got a big relo bonus$$$ too ) . Went to get my drivers license and they told me that my license is suspended and theres no possible way I could have renewed me Washington license . B.S. I said, Ive renewed license 3X since then. Thats when I discovered Washington and Oregon DMV's don't actually talk to each other or at least Oregon's computer system is in the stone age. I hate Oregon. Did I mention that? Anyway $300 later I got my Oregon license.

 

[orygun]

Where's the F-in "head spinning" Simile?

 

[Will_White]

Missed parking tickets aside, the fix nics bill doesn't change that, it will happen wether it gets passed or not.

 

[TheShanMan]

I believe the idea is that right now, even though it's the letter of the law it typically doesn't get into NICS because of the bureaucrats using good judgment but Fix NICS will force them to. That's my assumption at least.

And to those who say, "well you can get it corrected", what about the lady who is being threatened by a boyfriend/husband who doesn't have time to wait for it to get corrected? I think infringements like NICS tend to hit the most vulnerable the hardest, and they're the ones we should be looking out for the most.

I'm open to being sold on Fix NICS but I'd like to be convinced that rights denied cannot get worse and ideally will get better.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'm open to being sold on Fix NICS but I'd like to be convinced that rights denied cannot get worse and ideally will get better.

As long as the Democrats are aligned with the "Gun Safety[?]" groups they will never stop; so I guess we have to put your name in the vote no column (See #68).

 

[TheShanMan]

I think you missed my point. My question isn't can gun rights decline in general. It's can they decline as a result of this bill. I'm definitely not a "no" but I have my doubts which I haven't seen addressed directly. An example being the GOA claim that current law requires the FBI to provide a reason for denial within 5 days and records corrections immediately and this bill expands it to 60 (not that they follow it now, but this would seemingly give them all the more reason to ignore it or take their time).

 

[Inquisitor]

I think you missed my point. My question isn't can gun rights decline in general. It's can they decline as a result of this bill. I'm definitely not a "no" but I have my doubts which I haven't seen addressed directly. An example being the GOA claim that current law requires the FBI to provide a reason for denial within 5 days and records corrections immediately and this bill expands it to 60 (not that they follow it now, but this would seemingly give them all the more reason to ignore it or take their time).

Looking at the H.R.38 as sent to the Senate, I believe the FBI has up to 60 days to process an appeal and correct the NICS database. I don't know what the current law says and I take everything the GOA says with great skepticism. Otherwise, as I said, this bill does not change any of the Federal law regarding ineligibility to possess firearms or ammunition.

 

[TheShanMan]

That's how I view the NRA, so I'll take that as "it is indeed worse than now" until I hear otherwise. While I carry and would love reciprocity I am more concerned about infringements affecting the most vulnerable than reciprocity for me. So I'm hesitant to jump on board until I learn that concerns like these are actually unfounded.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Core]

Been that way state by state forever.

Simple solution.

Pay your parking tickets.

This absolutely meets the strict interpretation of the law.

There needs to be a clear line between someone who is dangerous and prohibited from possession of firearms versus not. Some felons are not dangerous, and it doesn't makes sense to violate any citizens right to bear arms unless they are dangerous. This is how a free state operates. Many felons are not a danger, and have paid for their crimes. Also giving anyone in government the authority to pull your name out of a database to exclude your second amendment rights without due process is completely unconstitutional. I believe if you are a violent offender or fugitive, or adjudicated for mental condition exhibiting violent behavior, then yes. Otherwise I don't see a reason to prohibit second amendment rights.

 

[Will_White]

There needs to be a clear line between someone who is dangerous and prohibited from possession of firearms versus not. Some felons are not dangerous, and it doesn't makes sense to violate any citizens right to bear arms unless they are dangerous. This is how a free state operates. Many felons are not a danger, and have paid for their crimes. Also giving anyone in government the authority to pull your name out of a database to exclude your second amendment rights without due process is completely unconstitutional. I believe if you are a violent offender or fugitive, or adjudicated for mental condition exhibiting violent behavior, then yes. Otherwise I don't see a reason to prohibit second amendment rights.

To be clear I agree with you, but that's not a reason to oppose this bill that doesn't change anything. We do need to refine the definition of a prohibited person but let's fight that battle after we've won this one.

 

[Inquisitor]

There needs to be a clear line between someone who is dangerous and prohibited from possession of firearms versus not. Some felons are not dangerous, and it doesn't makes sense to violate any citizens right to bear arms unless they are dangerous. This is how a free state operates. Many felons are not a danger, and have paid for their crimes. Also giving anyone in government the authority to pull your name out of a database to exclude your second amendment rights without due process is completely unconstitutional. I believe if you are a violent offender or fugitive, or adjudicated for mental condition exhibiting violent behavior, then yes. Otherwise I don't see a reason to prohibit second amendment rights.

See my posts #80, #82, #84.

 

[HB of CJ]

Respectfully ...

Are the Bill Of Rights all equal? Are some more equal more others? Would a crazy person who revolves inside and out of non voluntary mental holds be muzzled and prohibited from his freedom of speech? Should he be prohibited from worshiping his God?

Now change the above to voluntary mental holds. VOLS they called them. Nutty folks but not that nutty. Should THEY also be PROHIBITED from speaking from some soapbox or PROHIBITED from going to Church? How can we make ANY distinction with this?

Let's now make it worserer. I ACCUSE YOU of being nutty. I ACCUSE YOU of things you never did. I ACCUSE YOU of committing nasty things you may never do. Should YOU BE PROHIBITED from speech-a-fying or going to Church? PROHIBITED without due process?

WITHOUT ANY DUE LEGAL PROCESS? No. Such an idea would never gain any legal traction. Nor should it. So why are we so eager to prohibit the Second Amendment? Why is that different? No legal due process restricting or prohibiting a Constitutional Guarantee.

That implies and I hope I am wrong that some or a few or perhaps one Bill Of Right may be less important than other Bill Of Rights. If they through bad law can tear down on the 2nd Amendment, what does that bode for the rest of them? Evil knows no limits at all.

Remember the pesky historical fact that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Respectfully.

 

[Inquisitor]

I say again; the problem IS NOT H.R.38! The problem IS Federal law [18 USC § 922 - Unlawful Acts] which is NOT CHANGED by H.R.38!