Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing

[blaxshep]

Graham stood with co-sponsors Jeff Flake, R-Arizona and Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas at a news conference Wednesday and said the bill addresses a “major flaw in the system.”

“We have legislation that will make sure that in the future, people who find themselves in this legal category of having gone to a federal court and plead not guilty by reason of insanity, having been … judged by (a) federal court to be dangerous to themselves and others, would no longer be able legally to pass a background check,” he said. “There are a lot of emotions about the gun violence issue. But I am hopeful this (is) one area where we can find tremendous bipartisan support to fix what I think is a gaping gap in our law.”

This bill would expand the scope of the current federal database – the National Instant Criminal Background Check System – to flag individuals who have used an insanity defense, were ruled by a court to be dangerous, or were committed by a court to mental health treatment.

The National Rifle Association announced its support for the legislation saying it would “improve” the current background check system.

It does not address a second loophole in the background check requirements – the gun show loophole – which critics say provides an avenue for people who know they cannot pass a background check to buy firearms.

“But the reality is 40% of gun sales in our country don't requite a background check,” he said, referring to the gun show loophole. “Every day in our country, there are guns being purchased by dangerous people, and we can stop that just by extending background checks.”

Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

 

[MaggieD]

Graham stood with co-sponsors Jeff Flake, R-Arizona and Democrats Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas at a news conference Wednesday and said the bill addresses a “major flaw in the system.”

“We have legislation that will make sure that in the future, people who find themselves in this legal category of having gone to a federal court and plead not guilty by reason of insanity, having been … judged by (a) federal court to be dangerous to themselves and others, would no longer be able legally to pass a background check,” he said. “There are a lot of emotions about the gun violence issue. But I am hopeful this (is) one area where we can find tremendous bipartisan support to fix what I think is a gaping gap in our law.”

This bill would expand the scope of the current federal database – the National Instant Criminal Background Check System – to flag individuals who have used an insanity defense, were ruled by a court to be dangerous, or were committed by a court to mental health treatment.

The National Rifle Association announced its support for the legislation saying it would “improve” the current background check system.

It does not address a second loophole in the background check requirements – the gun show loophole – which critics say provides an avenue for people who know they cannot pass a background check to buy firearms.

“But the reality is 40% of gun sales in our country don't requite a background check,” he said, referring to the gun show loophole. “Every day in our country, there are guns being purchased by dangerous people, and we can stop that just by extending background checks.”

Graham introduces background check bill with NRA backing – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

How is this going to get guns out of the hands of gangs in our inner-city? You know, where 75% (WAG) of illegal guns are held? And how is this going to police the 60% of illegal guns that can be traced to licensed gun dealers selling off the books?

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

Why in hell wouldn't our government focus on that??

 

[blaxshep]

It won't.

Because gun control is not about crime, it is about control.

 

[CalGun]

Its not focused on street gangs and criminals its focused on the mentally ill. Why is that important, why shouldn't that be addressed? As fars as I can tell the most vile of recent attacks that the anti gun crowd claims are needs for controlling honest people were at the hands of the mentally ill - (AZ, CO, an Newtown).

My only gripe with this action is these "pro gun" senators and the NRA are not getting anything in return. They are not expanding gun rights for law abiding citizens. I would have sought the elimination of public gun free zones myself.

How is this going to get guns out of the hands of gangs in our inner-city? You know, where 75% (WAG) of illegal guns are held? And how is this going to police the 60% of illegal guns that can be traced to licensed gun dealers selling off the books?



Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

Why in hell wouldn't our government focus on that??

 

[DDD]

I don't think that the one's who declare themselves insane are in such shear numbers to promote illegal arms trade. If they really are insane they should not be allowed access to guns.

 

[Lutherf]

How is this going to get guns out of the hands of gangs in our inner-city? You know, where 75% (WAG) of illegal guns are held? And how is this going to police the 60% of illegal guns that can be traced to licensed gun dealers selling off the books?



Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

Why in hell wouldn't our government focus on that??

They won't focus on criminals because a lot of that element comes from a protected class. The progressive platform is based on the premise that certain individuals are essentially faultless based on the color of their skin. They may commit criminal acts but they aren't really criminals because they have been "forced" into those acts through rampant prejudice.

 

[blaxshep]

I think the bottom line is the NRA felt they had to give up something so they threw the mentally handicapped under the bus,...low hanging fruit.

To me it was an acceptable concession because the mentally ill that this will effect are those that have already had their right to bare arms revoke by due process.

 

[Ikari]

I think the bottom line is the NRA felt they had to give up something so they threw the mentally handicapped under the bus,...low hanging fruit.

To me it was an acceptable concession because the mentally ill that this will effect are those that have already had their right to bare arms revoke by due process.

But if we're compromising here, where is the compromise. So we'll have background checks and be looking for "crazy" people, how ever the government will eventually come to define that....so can we have greater access to fully automatic weapons without all the roadblocks? How about 3-Round burst? What do I get out of these deal other than being subjected to further government control over the desire to exercise a right?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Its not focused on street gangs and criminals its focused on the mentally ill. Why is that important, why shouldn't that be addressed? As fars as I can tell the most vile of recent attacks that the anti gun crowd claims are needs for controlling honest people were at the hands of the mentally ill - (AZ, CO, an Newtown).

My only gripe with this action is these "pro gun" senators and the NRA are not getting anything in return. They are not expanding gun rights for law abiding citizens. I would have sought the elimination of public gun free zones myself.

Really, you want the federal government to tell state and local governments that they cannot prohibit guns anywhere?

I am fine with state and local governments eliminating gun free zones if this is what they want, I am not fine with the fed mandating it.

Are you? Really?

 

[blaxshep]

Really, you want the federal government to tell state and local governments that they cannot prohibit guns anywhere?

I am fine with state and local governments eliminating gun free zones if this is what they want, I am not fine with the fed mandating it.

Are you? Really?

I am against the Fed telling States "insert here" but in this case it would be the Fed requiring the States to obey the constitution.

 

[blaxshep]

But if we're compromising here, where is the compromise. So we'll have background checks and be looking for "crazy" people, how ever the government will eventually come to define that....so can we have greater access to fully automatic weapons without all the roadblocks? How about 3-Round burst? What do I get out of these deal other than being subjected to further government control over the desire to exercise a right?

It was no compromise it was a concession.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I am against the Fed telling States "insert here" but in this case it would be the Fed requiring the States to obey the constitution.

The Constitution as it existed in 1789 absolutely did NOT protect the carrying of firearms in any place at any time, subject to no local restrictions.

In order to make your argument, you would have to rely on the 14th Amendment expanding federal limitations to states, which SCOTUS has ruled on, but with huge caveats, that essentially come donw to agreeing that the 2nd Amendment, combined with the 14th Amendment, prohibits state and local government form disallowing a person to possess a firearm in their home.

If the federal government pushed past these limitations, it would be an over-reaching of federal authority. And here is where we get to the "be careful what you ask for" part, because if the fed did push this, and got away with it, it may be determined by precedent that the fed can make all gun laws across the country, if you give them the right to mandate to the states what they must not do, we may ending up giving them the power to mandate what they must do.

 

[Slyfox696]

I find it amusing those who constantly shout about "2nd Amendment rights being infringed" have absolutely no problem with infringing the 2nd Amendment rights of those they do not like. Hypocrisy.


With that said, and without reading the actual bill, the summary is something I can support. The more people we can prevent getting their hands on deadly weapons the better. I still don't understand why people think a background check for all sales is a big deal, but I guess any step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still a step in the right direction.

 

[Master PO]

I find it amusing those who constantly shout about "2nd Amendment rights being infringed" have absolutely no problem with infringing the 2nd Amendment rights of those they do not like. Hypocrisy.


With that said, and without reading the actual bill, the summary is something I can support. The more people we can prevent getting their hands on deadly weapons the better. I still don't understand why people think a background check for all sales is a big deal, but I guess any step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still a step in the right direction.

from a constitutionalists:

the federal government has no authority at all to regulate firearms, all one has to do is read the BOR preamble and see that.

firearms regulation should be a state issue, ...but what have we been told over and over, that states have to follow the federal constitution instead of their own state one.

well if states have to obey the federal one, then there is no government authority over firearms at all.

this is why when the USSC rules the state haves the follow the federal constitution, they created a conflict in law.

 

[CalGun]

They can start with federal gun free zones - post offices, VA facilities, etc. Isn't there a mandate at the federal level on some gun free zone schools or is it just colleges?

Really, you want the federal government to tell state and local governments that they cannot prohibit guns anywhere?

I am fine with state and local governments eliminating gun free zones if this is what they want, I am not fine with the fed mandating it.

Are you? Really?

 

[blaxshep]

The Constitution as it existed in 1789 absolutely did NOT protect the carrying of firearms in any place at any time, subject to no local restrictions.

In order to make your argument, you would have to rely on the 14th Amendment expanding federal limitations to states, which SCOTUS has ruled on, but with huge caveats, that essentially come donw to agreeing that the 2nd Amendment, combined with the 14th Amendment, prohibits state and local government form disallowing a person to possess a firearm in their home.

If the federal government pushed past these limitations, it would be an over-reaching of federal authority. And here is where we get to the "be careful what you ask for" part, because if the fed did push this, and got away with it, it may be determined by precedent that the fed can make all gun laws across the country, if you give them the right to mandate to the states what they must not do, we may ending up giving them the power to mandate what they must do.

I don't have to rely on the 14th, the states are bound to the bill of rights. What part of shall not infringe eludes you?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

They can start with federal gun free zones - post offices, VA facilities, etc. Isn't there a mandate at the federal level on some gun free zone schools or is it just colleges?

AFAIK, the fed does not mandate gun free zone on any state or local properties, whether colleges or schools.

If the suggestion is that NO place may be a gun free zone as a Constitutional mandate, I think the first place we would want to look is federal court. Are we really okay with a few dozen armed compatriots of an accused (but all legal gun owners) showing up in court? Technically, if this is what you think the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting, there would be no difference between a VA clinic, a post office, or a court house, or even a jail (for legal gun owning visitors), and of course the federal colleges like West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy (and a hand full of other colleges).

I am curious if you would try to make exceptions or not, if you do, why would your exceptions be better than the existing rules, other than they have your approval?

 

[blaxshep]

I am curious if you would try to make exceptions or not, if you do, why would your exceptions be better than the existing rules, other than they have your approval?

The only exception would be owners of private property, no public property is above the 2nd.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I don't have to rely on the 14th, the states are bound to the bill of rights. What part of shall not infringe eludes you?

Of course you have to rely on the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution Bill of Rights (without the 14th Amendment) is a restriction on the federal government, not state or local governments. Before the 14th Amendment, you would not have a legal path to appeal a state law that violated the federal Constitution because there was no requirement that states provide the same protections, many did, but many didn't.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Federal government did not have the authority to mandate that states not infringe, it could only prohibit itself from infringing, until the 14th Amendment incorporation clause which evolved to mean that the prohibitions on the exercise of federal powers extended to the exercise of government powers at all levels. I say evolved because the 14th Amendment was initially understood NOT to extend the protections of the first eight Amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, including, obviously, the 2nd Amendment.

"Originally, the Bill of Rights restrictions applied only to the federal government and not to the state governments. Parts of the amendments originally proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not apply to the powers of state governments."

It is instructive that even in the failed attempt to incorporate the protection of rights to state government did NOT include the 2nd Amendment.

So no, understanding the phrase "shall not infringe" does not help you understand WHO shall not infringe.

 

[blaxshep]

Of course you have to rely on the 14th Amendment, the US Constitution Bill of Rights (without the 14th Amendment) is a restriction on the federal government, not state or local governments. Before the 14th Amendment, you would not have a legal path to appeal a state law that violated the federal Constitution because there was no requirement that states provide the same protections, many did, but many didn't.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Federal government did not have the authority to mandate that states not infringe, it could only prohibit itself from infringing, until the 14th Amendment incorporation clause which evolved to mean that the prohibitions on the exercise of federal powers extended to the exercise of government powers at all levels. I say evolved because the 14th Amendment was initially understood NOT to extend the protections of the first eight Amendments we know as the Bill of Rights, including, obviously, the 2nd Amendment.

"Originally, the Bill of Rights restrictions applied only to the federal government and not to the state governments. Parts of the amendments originally proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not apply to the powers of state governments."

It is instructive that even in the failed attempt to incorporate the protection of rights to state government did NOT include the 2nd Amendment.

So no, understanding the phrase "shall not infringe" does not help you understand WHO shall not infringe.

The bill of rights applies to the states not just the Fed and I see nothing at all in the 14th that addresses this.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

The only exception would be owners of private property, no public property is above the 2nd.

So you are okay with 50 gun toting (big black scary A/R15's for effect) legal gun owning friends of a defendant eyeballing the jury for the entirety of a federal trial?

I would expect this would quickly be determined to amount to jury intimidation, but it would still be protected.

 

[blaxshep]

So you are okay with 50 gun toting (big black scary A/R15's for effect) legal gun owning friends of a defendant eyeballing the jury for the entirety of a federal trial?

I would expect this would quickly be determined to amount to jury intimidation, but it would still be protected.

You mean assuming the court system is not already a joke?

Why would gun owners be intimidating to an armed jury? It works both ways you know.

 

[MaggieD]

The only exception would be owners of private property, no public property is above the 2nd.

This is the kind of lack-of-common-sense **** that makes some gun enthusiasts look like fools.

 

[blaxshep]

This is the kind of lack-of-common-sense **** that makes some gun enthusiasts look like fools.

Don't shoot the messenger, I am just going by the 2nd Amendment which can be changed with an amendment if the people feel it needs to be changed.

Unless the 2nd reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed except for places that people that fear guns think they should be banned.

 

[MaggieD]

Don't shoot the messenger, I am just going by the 2nd Amendment which can be changed with an amendment if the people feel it needs to be changed.

Unless the 2nd reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed except for places that people that fear guns think they should be banned.

That's a good point unless SCOTUS has ruled otherwise re gun-free zones. An if they have, why do we still have them?