The NRA is Backing SB 480

This is a discussion on The NRA is Backing SB 480 within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Just got this in my email: "Senate Action on Gun Bills this Week Dear NRA Member: The U.S. Senate is set to act on anti-gun ...

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 130
Like Tree115Likes

Thread: The NRA is Backing SB 480

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,057

    The NRA is Backing SB 480

    Just got this in my email:
    "Senate Action on Gun Bills this Week


    Dear NRA Member:

    The U.S. Senate is set to act on anti-gun legislation as early as this week. These proposals are the latest attempt by anti-gun Senators to erode our Second Amendment rights by making it illegal for law-abiding gun owners to transfer firearms without the federal government’s approval; and by banning commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines, to name a few. Unfortunately, none of these proposals address the critical issues of fixing our broken mental health system; securing our schools; or prosecuting violent criminals.

    However, there is a proposal worthy of gun owners' support. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Mark Begich (D-AK) have introduced S. 480, the "NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013", which will provide accurate definitions of persons who pose serious threats to themselves or others and therefore should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, while protecting the rights of those who should not be included in NICS. Further, this legislation will protect the rights of America's veterans, by no longer allowing their Second Amendment freedoms to be denied based on an administrative finding that a person requires appointment of a representative to mange his financial affairs.

    The NRA fully supports Senators Graham and Begich's important legislation.

    The time is now. Please contact your U.S. Senators today, let them know you are a NRA member and encourage them to support S. 480 and to oppose all anti-gun legislation.

    You can contact your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121.

    - National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action"
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array RookWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Beckley, WV
    Posts
    111
    Letter I just sent...I'm about to lump the NRA in with the multitude of "concerned only for my own survival" politicians. The NRA is quickly losing my support. At this time, any compromise is a slippery slope.

    To whom it may concern,

    Still hearing of back door deals between the NRA and freedom stealing politicians. The sad thing is, I am starting to believe them!

    The NRA has been woefully quiet on what is being done to protect law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. Far too many stories of back room deals, midnight rendezvous and end runs around its own members!!

    I can assure you that if the NRA brokers ANY kind of deal that infringes on my legal and Constitutional rights I will burn my NRA card in protest and will promptly rescind any and all benefits provided through membership!

    I wish the NRA would take a solid, outspoken stance and crush the rumors (unless they really are true) and stand with its members and those few Congressional members who understand what the phrase "shall not infringe upon" actually means.

    Stand with me NRA, I have stood with you for many years. Current times call for bold actions, Stand and Fight!!

    Sincerely,
    MyName
    NRA Life Member
    Concealed means hidden from ordinary observation so as to prevent disclosure or recognition. A deadly weapon is concealed when it is carried on or about the person in such a manner that another person in the ordinary course of events would not be placed on notice that the weapon was being carried.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    681
    SB 480 seems like a reasonable approach to me, certainly far better than "universal background checks." The funny thing is that healthcare professionals seem very concerned about a mental health registry (partially due to patient confidentially, and partially due to liability), so it will be interesting to see if those lobbies try to block this. The obvious concern here is, "What constitutes a mental health risk." I used to believe this would be pretty simple common sense, but it isn't much of a stretch to think that the anti-gunners would look for ways to twist this and expand it well beyond those people who are a real threat.

    The other side of the coin is that law enforcement needs to consistently enforce laws for things like domestic abuse. The guy who killed three people at the Azana spa (Brookfield, WI) last October had three domestic abuse contacts with the Brown Deer police within the past year, but was never arrested. At one point they left after an hour or so, even though they thought they saw him with a rifle or shotgun, because he would not answer the door. There's no guarantee that arresting him earlier would have stopped this, but it could have helped. Anyway, NICS won't know about people like this unless there is a record.
    Arborigine likes this.

  5. #4
    Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Behind the Sights
    Posts
    306
    I think the NRA is blundering here. Anything that provides greater scrutiny of citizens by government is a danger to all of us. The possibility for abuse is not only great but highly probable. We shouldn't select the least objectionable option offered just to keep from appearing uncooperative. Folks, we just had a seven year old boy charged with two felonies for shooting a car with a BB gun in North Carolina. The charges were eventually dropped but I bet his name would pop up up just the same. Does anyone think this is right? The end does not justify the means. And crazies are not necessarily stupid. They'll probably get a gun somehow if they want one bad enough. Adam Lanza did.
    Ghost1958 and ksholder like this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanjns View Post
    I think the NRA is blundering here. Anything that provides greater scrutiny of citizens by government is a danger to all of us. The possibility for abuse is not only great but highly probable. We shouldn't select the least objectionable option offered just to keep from appearing uncooperative. Folks, we just had a seven year old boy charged with two felonies for shooting a car with a BB gun in North Carolina. The charges were eventually dropped but I bet his name would pop up up just the same. Does anyone think this is right? The end does not justify the means. And crazies are not necessarily stupid. They'll probably get a gun somehow if they want one bad enough. Adam Lanza did.
    Actually I cannot agree with your overall sentiment. There are people who should be denied legal purchases of firearms. The NRA understands this, as do even most of us. The biggest problem that the NRA faces is the backlash of anti-gun sentiment that follows every psychopathic rampage, and they fully understand this as well. Think about it for a second. If there was a stronger mental health reporting system for people that fit within the 'dangerous' criteria, we may have avoided, or mitigated to some degree, Holmes, Cho and Loughner. How much weaker would the anti-gun argument be if half of their emotional ammunition simply didn't happen? After reading the bill and its revisions so far, I don't see that it puts the law abiding gun owner in any danger, although as always, I reserve my right to change my opinion when a bunch of political hacks get through molding it into something else.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by RookWV View Post
    Letter I just sent...I'm about to lump the NRA in with the multitude of "concerned only for my own survival" politicians. The NRA is quickly losing my support. At this time, any compromise is a slippery slope.
    Read the bill....

    It is not a compromise... NRA has been working on our behalf.. .though they haven't necessarily told us what they're doing.

    This bill merely clarifies who is or would be covered under the portion of the NICS check that is adjudicated mentally incompetent and further, allows a person to get treatment and have the right restored.

    It's not a GREAT bill... but it does little harm, and near as I can tell, actually improves one portion of NICS checks.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  8. #7
    Member Array John Luttrel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    309
    Guys, there is a real problem in our society in which the criminally insane can roam around freely among us. I too believe that our Bill of rights trump any supposed safety or feeling of such, but I do believe that it is possible to keep the criminally insane from buying a firearm, while at the same time assuring that the rights of honest hard working citizens are not infringed. I personally agree with the NRA on this bill, because while preventing an insane person from legally buying a firearm, it also assures that that person has due process in a court of law with council, instead of some doctor making a note in his medical records that strip him of his rights.

    S 480 IS

    113th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    S. 480

    To improve the effectiveness of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by clarifying reporting requirements related to adjudications of mental incompetency, and for other purposes.

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    March 6, 2013


    Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. PRYOR, and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To improve the effectiveness of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by clarifying reporting requirements related to adjudications of mental incompetency, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ‘NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013’.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO MENTAL HEALTH.
    (a) Title 18 Definitions- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:

    ‘(36)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term ‘has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or has been committed to a psychiatric hospital’, with respect to a person--

    ‘(i) means the person is the subject of an order or finding by a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body--

    ‘(I) that was issued after a hearing--

    ‘(aa) of which the person received actual notice; and

    ‘(bb) at which the person had an opportunity to participate with counsel; and

    ‘(II) that found that the person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental impairment, or mental illness--

    ‘(aa) was an imminent danger to himself or to others;

    ‘(bb) was guilty but mentally ill in a criminal case;

    ‘(cc) was not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity or mental disease or defect;

    ‘(dd) was incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case;

    ‘(ee) was not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility under section 850a of title 10 (article 50a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);

    ‘(ff) required involuntary inpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital;

    ‘(gg) required involuntary outpatient treatment by a psychiatric hospital based on a finding that the person is an imminent danger to himself or to others; or

    ‘(hh) required involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital for any reason, including drug use; and

    ‘(ii) does not include--

    ‘(I) a person who is in a psychiatric hospital for observation; or

    ‘(II) a voluntary admission to a psychiatric hospital.

    ‘(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘order or finding’ does not include--

    ‘(i) an order or finding that--

    ‘(I) has expired or has been set aside or expunged; or

    ‘(II) requires treatment, supervision, or monitoring of a person, from which treatment, supervision, or monitoring the person has been fully released or discharged;

    ‘(ii) an order or finding that is no longer applicable because a judicial officer, court, board, commission, or other adjudicative body has found that the person who is the subject of the order or finding--

    ‘(I) does not present a danger to himself or to others;

    ‘(II) has been restored to sanity or cured of mental disease or defect;

    ‘(III) has been restored to competency; or

    ‘(IV) no longer requires involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment by, or involuntary commitment to, a psychiatric hospital; or

    ‘(iii) an order or finding with respect to which the person who is subject to the order or finding has been found to be rehabilitated or has been granted relief from disabilities through any procedure available under the law of the jurisdiction in which the order or finding was issued.

    ‘(37) The term ‘psychiatric hospital’ includes a mental health facility, a mental hospital, a sanitarium, a psychiatric facility, and any other facility that provides diagnoses by licensed professionals of mental retardation or mental illness, including a psychiatric ward in a general hospital.’; and

    (2) in section 922--

    (A) in subsection (d)(4)--

    (i) by striking ‘as a mental defective’ and inserting ‘mentally incompetent’; and

    (ii) by striking ‘any mental institution’ and inserting ‘a psychiatric hospital’; and

    (B) in subsection (g)(4)--

    (i) by striking ‘as a mental defective or who has’ and inserting ‘mentally incompetent or has’; and

    (ii) by striking ‘mental institution’ and inserting ‘psychiatric hospital’.

    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

    (1) by striking ‘as a mental defective’ each place that term appears and inserting ‘mentally incompetent’;

    (2) by striking ‘mental institution’ each place that term appears and inserting ‘psychiatric hospital’; and

    (3) in section 102(c)(3)--

    (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ‘AS A MENTAL DEFECTIVE OR COMMITTED TO A MENTAL INSTITUTION’ and inserting ‘MENTALLY INCOMPETENT OR COMMITTED TO A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL’; and

    (B) by striking ‘mental institutions’ and inserting ‘psychiatric hospitals’.
    phreddy and Arborigine like this.
    John Luttrell

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array cn262's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    681
    Looks very reasonable to me.

  10. #9
    Member Array RookWV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Beckley, WV
    Posts
    111
    If a person wants a gun to do harm they will obtain a gun. Period.

    And why apply this logic to only gun ownership? Why shouldn't it apply to driving or teaching or being a politician?

    PTSD is considered a mental illness, so is ADD/ADHD, so is OCD, so is anorexia and a whole host of other things that could land you on the "cannot possess" list. And you think it'll be cheap or easy to get off that list?

    Why should I have to prove "innocence" before I can exercise my constitutional right? I don't have to prove that I'm mentally stable before I exercise my first amendment right.

    What about the 4th amendment? If I've been judged mentally ill why not just forego the whole warrant bit and just come on in my house and take whatever you want.

    Don't forget that ninth and tenth amendments either.

    It's a slippery slope and we all know what rolls downhill.

    I'm not buying it....unfortunately I'll be force fed it.
    Concealed means hidden from ordinary observation so as to prevent disclosure or recognition. A deadly weapon is concealed when it is carried on or about the person in such a manner that another person in the ordinary course of events would not be placed on notice that the weapon was being carried.

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array ErnieNWillis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Willis, TX
    Posts
    1,225
    Quote Originally Posted by RookWV View Post
    If a person wants a gun to do harm they will obtain a gun. Period.

    And why apply this logic to only gun ownership? Why shouldn't it apply to driving or teaching or being a politician?

    PTSD is considered a mental illness, so is ADD/ADHD, so is OCD, so is anorexia and a whole host of other things that could land you on the "cannot possess" list. And you think it'll be cheap or easy to get off that list?

    Why should I have to prove "innocence" before I can exercise my constitutional right? I don't have to prove that I'm mentally stable before I exercise my first amendment right.

    What about the 4th amendment? If I've been judged mentally ill why not just forego the whole warrant bit and just come on in my house and take whatever you want.

    Don't forget that ninth and tenth amendments either.

    It's a slippery slope and we all know what rolls downhill.

    I'm not buying it....unfortunately I'll be force fed it.

    Very strong points indeed!
    Fletch64 and Ghost1958 like this.

  12. #11
    Member Array revldm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    461
    What? you don't believe in Obama? You must be crazy! you don't get a gun!

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,108
    Thanks for posting the bill John...

    You know, sometimes I wonder if we're (pro gun advocates) not just as guilty of not knowing what is going on as we claim the other side to be.

    I've said it before....

    A lot of the axioms we use in our daily lives of CCW apply here. The two I tout most often are:
    Action Beats Reaction
    Situational Awareness

    We are behind the eight ball, REACTING to everything that the antis throw at us. It's hard to win on the defensive... we're doing it, but it is not efficient.

    We need to be aware of all the laws that apply to us... And the ones that are being proposed, and how they may affect us.

    Using the "color codes" that I personally hate... we were nearly completely in Condition WHITE... States were proposing new laws that would proteect and expand our right to carry, our right to defend ourselves in public... look at all the states that went from red, to yellow, to blue, on Handgunlaw.us Things were going our way....

    Then... Gabby Giffords shooting, but the furor died down pretty quickly after that.... then the shooting at the IHOP...

    Then... I think Zimmerman was the first speed bump... A tremor, if you will... Then, in short order, things went from bad to worse... Aurora, Clackamas mall, Sandy Hook... And the NY(?) shooting of the first responders... a TSUNAMI of bad things... Involving "assault weapons"... And peppered in the mix, the Sikh temple in Wisconsin... and others.

    But I'm getting off topic here... We need to pay attention to the laws and the proposed laws... and exactly what they mean... Favoring good laws, that really do make some sense, is a good move... Shows that we are on the side of practical solutions... All the while watchin' the back door folks.... ALWAYS.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    8,584
    It's already certain many in this country do not believe the Bill of Rights are absolute. Whether or not you disagree with it is a moot point if you are in the minority, which in fact we may be.

    To keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them is good for us. Everytime a nut job kills someone, we have to go on the defensive.

    I support the NRA in their effort. If they had not been there we would have already lost.
    Lets all stand with them as one and not be divided.
    Rock and Glock and KBSR like this.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by RookWV View Post
    If a person wants a gun to do harm they will obtain a gun. Period.

    And why apply this logic to only gun ownership? Why shouldn't it apply to driving or teaching or being a politician?

    PTSD is considered a mental illness, so is ADD/ADHD, so is OCD, so is anorexia and a whole host of other things that could land you on the "cannot possess" list. And you think it'll be cheap or easy to get off that list?

    Why should I have to prove "innocence" before I can exercise my constitutional right? I don't have to prove that I'm mentally stable before I exercise my first amendment right.

    What about the 4th amendment? If I've been judged mentally ill why not just forego the whole warrant bit and just come on in my house and take whatever you want.

    Don't forget that ninth and tenth amendments either.

    It's a slippery slope and we all know what rolls downhill.

    I'm not buying it....unfortunately I'll be force fed it.
    I understand your points... But you don't have to prove your sanity to purchase a weapon now. If, thru due process (which is included in the current NICS check), you have been adjudicated mentally ill, you will lose gun rights. This merely clarifies that, AND provides a way out of it... which IINM, the old one did not... So, in a way it improves it... slightly.

    But, I do see your point.
    Pistology likes this.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array MrBuckwheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Down Incognito
    Posts
    6,100
    Looks like a bunch of cheap talking politicians trying to get the foot in the door to me. Just say NO already laws on the books, enforce what is already out there.

    Lets be done with the gun debate and please fix the unemployment, economy,boarders,national security.............health care.
    mg27, ksholder and Eagleks like this.
    Fast is fine, but accuracy is everything.
    Wyatt Earp

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

congress sb 480
,

does nra support s.480

,
gum law poll done by nra
,
gun bill 480
,
if someone is on ssir for ocd can they past gun background check
,
is nra backing gun legislation
,
nra backed amendments
,
nra supporting sb480
,
ny state 480a discussion
,
s 480 bill dui's
,
sb 480 graham
,

sb 480 gun control

,
sb 480 gun legislation
,
the nra fully supports senators graham and begich's important legislation
,
u.s. senate bill sb480 graham
Click on a term to search for related topics.