House Passes Gun Control Bill

This is a discussion on House Passes Gun Control Bill within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; House tempers background checks for guns By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: House Passes Gun Control Bill

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793

    House Passes Gun Control Bill

    House tempers background checks for guns
    By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
    1 minute ago


    WASHINGTON - The House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in over a decade, spurred by the Virginia Tech campus killings and buttressed by National Rifle Association help.

    The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally defective, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

    Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying two guns he used in the rampage. But the state of Virginia had never forwarded this information to the national background check system.

    If it moves through the Senate and is signed into law by the president, the bill would be the most important gun control act since Congress banned some assault weapons in 1994, the last year Democrats controlled the House. In 1996, Congress added people convicted of domestic violence to the list of those banned from purchasing firearms.

    The bill was the outcome of weeks of negotiations between Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the most senior member of the House and a strong supporter of gun rights, and the NRA, and in turn, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a leading gun-control advocate.

    "This is good policy that will save lives," McCarthy said.

    The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.

    The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."

    Under a gun control act that passed in 1968, the year Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, illegal drug users, those adjudicated as mentally disabled, and illegal aliens.

    The legislation approved Wednesday would require states to automate and share disqualifying records with the FBI's NICS database. The bill also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and imposes penalties, including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law, to those states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

    The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

    It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

    It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

    "It was necessary to make some accommodations to address the concerns of gun owners," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., adding that he would be closely monitoring the provision on restoring gun rights to veterans judged to have mental disabilities.

    Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group supported the legislation, noting that the Virginia Tech shootings "tragically demonstrated the gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed."

    He said he hoped Congress and the gun lobby would go a step further and extend background checks to all gun sales, not just those licenses dealers covered by current law.

    The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the 2nd Amendment.

    McCarthy, in an emotional speech, said that "this has been a long, long journey for me." She ran for Congress on a gun control agenda after her husband was gunned down on a Long Island commuter train in 1993.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    "The bill, which was passed on a voice vote, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to stop gun purchases by people, including criminals and those adjudicated as mentally defective, who are prohibited from possessing firearms."

    i thought that criminals were currently prohibited from owning guns.

  4. #3
    Member Array LMarshall73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    South East US
    Posts
    244
    Criminals (felons) are prohibited from owning weapons. Possibly this bill will streamline the reporting process from the states to the NICS. The faster the info gets transferred, the less likely someone can slip through the cracks (which is pretty much what happened at VA Tech - he was declared mentally defective, but a clerk, judge, or someone else forgot to "check the box", IIRC).

  5. #4
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,371
    If it moves through the Senate and is signed into law by the president,
    Still a long way to go. I get a sense that there's not a lot of support for this legislation in the Senate.

    Time will tell.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    This doesn't include an Assault weapons or Hi-cap magazine ban, does it?
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this mini documentary!
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array SammyIamToday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087
    "The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the 2nd Amendment."

    No surprise there and good on him.
    ...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,451
    The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.
    Seems like just enforceing current law

    The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre. "We've always been vigilant about protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, and equally vigilant about keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective and people who shouldn't have them."
    Don't have a problem with this either.

    The NRA did win some concessions in negotiating the final product.

    It would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

    Sounds good and reasonable, but what about non military who have PTSD ie Police officers, EMT's of firefighters?

    It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.
    Sounds great but how does this work?
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  9. #8
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by SammyIamToday View Post
    "The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record) of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the 2nd Amendment."

    No surprise there and good on him.
    That is precisely why he has my vote.


    -B

  10. #9
    Member Array Deacon51's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    238
    I'm not happy anytime McCarthy can claim a win, but... it's nice to have those Vets removed from the list and having a funded appeal process is a good thing.

    And at least it does address the real problem of keeping guns out of the hand of people that shouldn't have them... After VT I was expecting a lot of talk about limiting those high powered .22 handguns to 10 round mags.

    I would place this in the Well, it's not the end of the world" category.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array raysheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Maine, USA
    Posts
    793
    Quote Originally Posted by LBrombach View Post
    This doesn't include an Assault weapons or Hi-cap magazine ban, does it?
    NO! ...well...not until someone tries to tack it on at the last minute....hopefully that won't happen though.


    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon51 View Post
    I'm not happy anytime McCarthy can claim a win, but...
    I feel the same way...she's a nutcase

  12. #11
    Member Array OfClanMcnab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    205
    People who are deemed 'mentally unfit' to own a gun are already prohibited from buying a gun. However, they are not in the FBI's system. From what I've heard of this bill, the only thing it does is make the mental illness record available on the FBI system that every dealer must call before making a sale.

    That's my understanding, anyway.

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,811
    Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life, had been ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying two guns he used in the rampage. But the state of Virginia had never forwarded this information to the national background check system.
    Everything in this paragraph after "Seung-Hui Cho, who in April killed 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech before taking his own life" is demonstrably false. First, he was not "ordered to undergo outpatient mental health treatment". He was ordered to undergo outpatient mental health EVALUATION. And regardless of whether the evaluators were right or wrong, they did not put him in treatment.

    Second, evaluation does not mean that he "should have been barred from buying two guns he used in the rampage". The wording on ATF Form 4473 is very clear it says:
    f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
    Even if he had been sent for outpatient mental health treatment he could have honestly answered no to the question.

    Third, contrary to this statement "But the state of Virginia had never forwarded this information to the national background check system"; there was nothing to forward to the system.

    These people, the writers, just write whatever they feel like writing and there is no one on staff above them that a) cares whether they are right or wrong and b) is informed enough about reality to recognize the falsity of the statement. No wonder the people of this country are so ignorant of what is going on.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Free American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    749
    Since when does a medical issue become one that limits your rights. Does the same "mental instability" keep them from voting?
    They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin


    Previously known as "cjm5874"

  15. #14
    Member Array Aelbric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    67
    I am interested in seeing how this will conflict with HIPAA legislation. Isn't this information supposed to be confidential? Not that I am for a mentally unbalanced person having a handgun. I just don't think they think these things through in most cases.

  16. #15
    Member Array DakotaXD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    105

    The GOA's thoughts on this.

    The GOA's thoughts on this.
    www.gunowners.org

    Thursday, June 14, 2007


    Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
    Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
    constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

    At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
    indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
    Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
    reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

    Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
    Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
    bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
    Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
    America.

    Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
    unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
    country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

    The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
    struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
    The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
    Bill."

    Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
    this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
    bargaining
    chips?

    The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
    general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
    offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

    After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
    Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
    to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
    and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
    Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

    Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
    learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
    John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
    since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
    Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
    leadership to the table.

    The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
    the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

    But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
    fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
    the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
    leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
    was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
    recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

    For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
    to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
    McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
    a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
    through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
    recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

    Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
    Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
    passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
    over a decade."

    The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
    forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
    records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
    is certainly an expansion of gun control.

    This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
    Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
    efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
    unconstitutional.

    Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
    the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
    proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
    that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
    be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
    to own guns).

    Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
    dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
    will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
    an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
    tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
    honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
    firearms.

    We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
    the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
    shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
    officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
    control.

    Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
    Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
    of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
    leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

    This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
    the years to come.

    But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
    has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
    bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
    loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

    The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
    Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
    ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
    To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
    and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
    every step of the way.

    Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
    the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
    for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
    for the developments described above.

    Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
    you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
    provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
    senators.

    Stay tuned. There is more to come.
    "Old Marines never die, we just smell like it." USMC 71'-83'


    Stay Safe

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill To Allow Concealed Carry Without Permit Passes House(merged)
    By CenterOfMass in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2010, 08:24 PM
  2. Parking Lot Bill Passes House, Heads to Senate in Arizona!
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 07:57 AM
  3. Tennessee House passes bill to allow guns where alcohol is served
    By waynesan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: April 17th, 2009, 10:15 PM
  4. SC Bill passes House now in Senate
    By Gunstogo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 02:03 PM
  5. Kansas Bill Passes House! (Tuesday March 14, 2006)
    By Rock and Glock in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 05:32 AM

Search tags for this page

felons want second amendment rights restored

,

what is being done about lautenberg's anti-gun travesty

Click on a term to search for related topics.