The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 15, 2013, 12:39 PM   #1
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,222
NICS Reauthorization

The NICS system is up for reauthorization this year. It's still under debate in the Senate, but here's what's going on.

Under Section 103:

Quote:
(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''.
Section 106 contains the "Nationwide Project Exile Expansion,'' which contains provisions to actually, you know, prosecute people who violate existing laws.

Section 108 has a post Fast & Furious tidbit:

Quote:
The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose
Sections 109 and 110 tighten up rules a bit on straw purchasing.

Section 114 prohibits the Attorney General from requiring dealers to submit reports for multiple sales of long guns.

Section 116 requires federal agencies to report the amount of ammunition they're buying as a result of the stupid DHS ammunition buy conspiracy theory.

Section 118 changes 922(b)(3) to allow dealers to sell handguns to folks outside their home state.

Section 119 allows dealers to use the NICS system to do background checks on employees.

Of particular note are amendments SA 730-733, which are each titled, "an
amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale." Though the amendments carry that title, the actual verbiage is silent on the notion of universal checks and seems only to apply to mental-health reporting.

Thanks to Bartholomew Roberts for pointing this out.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 01:06 PM   #2
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,037
I saw BR's post, and it got me to thinking: If NICS is up for reauthorization, what happens if it's not reauthorized? My gut says that we then have a federal requirment for background checks on certain sales, but no way to perform them. That would be problematic for gun buyers.

Some sections from the text cause me a little heartburn, though:
Quote:
SA 725. Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Graham, Mr. Thune,
Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Flake, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cornyn,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Risch, Mr. Rubio, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Portman,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Coburn)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from
buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background
check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; as follows:
I do not see where the text of the amendment actually requires the bolded and underlined part above, however.

Quote:
SEC. 114. MULTIPLE SALES REPORTS FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.

Section 923(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) The Attorney General may not require a licensee to
submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other
disposition of 2 or more rifles or shotguns during a
specified period of time.''.
Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time? My gut says no, but expect someone on the anti side to claim that that's exactly what it means.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 01:21 PM   #3
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 235
Quote:
Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time?
Looks like the perfect excuse to convince the wife that I JUST HAD TO buy 2 rifles.
SamNavy is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 03:08 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,222
Quote:
Does this mean that the AG could require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the disposition of 1 rifle or shotgun during a specified period of time?
I'm doubtful that it'll be interpreted that way. The main reason for it was the forced reporting requirement instituted in four border states following the Fast & Furious mess. Theoretically, it's already unlawful, but this puts some teeth in it.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 15, 2013, 03:36 PM   #5
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,578
Really should be written as "The Attorney General may not require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other disposition during any specified or indeterminate period of time of any number of rifles, shotguns, handguns or any other device over which the BATFE exercises over-sight. "
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 10:37 AM   #6
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 368
Quote:
Really should be written as "The Attorney General may not require a licensee to submit ongoing or periodic reporting of the sale or other disposition during any specified or indeterminate period of time of any number of rifles, shotguns, handguns or any other device over which the BATFE exercises over-sight. "
Yes, but current law requires report of multiple handgun purchases. So unless the intent is to repeal that requirement (which would be a good thing), the last part would not "fix" the perceived ambiguity.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 11:13 AM   #7
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,784
I am not sure, but I believe the psychiatric jargon changes conform with DSM V and the old law does not. I don't have a copy available to check.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 02:14 PM   #8
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armorer-at-Law
So unless the intent is...


SHHHHhhhhhh!

That's where you bury the clause at the end, which reads:

This law supersedes any previous and/or contradictory laws on the matters addressed within.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 07:54 PM   #9
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Of particular note are amendments SA 730-733, which are each titled, "an amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale." Though the amendments carry that title, the actual verbiage is silent on the notion of universal checks and seems only to apply to mental-health reporting.
I think the part in bold describes S.649 rather than the amendments. The language is exactly the same as the purpose statement following "A BILL" at the beginning of S.649 and preceding the bill text.
gc70 is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 07:57 AM   #10
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
S.A. 725 already received a vote in the Senate, this is the Grassley-Cruz Amendment offered as an alternative to Schumer-Toomey-Manchin. It received 52 votes but needed 60 to pass due to the consent agreement. The only amendments to receive less votes were the AWB and magazine ban amendments which failed even a simple majority.

While I strongly suspect that the bill to reauthorize funding in the House will end up looking very much like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment, it doesn't look like that language is going to pass the Senate.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 09:04 AM   #11
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 368
Quote:
While I strongly suspect that the bill to reauthorize funding in the House will end up looking very much like the Grassley-Cruz Amendment, it doesn't look like that language is going to pass the Senate.
Maybe not while there is a lot of attention on it. But the Senate will not want to fail to reauthorize NICS and this could pass quietly later in the year.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09174 seconds with 9 queries