May 15, 2013, 12:39 PM | #1 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
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:
Section 108 has a post Fast & Furious tidbit: Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
May 15, 2013, 01:06 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
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:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
May 15, 2013, 01:21 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
Quote:
|
|
May 15, 2013, 03:08 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 15, 2013, 03:36 PM | #5 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
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. "
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
May 16, 2013, 10:37 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|
May 16, 2013, 11:13 AM | #7 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
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.
|
May 16, 2013, 02:14 PM | #8 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
May 16, 2013, 07:54 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,899
|
Quote:
|
|
May 17, 2013, 07:57 AM | #10 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
May 17, 2013, 09:04 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|