US House Adds Funding For NICS Reporting

[thallub]

Today the US House added funding to assist states in reporting firearms disabilities to the FBI.

The measure provides $19.5 million in additional grant financing to help states submit records to a federal database aimed at preventing felons and the mentally ill from buying weapons.

Supporters of the amendment, which passed 260 to 145 as part of a $51 billion spending bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments expected to be approved later Thursday, say the measure would keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-house-moves...233357263.html

[Cnon]

This could cause all sorts of issues.


Cnon

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The measure would provide $19.5 million to help states submit records to a federal database aimed at preventing felons and the mentally ill from buying weapons.

The story is disingenuous in part. Having states actually report those adjudicated to NICS is probably needed unless you object to the reporting principle. Cho at VT might have been caught by such.

That it is a small and symbolic step for MORE gun control is not necessarily true as it is just tuning up an existing system.

It would not have impacted the Santa Barbara incident as the killer was not adjudicated.

I note that some are suggesting a CA law that allows families to report someone"

http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legisla...s&nlid=7231712

The bill would establish a system in which concerned relatives, intimate partners or friends can notify police about someone showing a propensity toward violence, so police can investigate and seek a judge's order to seize that person's firearms and prevent any purchases.

Would this be useful? The balance between prevention and abuse of rights is a difficult problem.

[Evan Thomas]

I support the funding and enforcement of the current federal reporting requirements.

Allowing relatives and friends to initiate investigations, not so much.

Would this be useful? The balance between prevention and abuse of rights is a difficult problem.

The potential for abuses in any "drop a dime" program is huge, IMHO. Reports might be made out of general nastiness, or for revenge, or about people whose "propensity" involved having "anger management" problems, or playing a lot of violent video games.... No thank you.

Also, the case of the Santa Barbara shooter shows that there would certainly be "misses" under such a system.

As far as I'm concerned, "propensity for violence" doesn't cut it on its own as a reason for taking away rights. I could, however, support a system of temporary restrictions of rights following convictions for violent misdemeanors, with the emphasis on temporary, and with escalating periods of restriction for repeat offenders. Actual violence is the best predictor of future violence. Anyone can screw up and get in a fight, but someone who assaults people more than once is likely to repeat and escalate.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The NY Times is having this debate right now. The problem as you state, Vanya - is the problem of overreach and false positives.

One commentator pointed out that to many mental health professionals, the simple possession of firearms is enough to indicate mental illness.

Having others institute investigations is an tough question. Folks were lighting up all over the place for Cho. But even if identified, we don't have permanent institutionalization. Nor should we.

Can safeguards against malicious reporting and politically biased antigun mental health professionals be designed? I don't see that as possible now.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

While I have doubts as to the worth of the whole NICS background check system in terms of effectiveness, I don't know why the Congress has not made reporting by the states of all adjudications of mental defect and involuntary committments MANDATORY. Yes, it's an "unfunded mandate" and I'm perfectly happy with the Feds having to pony up the money to do it. Further, I'd require that such reporting be done with the same frequency as is done for reporting felony convictions to the system.

Again, I don't think the system is all that useful, especially given the inability/lack of interest in prosecuting #4473 violations (intentionally lying), but I don't see any harm since those being reported are already "prohibited persons" under law. Maybe it would shift the focus in some instances from the "gun availablilty" to the legal limitations imposed on the mental health system, for better or worse.

Comments ...?

[raimius]

Making sure prohibited persons are actually prohibited from purchases at FFLs makes sense to me. If a person is adjudicated properly, and is a threat to themselves or others, they should not be able to buy firearms due to database update lags.

[Tom Servo]

That it is a small and symbolic step for MORE gun control is not necessarily true as it is just tuning up an existing system.

The 2007 NICS Improvement Act was supposed to budget a ton of money to fund better reporting at the state level. IIRC, most of it was never actually disbursed, though.

While it wouldn't have helped in the Rodger case, it'll help prevent some of the smaller brushfires that don't make the national news.