|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 23, 2018, 07:39 AM | #1 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Lots of Unpleasant News for Gun Owners in New Budget
I haven’t had an opportunity to validate all these claims yet; but if even a few are true it basically represents a massive surrender at a time when NRA A-rated congressmen are a majority in the House and Senate and the President was a keynote speaker at the last NRA convention.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...-congress.html A short summary of losses: Dickey Amendment prohibiting CDC from using federal funds to promote gun control repealed. $50 million in grants doled out to Sandy Hook Promise. I’m sure that won’t be used against us. Fix NICS reauthorizes the social security disability recipients reported to NICS mess that Congress just recently de-authorized by reinstating language from the 2007 NICS Improvment Act. Reporting requirements removed from Fix NICS Act - Since 2010, the annual reports mandated by the original NICS bill have not been done. If not for these reports, we wouldn’t know how many people were investigated who were not prohibited people or that in 2010 out of 76,000 denials, only 4,732 cases were even investigated and only 62 prosecuted. As originally drafted, Fix NICS required these reports be made again. That is now not going to happen apparently. |
March 23, 2018, 08:41 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
Bartholomew Roberts
May I ask where I can find those numbers regarding NICS? That's some pretty potent ammunition for those who claim the system is broken and how NICS is busted. What's the point of having this system if they are not going to investigate those who get flagged by them? Now the majority likely are false alarms, but the whole point of this system was to ensure some level of responsibility when it comes to selling firearms (Let me state, that, yes, NICS is a joke, and I don't like it. However, we likely will never win an argument with the general masses for its removal. So just picking and choosing my battles) |
March 23, 2018, 11:23 AM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
I find the removal of reporting provisions exceptionally disturbing. It puts us back to "trust us, we're from the gov't."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
March 23, 2018, 01:13 PM | #4 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The money will be doled out to schools under the STOP School Violence Act, which was "designed by" Sandy Hook Promise. The organization does not get the money, at least not directly. Quote:
Quote:
More seriously, however, I have a strong hunch that "identify and [sic] warning signs and intervene" is code for "arrest unpopular or marginalized students for minor infractions that school administration and parents should be dealing with." FWIW one of my great fears post-Parkland is that some schools are going to effectively create a school NKVD that will funnel kids into the criminal justice system simply for expressing politically undesirable opinions—such as "I like guns." ("Trotskyite!") Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||||
March 23, 2018, 01:18 PM | #5 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Kimio, that is direct from the last such NICS report in 2010:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bcft10st.pdf Quote:
In this case, the programs being funded have basically already been created by contractors tight with Sandy Hook Promise. It is a classic case of writing an open bid so that only one contract qualifies - the one you already picked. In my view, that money will be used to keep anti-gun people employed and doing anti-gun work. It is particularly galling to see “pro-gun” legislators shoveling the money to them. At least I’ll have the small comfort of knowing they’ll braid those dollar bills into a rope to hang the same legislators that funded them. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; March 23, 2018 at 01:27 PM. |
|
March 23, 2018, 01:52 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/...ort-050115.pdf |
|
March 23, 2018, 02:57 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
March 23, 2018, 04:00 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
|
|
March 23, 2018, 04:05 PM | #9 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
So, we know for example that there were 90,895 denials in 2014 and 2,511 firearms approved by NICS to prohibited people. We don't know what ATF did with any of those referrals; but I'm thinking that if the numbers were good, they'd be happy to share them. |
|
March 23, 2018, 07:06 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
For whatever it's worth, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is in favor of the new legislation. I received the following from them by e-mail today. It seems to be a press release, so I think I'm okay to reproduce it here in its entirety:
Quote:
|
|
March 23, 2018, 08:24 PM | #11 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Well, as Sen. Paul pointed out earlier, they had approximately 24 hours to parse a 2,300 page bill.
At this point, I'm skeptical that either John Lott or NSSF has a good grasp on what is in the bill affecting gun rights. I know in my legal career, I've been caught several times by tiny details embedded in otherwise innocuous text. Just recently, I was reading through a statement by a government agency in which they normally affirmed they had met a particular statutory requirement. I'd read probably a hundred briefs from this same attorney and agency and the language is always the same, so it is easy to skim. Except in this one case, they changed "we did" to "we may have done." Unforunately, the flip side of that is it is difficult for me to verify whether Dr. Lott or NSSF is correct, as I too lack the time to parse a 2,300 page spending bill. |
March 23, 2018, 08:51 PM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
|
|
March 23, 2018, 09:20 PM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,972
|
IMO, there should be a page limit on every bill submitted to the President for signature/veto, and that page limit should be in the single digits. I can't help but think that the people who built this country would double over and instantly vomit if they saw a stack of paper a foot high and realized that everything written therein had all been passed and signed as one single law.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
March 25, 2018, 10:14 PM | #14 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Well, having had a chance to look into this further, Dr. Lott's claim about the Dickey Amendment being repealed has zero merit. The bill basically says "CDC is not prohibited from researching the causes of gun violence." It doesn't remove the prohibition on advocacy.
Hopefully the remainder is also overhyped. |
March 25, 2018, 11:18 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Quote:
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
|
March 26, 2018, 12:35 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
March 26, 2018, 01:07 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
Quote:
Old people with POAs aren’t all murderous . |
|
March 26, 2018, 02:06 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Yes, that was why it was reversed under Trump, but is it being reinstated now is what I am wondering.
|
March 26, 2018, 06:20 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
There's lots of fake news about the omnibus budget bill. Fix NICS is contained in Division S, Title VI, Page 1982 of the omnibus budget bill. After perusing Fix NICS twice as passed i can find nothing concerning the reporting of social security recipients to NICS. http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...-RCP115-66.pdf |
|
March 26, 2018, 06:48 AM | #20 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
And if the House and Senate become split in 2018, then Congress will be unable to correct any bad interpretations Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; March 26, 2018 at 07:01 AM. |
||
March 26, 2018, 07:47 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The VA has long had a procedure to report veterans with fiduciaries to NICS. The same is not true of the social security administration. The Obama administration attempted to extend the VA procedure to social security recipients with fiduciaries and got slapped down by congress. At a meeting i attended our former US senator from OK Tom Coburn solemnly promised veterans he would eliminate the reporting of veterans to NICS. Coburn lied like a dirty dog, kowtowed to Chuck Schumer and did a net nothing for veterans. BTW: When General Shinseki was VA head he refused to report veterans to NICS. The guy Obama hired to replace Shinseki began reporting veterans with fiduciaries to NICS. |
|
March 28, 2018, 01:28 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Did some digging:
H. R; 5225: In early March, 2018 US Rep Maloney (NY) proposed a bill to over turn J. R. 40 and add certain Social Security recipients to NICS. The bill never went anywhere. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...-bill/5225?r=2 H. R. 1181: Last year the US house voted to prohibit the reporting of veterans with fiduciaries to NICS. The US senate has failed to act on that bill. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1181 |
|
|