http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6750869.stm

Quote :

" The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would bolster background checks on gun buyers. If it passes the Senate, it will be the first major gun control law since 1994. It was drafted after April's Virginia Tech massacre, which exposed how gunman Cho Seung-hui was able to buy two guns despite having mental health problems. The new bill would close a gap by requiring states to automate reporting of mental health and criminal records to a database used to check gun buyers. To become law, the measure must be approved by the Senate and be signed by President George W Bush. The bill came as a White House report on the Virginia Tech shootings was released which said concerns over privacy laws meant data on potentially dangerous students often did not make it on to the federal gun purchase database. A judge had ruled Cho needed mental health treatment but because the report never made it into federal records, he was able legally to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people and himself. 'Save lives' Democratic Rep John Dingell, a strong supporter of gun rights, was one of those involved in negotiations on the House bill. The bill will improve state reporting on people barred from buying guns He said the legislation would "make a better system for public safety, law enforcement and for lawful and honest gun owners". The Virginia Tech shootings had "made it clear" that the national database used for gun ownership checks needed to be improved with better information and better technology, he said. Democratic Rep Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for office on a gun control platform after her husband was shot dead on a train, was also involved in drafting the bill. "This is a good policy that will change lives," she said. House Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also welcomed the move, saying: "As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent need to improve the background check system." Gun lobby The legislation has been backed by the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA) gun lobby, which was involved in discussions with congressmen. The NRA said the bill would not disqualify anyone currently legally able to buy a weapon. Under legislation passed in 1968, people barred from buying guns include those convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, drug addicts and those found by a court to be mentally disabled. The new bill, if it becomes law, would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks. It also provides $250 million (£125m) a year over the next three years to help states automate their systems to meet the new requirements. The last major gun control legislation, passed in 1994 when the Democrats last controlled the House, banned some assault weapons. "

The fact that Carolyn McCarthy has anything to do with it kinda scares me, but for once, I think i actually agree with some kind of gun control legislation.

Discuss.

6/13/2007 7:10:43 PM

Depending on what information is transmitted regarding mental health, this isn't a bad idea.

But if they report anytime someone has seen a psychiatrist or if they were ever diagnosed with depression, and are barred on that basis, then this will cause lots of problems.

6/13/2007 7:14:22 PM

according to some of those liberal media outlets the nra teamed up with the dems on this one

6/13/2007 7:17:44 PM

all this does is require current standards to be expedited. nothing wrong with that

6/13/2007 7:20:11 PM

THEY TUK 'UR GUNS!

6/13/2007 7:23:29 PM

yeah if you are not planning on shooting driving around wasting people i do not see why gun registration matters

6/13/2007 10:05:54 PM

Quote :

"yeah if you are not planning on shooting driving around wasting people i do not see why gun registration matters"

For the same reason that you don't want the government having access to all of your purchasing and reading records from the library and book stores.

The bill in general doesn't seem so horrible, but this concerns me:

Quote :

" and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks."

The law of unintended consequences guarantees that this will somehow be turned against law abiding citizens.

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 12:27 AM. Reason : dsfal;j]

6/14/2007 12:25:52 AM

From Wayne LaPierre, posted on the NRA website.

Quote :

" Not a Gun Control Bill 6/13/2007 There's been a lot of confusion and questions surrounding NRA's position on a NICS improvement bill that's being written in Congress. Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the anti-gun media is portraying this as a "gun-control" bill. Let me make it clear: It's not. The NICS bill, as written, wouldn't expand the definition of a prohibited person. It wouldn't disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm. In fact, it would provide an opportunity for people who've been disqualified to clear their name. Right now, folks don't have that ability. Gun owners lose nothing in the bill as it's currently written, and in fact the bill improves the system for those who've been caught in the bureaucratic red tape. So why is this being called a gun-control bill? In part because one of the bill's authors is anti-gun Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy. It's easy to call any piece of legislation from McCarthy anti-gun, even if it's not. But the biggest reason the media's calling this "gun-control" is because they're desperate to report on a gun-control victory in Congress. Here's the simple truth: If this bill turns into a piece of gun-control legislation, the NRA will withdraw its support. We won't stand idly by while the bill is amended by the anti-gunners in the House or Senate. This is a bill that's designed to improve the reporting by states to the NICS system, as well as provide an opportunity for people to clear their names once they've completed treatment for an illness, and that's it. The addition of any anti-gun provisions will turn this piece of legislation into a poison pill, and the NRA will actively oppose its passage. As the bill is introduced, the NRA will be keeping a close watch over the language, and I'll be the first to tell you if its original intent is corrupted. But it's not gun control, no matter what the media say."

It wont turn into a "gun control" bill for two reasons. First because of the NRA. Second, because most of the freshman Democrats responsible for the new majority are "pro-guns".

6/14/2007 1:38:38 AM

This bill looks okay to me, its look like an "enforcing the laws currently on the books" bill as opposed to "new laws bill". I don't think its a "gun control bill", a more appropriate title woul be "improved NICS enforcement bill"

and I agree, alot of new Dems are pro-gun and they would shoot it down if it were truly an "anti-gun" piece of legislation.

Quote :

"" and impose penalties if they fail to meet certain benchmarks." The law of unintended consequences guarantees that this will somehow be turned against law abiding citizens. "

I believe the punishee would be the states.

6/14/2007 1:43:25 AM

Quote :

"For the same reason that you don't want the government having access to all of your purchasing and reading records from the library and book stores."

well i can not take a book out of the library and kill someone. I guess i could beat them with my book to death haha.

6/14/2007 8:17:09 AM

Quote :

"I believe the punishee would be the states."

And to avoid that punishment, states will become more stringent and more gung ho in their reporting, inevitably leading to people who would not normally be disqualified being on the list.

Furthermore, if this is an enforce the current laws bill, why bring up specters of the VT shootings. IIRC, the reason he wasn't denied is because under current law, he did not need to be reported.

Quote :

"well i can not take a book out of the library and kill someone. I guess i could beat them with my book to death haha."

But you could for example purchase the anarchists cook book on line, or check out from the library some of Marx writings. That chemistry book could teach you how to make explosives or drugs. Just register here please, and don't worry, we'll only use this information if someone commits a crime.

6/14/2007 9:34:42 AM

Quote :

"library some of Marx writings. "

???

Because i would be just reading philosophy I can not take my Marx book and start a revolution or kill people. You are comparing apples to oranges. By the way it is not like guns are the only piece of property that require registration.

Kegs of Beer (after that new Bullshit NC legislation)
Cars
Property
etc

So why not guns? I think we should be more upset that we have to file paper work to get beer then to carry my 9mm around

[Edited on June 14, 2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason : l]

6/14/2007 10:39:07 AM

I don't recall seeing kegs or transportation mentioned in the Constitution

Quote :

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

6/14/2007 12:33:38 PM

say goodbye to doctor patient confidentiality

6/14/2007 12:39:18 PM

Quote :

"By the way it is not like guns are the only piece of property that require registration. Kegs of Beer (after that new Bullshit NC legislation) Cars Property etc So why not guns? I think we should be more upset that we have to file paper work to get beer then to carry my 9mm around"

You assume that I or anyone else isn't upset about that. Furthermore, for what it's worth, you only need register a car to drive it on public roads. You can own and drive a car on your own property as much as you want without registering it. And before you ask, in most states you need to register in order to carry a gun in public so it's not the same with just registering gun owners.

6/14/2007 12:42:57 PM

yeah it should be a states rights things. I think people forgot that a lot of issues were divided between states vs. fed.

6/14/2007 2:37:26 PM

I think this is a step in the right direction. Hell, if the NRA even agrees with it, what is the opposition from the gun owners?

pwrstrkdf250, you seem like you would be a good person to answer this question. Im not trying to ridicule you or anything. I mean, I have 8 guns at my house which are 2 shotguns, 2 old winchesters, a 30.-06 of newer variety, 2 revolvers and an M1 carbine. So Im obviously not against gun ownership, I would just like to know what the opposition is.

6/15/2007 12:35:31 AM

The opposition I have comes from passing useless legislation. If this law doesn't deny anyone who wouldn't be denied now, and doesn't allow anyone who wouldn't be allowed now then what does it do? Like I said, the VT shooter didn't get reported because under current law, he didn't need to be reported, so it's not like this is going to prevent another VT shooting.

The only thing it appears that this law does proactively is put punishments on states for not reporting to the standards of certain "benchmarks". Whenever you do something like that in the government, inevitably you will see over zealous reporting or some other failure which will only come back to bite the people in the ass.

Also, without seeing the text of the bill, this seems a bit overly broad:

Quote :

"would require states to supply the federal database with records of those disqualified from gun ownership"

Under current law, gun ownership requirements in states must at the minimum check with the federal database, but any state can impose more restrictions if it so chooses. If I am disqualified from owning a gun in one state, and they have to report that fact to a federal database that all states will check, does this mean I will be futher disqualified in other states, since according to the federal database I'm disqualified in a state?

6/15/2007 9:10:51 AM

the way i understand it is that it just makes the criminal and mental health records in all states more uniform so that they may be checked by all states when doing a background check for a firearm.

6/15/2007 9:45:23 AM

Quote :

"are pro-gun and they would shoot it down if it were truly an "anti-gun" piece of legislation."

nice little pun there

[Edited on June 15, 2007 at 10:25 AM. Reason : ]

6/15/2007 10:25:23 AM

(fyi ron paul is against this bill of course)

6/15/2007 11:00:37 AM

Quote :

"the way i understand it is that it just makes the criminal and mental health records in all states more uniform so that they may be checked by all states when doing a background check for a firearm."

But there already is a uniform system in place. The NICS check is uniform across all states. So again I ask, what problem is this legislation solving that isn't covered by the laws already in place?

6/15/2007 11:54:14 AM