The New NICS

[Kelly J]

Without fanfare or advanced notice, the incredibly dangerous anti-rights gun law drafted by the Brady group and its allies, HR 2640, has been rewritten by attorneys coordinated by the NRA.

The new bill, though not perfect, is a giant leap ahead of the highly controversial first draft. The improved bill was passed by Congress in a surprise last-minute vote before Christmas recess, and signed into law yesterday (1/8/08) by president Bush.



http://www.wmsa.net/people/Alan%20Korwin/ak_081101_nics_improvement_act_rewritten.htm

[Old Ironsights]

Yeah, it sure is better.

It allows us to pay the government to try to get them to stop unconstitutionally beating us in a way they weren't able to beat us before.

I'm Sooooo impressed.

But then, my absolutist RKBA/Pro 2nd Amendment position and my vocal Repudiation of Stigmatizing Bigotry toward innocent, non-violent "adjudicated" persons keeps getting me kicked off other "pro gun" forums, so I guess I'll shut up.

[Bret4207]

OIS- You know I ain't kicking you out brudda! This place is home for you and pretty much any right thinking person is welcome.

As for the new "improved" law- at least it's a bit better. Sometimes ya gotta take what you get and work from there. As I said on cast boolits, it just makes me mad that al the emails and letters I sent amounted to nothing...

[Old Ironsights]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find adding a way for the BATFE to track more people and giving them the means to disarm families as "better".

Here's an interesting bit from Kalipornia:

If you are found to be ineligible to either possess or purchase firearms as a result of the PFEC, you must relinquish any firearms you may have in your possession to a law enforcement agency or designate a power of attorney to take control and possession of them for you. Furthermore, firearms may not stay in the constructive possession of a prohibited person (e.g. you may not transfer possession to a person sharing the same household).
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/pfecfaqs.html#29

This is EXACTLY the type of regulation/opinion that will allow an Anti-Gun Attorney General (State or Federal) to sic the BATFE on the family of a now "listed" "prohibited person".

They had no way to do that before.

I have LOTS on "constructive possession". Noway the NRA didn't know how that could bite gunowners in the butt.

[Old Ironsights]

New gun law could force Pa. to report mental health history
By: BEN FINLEY (Mon, Jan/14/2008)


Pennsylvanians who’ve been involuntarily committed to mental hospitals still can legally buy guns in other states — despite a 40-year-old federal law that says they can’t.

That’s because the Pennsylvania State Police do not report a person’s involuntary hospital stay to the FBI’s criminal background check system for gun buyers. So, other states are never aware of a Pennsylvanian being involuntarily committed.

The state police believe that sharing the information would violate federal privacy laws regarding medical records.

That might change soon. On Tuesday, President Bush signed a new law encouraging states to report the necessary mental health information to the FBI. The law offers more than $1 billion to states to improve their reporting systems as well as legal assistance for working out their privacy concerns.

The legislation, which is supported by the National Rifle Association, gained traction in Washington last year after the Virginia Tech massacre, the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history.

Despite a proven history of mental illness in Virginia that would’ve barred him from buying firearms, the Virginia Tech shooter legally bought the two guns he used in the killings. His mental health history hadn’t made it to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Since 1968, federal law has barred gun purchases by people who’ve been deemed mentally ill by a judge or other government entity. In the past, the federal government has tried to outright require states to report such information to the FBI. But in the 1990s, the Supreme Court struck down the requirement, saying states can’t be forced to take part in a federal program of that sort.

So, will the state police be “encouraged” by this new law?

“Our legal department is already looking at it,” said Lt. Gary Schuler, director of the firearms division of the Pennsylvania State Police. “And at some point, a final decision is going to be made as far as who is going to be reporting this information and how they’re going to do it.”

Pennsylvania’s counties collect information on people who’ve been involuntarily committed or deemed to be mentally defective by a judge, said Phil Fenster, who runs Bucks’ mental health and mental retardation division.

Fenster said the information is then faxed to the state police in Harrisburg on a weekly basis if not more often.

In Harrisburg, the state police maintain a database of persons who have been involuntarily committed in Pennsylvania, as required by state law. These people are disqualified from obtaining a weapon in Pennsylvania.

But the information is never shared with the FBI, and therefore other states, allowing such Pennsylvanians to legally buy guns across state lines.

By sharing the information, the state police said they believe they’d be violating HIPAA, the federal government’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The immensely complicated law is designed to protect patients, including their privacy.

But HIPAA really doesn’t apply to reporting involuntary hospitalizations to the FBI, said Peter Swire, White House coordinator for HIPAA in 1999 and 2000.

Swire, now a law professor at Ohio State University, said HIPAA applies only to hospitals and insurance companies when it comes to sharing medical information. And hospitals can disclose information when it is required by law. In Pennsylvania, one such law is Act 77, which requires that involuntary commitments are reported to state police.

“HIPPA does not tell the state what to do,” Swire said.

NRA spokeswoman Rachel Parsons said the organization supports the notion that people who are legally deemed mentally ill shouldn’t buy guns.

But Mental Health America, an advocacy group for people with mental illness, neither supports that notion nor the original 1968 law.

“The law creates a presumption that an individual is forever a risk to society based on an illness they experienced one time,” said Ralph Ibson, MHA’s vice president for government affairs.

Despite the new law’s efforts to allow people to expunge their mental health records after a period of time, Ibson said it puts an unfair burden on people to clear their record.

There are other concerns, too.

“If the person has never had a weapon before and tries to go out and buy one, the new law could have an effect,” said Mark Wert, a sergeant in the Middletown Police Department.

“But what if the person already has a gun?”

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-01132008-1470213.html

[Bret4207]

In NY a Mental Health arrest in not criminal, it's under the Mental Hygiene Law. Other States differ. This is one of those laws that shouldn't stand a challenge on many points. Of course NONE of these laws SHOULD stand a challenge...

[Old Ironsights]

Mental Hygene is such a lovely term...

Do you know its history? (not bashing, just asking)

Read this: http://isurvived.org/Frameset4References-2/-Psychiatric-Eugenic_HOLO.html Especially the bits about the U.S. "Mental Hygene" programs of the 20s...

That is where we get all of these terms like "Mental Defective"... because back then even the U.S. was disposing of "defectives".

Yet we still use the same terminology. :mad: