Follow the money. (...and the political clout.) It's unfortunate and counterproductive that some of the smaller gun rights organizations see the NRA as competition rather than an ally. GOA is particularly bad about this. They claim that the NRA "compromises" with the antis, but here's that "compromise"...
Background Checks/ NICS H.R. 297, the “NICS Improvement Act of 2007” This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a “user fee” for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements.
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control—especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation—center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers.
This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects—an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm. For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored.
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person’s eligibility to receive a firearm.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state’s Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on “substantial evidence” of the state’s “reasonable effort” to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
This isn't adding any burdens to gun owners; it's removing them. Is there something wrong with that? GOA seems to think so.
Yes, it would be nice to do away with Brady altogether, but that's not a political reality; just as doing away with the "sporting purposes" clause in the '68 GCA would be nice but isn't (yet) a political reality. In the meantime, why not fix the flawed laws as much as possible? Is that "compromise"? Of course not.
But when you're raising money...
Thank you , it`s nice to see that there are still a few adults posting here.