Background Checks Defeated in Senate

[Lifetime]

So having a means to determine whether someone qualifies for an arms purchase, aka a background check, is an unreasonable step in the process? There were no riders on this bill. 

 

And by the way, I am not a gun control advocate. 

[arch stanton]

And I'm not a gun zealot and I'm not aiming this at you personally. Just "shotgunning". The means is already in place. Even if the sale is made at a place that doesn't require the check, the sale is still illegal. More laws doesn't mean more enforcement. 

[Lifetime]

The means is not in place. You can't hold the seller accountable for information about his customers that they have no means of obtaining. There is zero reason that background checks are a bad thing or overly invasive. 

[arch stanton]

NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas).

[Lifetime]

yes I know

[arch stanton]

To me, this type of prevention effort is ineffective and a waste of time. I believe in rights accompanied by responsibilities. I would prefer that anyone who sells a gun to someone not legally eligible to possess one should be subject to equal punishment as the one committing the crime.

[Lifetime]

well, someone who knowingly sells a fire arm to someone that isn't legally eligible is subject to a considerable punishment. It does not make sense for them to be punished the same as the person committing a crime with a gun. Not to mention, the vast majority of gun related crimes aren't done by people who purchase weapons following legal guidelines - background checks or not. I don't think it's a waste of time however even if it does little to prevent these type of events. Background checks for people who are purchasing weapons is a good idea and does not impose any undue imposition to the buyer or the seller. Require the background checks and hold the sellers accountable for knowingly selling arms to those that are not permitted within the legal guidelines. This bill did both.

[arch stanton]

"(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘gun show or event'-
"(A) means any event at which 75 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and
"( does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923.".

Here's your big crime crushing prize.

 

 

"(8) Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) to a person not licensed under this chapter who is prohibited from receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law, to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.";

 

2) by adding at the end the following:

"(q) Improper Use of Storage of Records.-Any person who knowingly violates section 923(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

Improper use of records is 3 times more egregious than violating the act.

 

 

(2) by adding at the end the following:

"(2) VOLUNTARY BACKGROUND CHECKS.-Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations allowing licensees to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System established under this section for purposes of conducting voluntary preemployment background checks on prospective employees.".

We'll sell your records for employment screening but we wont tell you about it.

 

 

And creat a commission for the purposes of political pandering.

(1) IN GENERAL.-It shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct a comprehensive factual study of incidents of mass violence, including incidents of mass violence not involving firearms, in the context of the many acts of senseless mass violence that occur in the United States each year, in order to determine the root causes of such mass violence.

(2) MATTERS TO BE STUDIED.-In determining the root causes of these recurring and tragic acts of mass violence, the Commission shall study any matter that the Commission determines relevant to meeting the requirements of paragraph (1), including at a minimum-
(A) the role of schools, including the level of involvement and awareness of teachers and school administrators in the lives of their students and the availability of mental health and other resources and strategies to help detect and counter tendencies of students towards mass violence;
( the effectiveness of and resources available for school security strategies to prevent incidents of mass violence;
© the role of families and the availability of mental health and other resources and strategies to help families detect and counter tendencies toward mass violence;
(D) the effectiveness and use of, and resources available to, the mental health system in understanding, detecting, and countering tendencies toward mass violence, as well as the effects of treatments and therapies;
(E) whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others;
(F) the nature and impact of the alienation of the perpetrators of such incidents of mass violence from their schools, families, peer groups, and places of work;
(G) the role that domestic violence plays in causing incidents of mass violence;
(H) the effect of depictions of mass violence in the media, and any impact of such depictions on incidents of mass violence;
(I) the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring such firearms, and all positive and negative impacts of such availability and nature on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence;
(J) the role of current prosecution rates in contributing to the availability of weapons that are used in mass violence;
(K) the availability of information regarding the construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any impact of such information on such incidents of mass violence;
(L) the views of law enforcement officials, religious leaders, mental health experts, and other relevant officials on the root causes and prevention of mass violence;
(M) incidents in which firearms were used to stop mass violence; and
(N) any other area that the Commission determines contributes to the causes of mass violence.

[Lifetime]

 they aren't selling your information without telling you. 

 

I I've your assertion that the purpose of the commission is for pandering. 

 

As for your first two comments, I have no idea what you're getting at. 

[arch stanton]

What I meant is that they aren't telling the supposed 90% supporters that part of the bill allows their gun background records to be used by potential employers.

 

As for the first comments, it's 3 times the penalty to misuse the records that it is to sell guns illegally and that those two brief paragraphs are the total gain that comes from the bill. 

 

If they were to pass this and then consider their work done in the interest of curtailing gun violence then that's a sad statement on national politics.

[Lifetime]

So they aren't using the information without telling you. It's right there in black and white. Not to mention an employer has to inform a potential hire and get consent to perform a background check. Are you opposed to the personal file information being used for employment screening?

I don't see the problem with the penalty difference but those two paragraphs are not the net gain of the amendment.

I don't think it would be considered work done either. I see no basis for such an assertion.

[arch stanton]

I work in military aviation. I've had a security clearance my whole adult life. I expect to have a microscope up my ass. I'm just wondering how many supporters know that pot use would disqualify them from buying a gun and that they want to share this information with prospective employers.

 

They keep saying 80%, 86%, 90% want background checks. I would be interested to know the percentage once they've read this.

 

And if I'm reading that correctly, any conviction for anything that carries even a one year max sentence, disqualifies you for life from gun ownership.

[Lifetime]

arch stanton, on 19 Apr 2013 - 16:01, said:

I work in military aviation. I've had a security clearance my whole adult life. I expect to have a microscope up my ass. I'm just wondering how many supporters know that pot use would disqualify them from buying a gun and that they want to share this information with prospective employers.

They keep saying 80%, 86%, 90% want background checks. I would be interested to know the percentage area ce they've read this.

And if I'm reading that correctly, any conviction for anything that carries even a one year max sentence, disqualifies you for life from gun ownership.

You mean perspective employers that already require background checks and drug screening as a condition of employment? IOW, this kind of information is already being sought by employers and it has to be fully disclosed and approved prior to obtaining the information. And it says persons who are convicted of a crime with a sentence in excess of a year. And isn't that from the existing law (Gun Control Act), not the new bill?

[arch stanton]

Yes. I'm not arguing against employers using background checks. I'm just wondering why Sens. Toomey and Manchin haven't stood together and touted this part of their amendment. They are attempting to authorize this database as a source.

 

And yes,the conviction portion is part of the existing law. I'm wondering if the 90% supporters know that a conviction for tax evasion or embezzlement terminates your rights under the 2nd amendment for the rest of your life.

[Lifetime]

why does it matter that this database would be used for employment background checks? Why should the senators be out there touting this aspect of the bill?

 

If convicted felons don't know that their convictions will terminate their right to purchase and posses firearms, that's on them. This background check bill has zero impact on that which has been in effect for a very long time. So why is this part of the discussion now?

[arch stanton]

By all means ignore what I've said several times. They want to tout 90% approval but I don't believe that even 9% could tell you what the bill was about or what the existing laws were. 

 

And I have just written, debated, amended, passed and signed into my law a bill banning me from responding to you anymore in this forum.

[Lifetime]

Wow response was uncalled for. WTH If people are supporting a bill and they don't know what's in the bill, that's on them. The bill has been available for review for sometime now.