MSNBC: Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[AsburySkinsFan]

What's this? Compromise and the advancement of good legislation in D.C.?! Say it ain't so!

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

Measure stiffening background checks would be 1st major reform since '94

By Jonathan Weisman

Washingtonpost.com

Updated: 11:25 p.m. ET June 9, 2007

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Carrot -and-stick proposal

Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

A marriage of convenience

"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby -- she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road -- ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.

By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

Fight has left many lawmakers gun-shy

The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since.

This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system.

On Friday afternoon, the NRA finally signed off.

"I've been involved with this legislative effort for years, working to address the shortcomings of NICS. I'm confident that this legislation will do it," Dingell said. "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon."

States would be paid to comply

Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.

Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.

The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.

Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.

"I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.

[Burgold]

As someone generally pro-gun control and even more in favor of checks, this makes me happy. Mind you, dealing with the NRA is dealing with the devil. (If you are Capital C Conservative, think making a deal with the ACLU for a good cause)

I'm a little wary of the amnesty that the NRA demanded. People with mental health issues and "minor" gun crimes can have their records expunged sounds kind of wrongheaded to me, but the fact that we're developing a system of (hopefully) better communication is a positive.

[Burgold]

The more I think about it, the more it irritates me. The compromise the NRA demands so that it won't make a fuss is that the government must agree to expunge the records of criminals?! Who are they truly serving? Well, if you don't mind them removing criminals from the Federal checklist, they also want want people who have been institutionalized because they were a danger to themselves and others taken off the checklist. It's a good thing that we have the NRA to defend the arms rights of violent criminals and the mentally ill.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm angry that the NRA compromised at all.

I will not renew my membership this year and will send my money to a political campaign that will fight for my god given right to keep and bear arms.

[Burgold]

you want to keep "bear" arms? I told you not to go to the Island of Dr. Moreau. You can't trust a dirt cheap Carribean Vacation.

[TMK9973]

I'm very happy. THe compermise says criminals of Minor crimes can petition states to remove their names.

This does not happen with a GOP congress. NRA knew that congress was going to pass something, their choices were to compermise, or get nothing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm very happy. THe compermise says criminals of Minor crimes can petition states to remove their names.

This does not happen with a GOP congress. NRA knew that congress was going to pass something, their choices were to compermise, or get nothing.

Bingo, its win win.

As for the petitioning, well it seems to be just that a petition; i.e. not guarranteed.

[Burgold]

Why would it make you happy that criminals can petition to get their names removed? Why should this be a goal for the NRA?

[PokerPacker]

Why would it make you happy that criminals can petition to get their names removed? Why should this be a goal for the NRA?

if you're convicted of soliciting sex, should that have any bearing on gun ownership?

notice that it says "Minor crimes" and not "Major crimes" or "Violent crimes"

[AsburySkinsFan]

Why would it make you happy that criminals can petition to get their names removed? Why should this be a goal for the NRA?

I can petition to annex Mexico as tht 51st state in the Union, it doesn't mean that its going to happen. Furthermore, I'm not throughly covinced that all criminals (especially minor offenses) will necessarily repeat. If they've paid their debt then let them prove themselves worthy of full rights; this is why I advocate a penal system that rehabilitates not just punishes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

if you're convicted of soliciting sex, should that have any bearing on gun ownership?

notice that it says "Minor crimes" and not "Major crimes" or "Violent crimes"

Bingo

[Coooleeey]

Why would it make you happy that criminals can petition to get their names removed? Why should this be a goal for the NRA?

They are petitioning to have their names removed from a list of people who are unable to buy firearms, not to have their record expunged.

[Burgold]

It's a valid point, but it's an odd constituency to fight for. Especially, if one of the motivators to get this gun check through is VA Tech... why are you advocating for increased gun freedoms for those with documented mental issues. As for criminals, I probably should concede the point, however, since I favor gun control anyway... nah... you break the law, you lose the right carry a gun. I don't want shoplifters carrying, I don't want carjackers carrying, I don't want litterbugs carrying.

I do realize I'm going to be in the minority on this subject here, but I am everytime gun control comes up. So, shoot me... er on the other hand, please don't.

[Coooleeey]

I can petition to annex Mexico as tht 51st state in the Union, it doesn't mean that its going to happen. Furthermore, I'm not throughly covinced that all criminals (especially minor offenses) will necessarily repeat. If they've paid their debt then let them prove themselves worthy of full rights; this is why I advocate a penal system that rehabilitates not just punishes.

Exactly.

As a gun owner and possible NRA member in the future, this doesn't turn me off to the organization at all. I'm all for the right to bear arms but there are some people who shouldn't have that right, you break certain laws that is the punishment. The fact is that this list already existed, all they fought for was a little more restriction and the right to have your name removed when you have done your time.

[Burgold]

Coooley,

and by getting their name expunged from the check list, these criminals will have easier accessibility to buying fire arms. I think that if no one else should criminals deserve the headaches of checks and bureaucratic delay.

[Coooleeey]

It's a valid point, but it's an odd constituency to fight for. Especially, if one of the motivators to get this gun check through is VA Tech... why are you advocating for increased gun freedoms for those with documented mental issues. As for criminals, I probably should concede the point, however, since I favor gun control anyway... nah... you break the law, you lose the right carry a gun. I don't want shoplifters carrying, I don't want carjackers carrying, I don't want litterbugs carrying.

I do realize I'm going to be in the minority on this subject here, but I am everytime gun control comes up. So, shoot me... er on the other hand, please don't.

This was sort of triggered by the VA Tech shootings and sort of not. There are so many anti-gun nazi's in political positions waiting for a tragedy in order to lobby their beliefs. The was just a boiling point for what had been slowly brewing since 1994 when the last change was made.

I don't really see it as giving guns to people with mental issues, I see it as giving the person who had mental issues the opportunity to regain his right to bear arms.

No matter where you are there will be people who say all guns should be banned, and there will be those who say "guns for everyone". I have a buddy at work who is going to flip over this, call everyone ****roaches, threaten to cancel his lifetime NRA membership, etc...but when it comes down to it, they didn't take guns from anyone. They made a ****ty system a little better by forcing a corrupt database to be updated periodically, and if the state doesn't devote the time to do that they don't get their money...their fault so f them if they don't do the time.

[Coooleeey]

Coooley,

and by getting their name expunged from the check list, these criminals will have easier accessibility to buying fire arms. I think that if no one else should criminals deserve the headaches of checks and bureaucratic delay.

Yo are trying to penalize people who committed a minor crime for their entire lives. You do realize that a DUI will put your name on the list so be careful the next time you have a couple drinks and drive home from the restaurant.

I'm not coming at you, just making sure you realize that the people who are taken off the list (I didn't see expunged anywhere) are people who deserve the chance to regain their right to bear arms.

[Burgold]

Quick question--

If you are on the checklist does that mean that you can never get a gun or does it mean that you have to wade through more paperwork?

I don't really know, but I'm guessing the latter or rather, I'm guessing that there already are built in provisions to appeal the decision. I guess that winds up being the same thing (appealing vs. pettitioning), but I definately want to make life harder for a recently released child molestor who wants to get a gun. I do believe in second chances, but I believe that you have to prove yourself step by step.

Still, amongst the populations that the NRA could choose to fight for. Why would these be the first groups? I mostly agree with your points, but I do tend towards nutty on this issue. For example, if I had my way, no one would be allowed to buy any firearm without registration, an extensive safety and training course, and background check. Now, I realize that position is way out there, but that's what I would want. If I could remove every gun in America with the exception of Military and Police I would do it too, but even I'm not crazy enough to believe that's possible or would create a happy ending.

Cooley,

On the DUI issue, that person has already shown the inability to make controlled rational choices. Someone who drinks to excess and gets out of control and risks their life and my life with their car is not someone I want to give a gun to. JMHO

[isle-hawg]

I'm angry that the NRA compromised at all.

I will not renew my membership this year and will send my money to a political campaign that will fight for my god given right to keep and bear arms.

I do not understand your displeasure with the NRA or this bill? It seems a no-brainer common sense bill to me. Unless you have documented mental illness problems or are a convicted fellon how does this bill prevent you from purchacing firearms.

I am all for the right of law abiding good citizens to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from the criminals and crazies. IMO any law that makes it tougher for the crazies or criminals who would do harm to each other or the rest of us only makes good sense to me.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I will have to wait until I see the full text of this measure before I can make a final statement on it, there are both positives and negatives to this whole idea for me....

The idea of reforming and correcting the issues with the NICS system is a good idea. Those checks should never take more than 45 seconds (they're allowed to take up to three business days). The particulars of which offenses and mental health issues disqualify a potential gun owner need to be looked at very carefully. That's a long-standing problem here in the Commonwealth... where a decorated military veteran can be denied the same rights he fought and bled for because of a minor quarrel in a bar where the two combatants were fined $50 a piece and reminded to act their age and not their shoe size. However, because he COULD HAVE been sentenced to more than 365 days in jail for the offense, he cannot get a License to Carry Concealed Weapons in this state. That sort of thing is highly possible with the NICS checks as well.

On the other hand this level of compromise and cooperation with the Democrats... a group whose gun-grabbing interests is only slightly less than that of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Castro.... means that I will not be sending a renewal check to the NRA this year. Nor will I be making my normal donations to the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action: the NRA's PAC) this year. Instead there will be a polite little note informing them to get back in touch with me when they actually know what side they're supposed to be fighting for.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Quick question--

If you are on the checklist does that mean that you can never get a gun or does it mean that you have to wade through more paperwork?

I don't really know, but I'm guessing the latter or rather, I'm guessing that there already are built in provisions to appeal the decision. I guess that winds up being the same thing (appealing vs. pettitioning), but I definately want to make life harder for a recently released child molestor who wants to get a gun. I do believe in second chances, but I believe that you have to prove yourself step by step.

If you're on the checklist not only is it an immediate denial of the application, but it becomes a FELONY to sign the application. Whether you know you're on the list or not. There's no additional paperwork... it's a flat out denial.

So far as I know, there are no provisions for appealing or petitioning the denial. If you're on the list, it's a denial and there is no way to get OFF the list once you're on it, so far as I am aware.

While I would agree that there are a lot more people out there who should not have access to firearms, the current system denies the Constitutionally-protected RTKBA to others who is should not. This is a very thin line, that once crossed will not easily be returned across. Never in the history of the world has a government given back the RTKBA to people after they've taken it away. Let's all keep that in mind.

[Burgold]

Thanks for the info on the list issue. I respect your belief that we must be vigilant and not surrender rights easily, but gun control is a gray area for me... primarily because we have so many irresponsible idiots out there. Ironically, that is exactly the reason that many people are proponents of gun control.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Thanks for the info on the list issue. I respect your belief that we must be vigilant and not surrender rights easily, but gun control is a gray area for me... primarily because we have so many irresponsible idiots out there. Ironically, that is exactly the reason that many people are proponents of gun control.

You're welcome on the information.

The irresponsible idiots would be considerably less of an issue if we did a couple of fairly basic things....

a. Enforce the existing gun laws that are on the books. In all too many cases, the punishments for committing a crime with a firearm are ignored or plea bargained away.

b. Come up with a single, simple NATIONAL level firearms permit that is good ANYWHERE in the country. Make it a SHALL ISSUE permit, good for life unless the person violates one of the disqualifying factors. Part of the requirements would be a basic firearms safety course like the one the NRA uses.

c. We need to stop making gun owners pariahs in our society. How many of us know gun owners who won't let that information become public knowledge for fear of reprecussions from friends and other members of society. Until we do away with that mistrust and fear of gun owners in society, we will never be able to properly educate the people most easily taught about gun safety.... our children and young men/women.

[PeterMP]

I'm angry that the NRA compromised at all.

I will not renew my membership this year and will send my money to a political campaign that will fight for my god given right to keep and bear arms.

What god has given YOU the right to bear arms? How do you know?

[TMK9973]

On the other hand this level of compromise and cooperation with the Democrats... a group whose gun-grabbing interests is only slightly less than that of the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Castro.... means that I will not be sending a renewal check to the NRA this year. Nor will I be making my normal donations to the ILA (Institute for Legislative Action: the NRA's PAC) this year. Instead there will be a polite little note informing them to get back in touch with me when they actually know what side they're supposed to be fighting for.

So now your simply not agreeing with a group SIMPLY because they agreement was with Democrats?

The ELECTED majorty of the country?

Mass - Why do you Hate America so much?