NICS Denial Notification Act
The bill includes the NICS Denial Notification Act. This provision will require the criminal investigation of all National Instant Criminal Background Check System denials. The vast majority of NICS denials are false.
The bill’s passage means that thousands of law-abiding Americans will be subject to criminal investigation due to a mistake in a flawed government database. Guilty until proven innocent.
Empowering ATF
Another provision in the bill will allow the deputization of local law enforcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). This provision is a direct attack against states with Second Amendment Protection Acts (SAPA). Those bills prevent state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun control, but since VAWA allows for the deputization of local law enforcement, that means the federal government can restore the power of local police to enforce federal gun laws by making them agents of ATF.
I don’t see where in the linked bill it demands a criminal investigation. By my reading, the bill itself only states that the DOJ would provide state and local government with information about the person that was denied and some information about the attempted purchase. It would then be up to the state and local government to do any kind of follow-on investigation, I guess.
As for the deputization of local LEOs by the ATF, I’m not sure why that was mentioned, given that it is already common practice and occurs all the time with Federal law enforcement agencies and local departments (it’s my understanding that’s how many of the Federal task forces staffed with locals operate to begin with).
I think that this is to target 2nd Amendment Sanctuary States.
Also…
This provision is a direct attack against states with Second Amendment Protection Acts (SAPA). Those bills prevent state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal gun control, but since VAWA allows for the deputization of local law enforcement, that means the federal government can restore the power of local police to enforce federal gun laws by making them agents of ATF.
Pretty much where I’m at. The entire point of BGC is to prevent criminals from getting guns, it’s why we entertain this song and dance. But in the rare instance where a criminal attempts a direct purchase from a FFL, get denied and NOTHING is done about it…well then why do anything at all.
Additionally, if they followed up on all the denials where serious criminals are involved…just maybe they can stop the next tragedy where some violent, mental case shoots up a building full of people.
I actually support this, this is the kind of gun control that should have been in place long ago and IF it was we might have less other gun control nonsense now.
I’d rather have background checks than gun bans and other restrictions. It’s the closest idea to limiting criminal access without infringement.
When you regulate a gun or gun design, you infringe upon everyone. When you target criminals attempting purchase, you are targeting the criminals. Do you really want everyone to be able to cash and carry a firearm? Criminals with violent histories? People with serious mental issues? They aren’t gonna institute all those people.
I don’t mind enduring a 5 minute phone / computer check if it means fewer nutjobs with guns that I might have to deal with. We have complained for 20 years that they need to go after people who unlawfully attempt to acquire firearms than regulating the guns themselves, so finally it happens and shock of all shocks some people still aren’t happy.
Not saying I trust ATF or hooray government, but I’d rather have them going down this road as a solution than any of their other possible roads.
But for some reason, NRA is always bad no matter what. GOP are all sellouts no matter what. It really isn’t much difference from the Dem position that the United States is always wrong in any conflict and historically it’s a bully. Same kind of horseshit that focuses on 20% and ignores the other 80%.
That is why I was careful to say “direct purchase from a FFL.” Private sellers, different story. They are not FFLs, so they should not have the burden of FFLs. They enjoy none of the benefits of being a licensed dealer, and quite often cannot qualify to become a licensed dealer, so it is completely unreasonable to ask them to accept the level of responsibility that FFLs have.
Selling their guns is like selling their cars. It is unlawful for them to KNOWINGLY sell or provide a firearm to a prohibited person, but that’s it. They have no responsibility beyond that when it comes to selling what is their personal property.
Therein lies your problem. For one, it’s against the letter of the second amendment. Two, you’ve set the precedent it’s ok to compromise our rights away.
And here we are compromising more every step of the way AND criminals still have no problems finding guns.
Where is the infringement? Or do you consider preventing criminals from buying guns lawfully infringement?
The ACTUAL problem is the infringement that began with the 1968 Gun Control Act which gave the ATF the ability to legislate by decree. Everything after that is just a symptom of that original problem.
You want to talk about constitutional freedom, it can’t exist so long as the 1968 GCA is in place.
You seriously want to worry about what license plate is on a car after it has been stolen.
NICS wasn’t a trade. And they were able to legislate feature bans because of the 1968 GCA. That needs to be our focus, not this silly shit that might actually accomplish some good. So long as 68 GCA is in place, talking “no compromise” is absurd. We have been compromised and continue to be compromised and that is the means by which they do it.
I don’t remember reading the second and it having an “unless you’re a criminal” clause. In fact, the Revolution had many “criminals” fighting for the cause of liberty. The founders themselves were criminals against the crown.
No reason to settle for more infringements because there were more in the past. We should be on the offense, rather than looking for more ways to compromise our rights away.
Criminals shouldn’t be able to buy firearms while in prison which is where they need to be if they are such a threat they can’t be trusted with a firearm.
Total red herring, .gov issued firearms frequently end up being used in crimes with not even a mention of needing to limit those users .
NFA 34 came before GCA 68. There may have been others before 34, so which ever was the first set the precedent for more to come.