Bill to bolster gun background checks gains enough support to break filibuster

[DonViejo]

Source: The Hill




BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 03/09/18 11:04 AM EST

A bill to bolster the national background check system used for gun purchases crossed a critical milestone this week, getting enough support to break a filibuster and pass the Senate.

GOP Sen. John Cornyn's office noted on Friday that the legislation picked up six more cosponsors, bringing the total number of supporters to 62.

The boost in support puts it just over the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, a key procedural hurdle, and gives it enough support to potentially be passed by the Senate.

Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.) are the latest senators to formally sign onto the Fix NICS (National Instant Background Check System) Act. The legislation reinforces existing laws by ensuring that authorities report criminal records to the system and penalizing agencies that don't.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/377587-bill-to-bolster-background-checks-for-gun-purchases-gains-enough-support-to

[groundloop]

1. How about getting rid of the gun show loophole?

I imagine we should applaud this one small minuscule step in the right direction since it may signal the breaking of a logjam, but damn we still have a long way to go.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. It's actually a bigger step than you realize. A number of high profile shootings would have been

denied purchase of the firearm involved, if this legislation was passed.

It should have been passed way back in response to Virginia Tech. Remember that one? It's still a carrot/no stick approach to reporting.
It should be no carrot, big stick for failure to report.

Yes, the VT shooter COULD have gone to a gun show, depending on that state's laws, and bypassed NICS entirely, but he didn't. He passed a NICS check. Because the relevant disqualification wasn't transmitted to the NICS-dependent database. This has been a theme in subsequent shootings. Still not been addressed.

[moriah]

4. Agreed. Requiring private parties to go through a local FFL is still needed, but...

... sadly we probably won't get it until the fact a person is denied in a check then uses GunsList or a gun show to purchase comes out.

Personally I'd like two additions to the "fix NCIS" idea.

First, that because only an active restraining order keeps gun rights gone whereas the vast majority of DV cases that make it into court records only are temporary ones that are never converted, that people who have had a TRO or converted but inactive restraining order can register to be notified if that person purchases. I'd even be okay with funds allowing victims who are afraid enough to want to purchase themselves after such a notification to have a free check done.

This might better go in a bill adding other things to VAWA, but as it's related to background checks... because a TRO is issued without the ability for the subject to defend themselves, it isn't due process enough to say they can't have a gun. It's still public record, though, and most people who initiate proceedings are serious, it's just that's usually enough to make the person *realize* their victim is serious.But it would let their victims be notified of gun purchases.

The second would be for a "defer and request name of current treating physician for notification" for anyone who has had an involuntary commitment proceeding started, whether or not they decided to go ahead and accept treatment (usually resulting in a dropped petition). Just as unless the person has an attorney represent them at a hearing and the judge determines involuntary commitment is necessary gun rights aren't taken, simply starting a petition in a mental health court -- despite the proceedings being public record, not under seal -- often makes a person realize their family is sincerely worried. Notifying their treating physician and/or the petitioner would help make sure the people most likely to care and do something to prevent a gun tragedy know, but not deny rights without due process.

[forgotmylogin]

5. This is why I think all guns need to be registered.

Just like a car, you list the seller if it's new. You provide the serial number for the background check. No number, no registration, and the gun seller can lose their right to sell guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Well, you only register cars that are going to be operated on public roads

so the analogy is... disjointed. But I agree that registration is necessary. Without I the Lautenberg Amendment is largely toothless and we need that legislation to be effective. People's lives are literally on the line, daily. Completely independent of the mass shooting issues.

[EX500rider]

8. "How about getting rid of the gun show loophole?"

It's not a gun show loop hole, it is a private sales loophole. Dealers who rent space at a gun show all have dealer licences and do back ground checks, private individuals who show up with a rifle and walk around the parking lot to sell it do not, but they are not allowed to use the NICS and can also sell their guns anywhere, online ad sales and auction sites being way more popular then the gun show that comes to town once a year or so.

[Aristus]

3. If this passes, and the gun-nuts suddenly notice that the world didn't just come to an end,

what will happen then?

[BumRushDaShow]

6. They will still fight to get rid of it

Because. Restriction ("red tape" ).