Trojan Horse Gun Control: The NRA Wins on the NICS Bill

Last night Congress passed the "NICS Improvement Act," a bill that in prior incarnations was designed to improve the records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)--the national system used to screen gun buyers.

Much has been made of the bill's bi-partisan, triangulating support: Democrats! Republicans! The National Rifle Association! The Brady Campaign! Beyond this cheery bon temps, little public attention has been paid to what the bill actually does beyond its title. And that's because if you start looking at the details of the bill--especially after NRA-backed changes made by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn--it becomes clear that the measure is nothing less than a pro-gun Trojan Horse. That's why my organization, the Violence Policy Center, and other national gun control groups, have voiced their strong concerns about the version of the bill that was passed by Congress. Concerns that have been validated by none other than the NRA which, after the bill's passage issued a press release which crowed:

"After months of careful negotiation, pro-gun legislation was passed through Congress today. The National Rifle Association (NRA) worked closely with Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to address his concerns regarding H.R. 2640, the National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement Act. These changes make a good bill even better. The end product is a win for American gun owners. Late yesterday, anti-gun Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), failed to delay progress of this pro-gun measure. The Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and other gun control and gun ban groups are opposed to the passage of this legislation because of the many pro-gun improvements contained within."

So why's the NRA so in thrall with an alleged gun control bill? Here are some of the reasons why.

The bill would resuscitate a failed government program that spent millions of dollars annually to allow persons prohibited from buying guns to regain the ability to legally acquire firearms. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would be required to establish a "relief from disability" program to allow persons now prohibited from possessing a firearm because they have "been adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to a mental institution" to apply to have their bar on firearms possession removed. As a result of the bill, more than 116,000 individuals would be eligible to apply. States would also be required to establish such "relief" programs to restore the gun privileges of those with mental health disabilities in order to be eligible for potential grant money to upgrade records submitted to the NICS.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) used to run a similar program that, in addition to those with mental disabilities, even allowed felons to apply for "relief." Annual costs for the ATF program ballooned to more than $4 million in 1991, with an average cost of $4,800 per applicant and 43 full-time employees dedicated to processing the applications. Congress shut down the ATF program in 1992 because of its high cost, inefficiency, and threat to public safety (among those re-armed with your tax dollars: kidnappers, rapists, and terrorists).

The bill also sets an arbitrary time limit for the VA to act on applications for "relief." If the agency fails to act within 365 days, applicants can file a lawsuit asking a court to restore their gun privileges--even if Congress fails to provide the VA with the appropriate resources to process these investigations. Some prevailing applicants would be entitled to attorneys' fees.

This provision is contrary to a unanimous 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ATF's failure to act on a relief application from a felon (because of a lack of appropriations) did not constitute a denial that would entitle the applicant to judicial review. The decision noted that courts are ill-equipped to make decisions on individual applications for "relief" under the standards that would apply under the "NICS Improvement Act," stating: "Whether an applicant is `likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety' presupposes an inquiry into that applicant's background--a function best performed by the Executive, which, unlike courts, is institutionally equipped for conducting a neutral, wide-ranging investigation. Similarly, the `public interest' standard calls for an inherently policy-based decision best left in the hands of an agency."

The bill significantly narrows the category of records of people with mental disabilities that would be submitted to the NICS by the federal government. The current permanent bar on persons with certain mental health disabilities would be replaced with temporary restrictions.

Once a solution, the bill--hijacked by the gun lobby--is now part of the problem. Intended as Congress' response to the mass shooting at Virginia Tech by focusing on improving the current laws prohibiting people with certain mental health disabilities from buying guns, the bill is now nothing more than a gun lobby wish list. It will waste millions of taxpayer dollars restoring the gun privileges of persons previously determined to present a danger to themselves or others.

Yes, the bill does authorize $200 million dollars a year for five years to improve the submission of mental health records to the NICS (even the Brady law, authorized at the same level, has never come anywhere near such a level of actual funding). But does anyone really believe that the NRA is going to lobby the appropriations committees to fully fund the measure? They'll be spending their time ensuring that there's just enough money to fund the components of the bill they really care about--like the federal and state "relief from disability" programs--and that no one else seems to want to talk about. The bottom line: the known "bad" in this bill far outweighs the hoped-for "good."

The concerns over these aspects of the bill are not abstract. According to research published earlier this year, male U.S. veterans are twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service and are more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. The men with a military background were 58 percent more likely to have used a firearm to kill themselves than non-veterans who committed suicide. Add to this the fact that veterans are more likely to own guns than the general population.

Veterans with mental health problems may present special risks for gun violence. In 2000, the New York Times examined 100 rampage shootings and found that the majority (52 percent) of such killers had been in the military. The Times' review also found that 47 percent of rampage killers had a history of mental problems, with 42 percent having been seen by mental health professionals.

When the inevitable tragedies occur as a result of this bill, and veterans with mental health disabilities--given guns instead of help--turn these weapons on themselves, their families, or the public, the inevitable question will be, "How did this happen?" When that question is asked, who will be willing to answer it?

Comments

[kaveman]

Where is the sanity?

Over on Helmke's blog you'll find pro gun control arguements using the Simpson's cartoon as a reference. Here, we find pro gun control arguements justified by flying saucers, amulets, lizard men, and Cheech & Chong movies?

Does this guy really believe that he's going to win the hearts and minds of lurkers and fence-sitters by conjuring up the image of cannibis-toking reptiles?

What's next? Trying to justify taking guns away from cops because Don Knots was a bit of a dweeb on the Andy Griffith Show?

How about disarming our military based on the Bill Murray movie "Stripes."

Wait, wait...I'v­e got it! Let's base all our decisions on stuff we see on TV!

What a Utopia that would bring.

[kaveman]

Josh writes...

"(among those re-armed with your tax dollars: kidnappers, rapists, and terrorists­)."

Care to provide some evidence? How about you list, by name, just one kidnapper, rapist or terrorist who were re-armed with tax dollars.

If you are unable or unwilling to do this, ask yourself why.

[DMeadows]

"When the inevitable tragedies occur as a result of this bill . . ."

Josh, you didn't get the memo that "blood in the streets" rhetoric is tired and disproven?

Even staunch anti-gun people like Carolyn McCarthy are at least pragmatic enough to smell the stench of that kind of hyperbole, and challenge you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-carolyn-mccarthy/a-response-to-josh-sugarm_b_58113.html

[memerider]

The Bradys are ecstatic about this bill, and consider it a win. But you, Mr. Sugarmann, will stop at nothing until the entire U.S. citizenry is disarmed and the second amendment has been stricken from the Bill of Rights. Your parochial view is just that--it lacks a strategic focus.

I'm sorry about your own post-trauma memories and those of Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, and the others who think abrogating rights will end violence. It has never worked in any country where it's been tried. Criminals and corrupt government officials always have guns, and where access to guns is limited, the disabled, elderly, and women become fish in a barrel for any young punks who wish to break down their door or carjack and attack them.

We cannot predict who will snap, and mental healthcare is still mostly an art. You wish to cast a wide net to limit the rights of the largest number of people, and are thus encouraging our political leaders to create a police state--nothing less.

[MichaelHawkins]

"When the inevitable tragedies occur as a result of this bill..."

Inevitable ... yet caused by this bill ...
Not making any sence there.

[GritsJr]

The veterans currently in NICS are not in there because they had a "temporary" bout with PTSD (if there is such a thing). They are mostly individuals who were deemed incompetent because they had no capacity to manage their own financial affairs. These are people who have fiduciaries managing their money, and 90% or more receive disability benefits for mental illness. I am hard pressed to see how these individuals are going to benefit from arming up with handguns and assault weapons.

You factor in some of our young men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with several mental/emotional disorders, who will now be barred from being put in NICS if they are not under "mandatory treatment, supervision or monitoring," and you are talking about a lot of future suicides and homicides in the making. Even the Bush administration admitted that the current DoD/VA mental health care provider system is "woefully inadequate" in a formal report. The MAJORITY of our veterans are not getting the care they need, and yet all Tom Coburn & Co. could think of to help them is to put guns in their hands. Disgusting.

A service to veterans? The NRA and GOA have just handed many a death sentence, all in the name of selling more guns. Remember, every veteran in NICS is a customer lost. Also note that Coburn managed to get the federal government to pay attorneys fees for some of the veterans who petition to get their gun purchasing privileges back(!), so there's a cut for the NRA's lawyers as well. Guess Conservatives only hate "trial lawyers" when they're serving a good cause.

It won't be long till we're reading about the casualties, and the Democratic Leadership in Congress will have to answer for it because they allowed this bill to go through, some of them knowing full well what it was going to do.

[freesw]

There are few gun control measures as wrong as depriving veterans of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The writer of that piece would have them make the no-win choice of either a) losing their 2nd amendment rights, forever, or b) hide any and all signs of PTSD or any similar issue, no matter how temporary and treatable, and let it fester.
It's plainly unjust to those that have put their lives on the line for us, and paid such huge costs, often times, to do so.

[slg]

The NRA appears to be gloating about the fact criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill can now apply to get their guns back. This should not be a surprise. The more armed criminals, terrorists and mentally ill people there are the more frightened people will be in their homes and communities and the more of them will want to be armed.

The NRA never admits a policy to arm everyone but all their battles in the war on gun control suggests this is exactly what they want.

What are we waiting for?

In order to counteract the looming threat of gun nuts a loaded firearm must immediately be issued to every citizen. Safety on of course.

[Thirdpower]

And here's what the Brady Campaign says about it:

Victory! U.S. Congress Strengthens Brady Background Check System
Bill Now Moves to President's Desk: Please Call Today
Great news! Last night, Congress passed a bill that will strengthen the Brady background check system. It will help ensure that fewer guns end up in the hands of dangerous people like felons and those who have been found to be a threat to themselves or others because of mental illness.

[Idytme]

I am not pro gun by any stretch of the imagination, but what people were proposing did bother me. The news always portrayed the Virginia Tech person as "a danger to others" but from what I could discern he was sent to an institution for a three day hold for being "a danger to *himself* or others". In other words, he was suicidal. He was not sent there for a bigger, long term, underlying illness.
That his larger illness was not diagnosed or known about is a problem with the mental health system in America and needs to be worked on. Obviously there are some chemical imbalances that are lifelong.
I do think it is wrong to stigmatize someone who went through a depression, was suicidal and got better, for the rest of their lives.
I do wish that there were more controls on buying guns. I wish you had to pass a gun safety class to own one and then have to keep the license updated. We have to do it for driving, we should have to do it with guns.
I think there should be limitations on the kind and number of guns you can purchase.
I think there are a lot of ways that one can slowly go about making people more responsible gun owners (lets look to the right on how they slowly take a chunk out of every single issue they are interested in). But I do think that there has to be some recognition that not all mental illnesses are lifelong ones.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Referencing back to Bush's 'goddamn piece of
paper', unless they're printing their legislation on armor plate these days, kind
of like the old stone tablet routine but
with a modern twist, well unless they do that,
that little piece of paper isn't actually
going to DO anything to protect anyone.
Also, the NRA gets MAD cash from gunmakers.
Novus Ordo Seclorum, indeed...a­lso, what
good does a gun do you when the Black Helicopter
comes?

If you're a sci-fi fan, go back and find
an old, old old movie called Laser Blast.
It starred Mark Hamill, anyway, plot goes,
he finds the wrecked flying saucer AND
the laser rifle. He puts the amulet around
his neck, and every time he pulls the trigger
on the laser gun, he starts turning more
and more into lizard man. Cheech and Chong
kind of did something that way where their
nemesis, Stacy Keach, crack detective, became
a giant lizard after smoking too much dope.
Anyway, moral of the story is, to avoid becoming
lizard-man, stay away from people that smoke
too much weed and have lots of guns. Even if
they're dressed up as self-righteous xtians,
check for tails and lizard scales...

[Thirdpower]

As a matter of fact, it's a pretty poor analysis by an organization that is desperate for attention. Obviously the Brady Campaign is part of the "Gun Lobby" now. The VPC opposed it even before the recent "hijacking":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html

And here's Rep. McCarthy's (no friend to gun owners)response:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-carolyn-mccarthy/a-response-to-josh-sugarm_b_58113.html

Did the rest of the statistics come from Google searches? I don't see any hard sources for them.

Just remember who funds the NRA vs who funds the VPC.

[cynara]

Good analysis. I've heard nothing but raving opinion articles on this legislation, but secretly suspected any gun control measure supported by the NRA was too good to be true. Its nice to finally read someones perspective on the downsides to this legislation.