NICS Improvements

According to SayUncle, Charles Schumer and Carolyn McCarthy have re-introduced the NICS Improvement bill. To be honest, I don’t really oppose the idea of improving NICS records, provided:

  1. There are due process protections for adjudicating someone a mental defective. This means there needs to have been a hearing, and the defendant able to make a defense and face his accusers. This might actually require modifying the language of GCA 68 to make what “adjudicated mental defective” means exactly.
  2. That NICS receive no other information other than the person is prohibited from possession of firearms.
  3. There is an administrative remedy to challenge the system and get your name out of NICS.
  4. The bill include a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

Do those things, and I’ll be happy to not oppose this bill. Use this as a covert means to disarm people without due process, and I’m fighting it. The Hughes Amendment thing is really just a goodwill gesture, you know. Considering who’s pushing this bill, I expect something in there to show you’re not just out trying to screw lawful gun owners.

4 thoughts on “NICS Improvements”

  1. How about some appeals process or way to get your name off the list if:
    It was temporary situational depression cause by loss of a love one.
    You were labeled by a flaky psychiatric resident who had been on duty for 72 hours.
    It was someone else with the same name that was committed.
    Someone who had stolen your identity was comitted in your name.

    While there are theoretical ways to appeal those things, since congress refuses to fund them, once you are on the list, you are on the list for life.

    It could almost have been the model for the “No Fly List”.

  2. I’m not in favor of people becoming prohibited for temporary depression. To me there should have to be a hearing. I’m against the current practice of having no means or recourse for getting your prohibited person status reviewed. To me that should be part and parcel to any NICS improvement. I should have made that more clear in the post.

  3. My understanding of the “improvements” includes the ability to use the trace-data, which is not allowed currently – it would give them a statistical wedge and a means to drive Brady policy.

Comments are closed.