Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

"Enhanced" Background Check


Utah Bob #35998

Recommended Posts

What exactly is that??? Does anybody know?

Interviews with family, neighbors and doctors?

Interpol?

A psych test?

A written test?

A strip search??

 

I had an "enhanced" background when I got a Top Secret clearance. That took awhile. :rolleyes:

(for the record there was no strip search for that one)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H.R.1112 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)

The bill revises background check requirements applicable to proposed firearm transfers from a federal firearms licensee

(e.g., a licensed gun dealer) to an unlicensed person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think this "enhanced"  background check would be much different than a CCW state issued permit. Maybe something like an NFA background check?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Father Kit Cool Gun Garth said:

H.R.1112 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)

The bill revises background check requirements applicable to proposed firearm transfers from a federal firearms licensee

(e.g., a licensed gun dealer) to an unlicensed person.

I still see nothing that actually "enhances" he actual background check. Still relying on the information the applicant puts on the 4473.

Still no way to tell if the applicant is a nutcase that posts "I'd like to kill everybody" on line.

It's all just security theater as I heard one guy call it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L said:

It will be whatever the anti-gunners think is necessary to prevent anyone from getting a firearm. :angry:

Of course that's what they'd like. But the bill they put  through won't even begin to achieve their goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UB:

    It is what it is.

    As Joe Friday always said, "Just the facts, ma'am."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

116th CONGRESS
1st Session
 
 

H. R. 1112

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 4, 2019

Received; read the first time

March 5, 2019

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


AN ACT

To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019”.

SEC. 2. STRENGTHENING OF BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE A FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEE MAY TRANSFER A FIREARM TO A PERSON WHO IS NOT SUCH A LICENSEE.

Section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:

“(ii) in the event the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section—

“(I) not fewer than 10 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) has elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section, and the other person has submitted, electronically through a website established by the Attorney General or by first-class mail, a petition for review which—

“(aa) certifies that such other person has no reason to believe that such other person is prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from purchasing or possessing a firearm; and

“(bb) requests that the system respond to the contact referred to in subparagraph (A) within 10 business days after the date the petition was submitted (or, if the petition is submitted by first-class mail, the date the letter containing the petition is postmarked); and

“(II) 10 business days have elapsed since the other person so submitted the petition, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section; and”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

“(7) The Attorney General shall—

“(A) prescribe the form on which a petition shall be submitted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii);

“(B) make the form available electronically, and provide a copy of the form to all licensees referred to in paragraph (1);

“(C) provide the petitioner and the licensee involved written notice of receipt of the petition, either electronically or by first-class mail; and

“(D) respond on an expedited basis to any such petition received by the Attorney General.

“(8) (A) If, after 3 business days have elapsed since the licensee initially contacted the system about a firearm transaction, the system notifies the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would not violate subsection (g) or (n), the licensee may continue to rely on that notification for the longer of—

“(i) an additional 25 calendar days after the licensee receives the notification; or

“(ii) 30 calendar days after the date of the initial contact.

“(B) If such other person has met the requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(ii) before the system destroys the records related to the firearm transaction, the licensee may continue to rely on such other person having met the requirements for an additional 25 calendar days after the date such other person first met the requirements.”.

SEC. 3. GAO REPORTS.

Within 90 days after the end of each of the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year periods that begin with the effective date of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report analyzing the extent to which, during the respective period, paragraphs (1)(B)(ii) and (7) of section 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, have prevented firearms from being transferred to prohibited persons, which report shall include but not be limited to the following—

(1) an assessment of the overall implementation of such subsections, including a description of the challenges faced in implementing such paragraphs; and

(2) an aggregate description of firearm purchase delays and denials, and an aggregate analysis of the petitions submitted pursuant to such paragraph (1)(B)(ii).

SEC. 4. REPORTS ON PETITIONS SUPPORTING FIREARM TRANSFERS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPROVED BY NICS SYSTEM, THAT WERE NOT RESPONDED TO IN A TIMELY MANNER.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make an annual report to the public on the number of petitions received by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that were submitted pursuant to subclause (I) of section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) of title 18, United States Code, with respect to which a determination was not made within the 10-day period referred to in subclause (II) of such section.

SEC. 5. NEW TERMINOLOGY FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) by striking “adjudicated as a mental defective” and inserting “adjudicated with mental illness, severe developmental disability, or severe emotional instability”.

SEC. 6. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.

Within 150 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation with the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and Firearms, shall submit to the Congress a report analyzing the effect, if any, of this Act on the safety of victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and whether any further amendments to the background check process, including amendments to the conditions that must be met under this Act for a firearm to be transferred when the system has not notified the licensee that such transfer would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, would likely result in a reduction in the risk of death or great bodily harm to victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse, dating partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 2019.

Attest:

Cheryl L. Johnson,

Clerk.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically it is giving the government the right to approve and the ability to record a transfer of a legal firearm from my uncle 3 blocks up the street to me, with neither of us being prohibited persons, which currently requires no transfer through a FFL holder under Federal law.

 

For what it's worth, the courts have declared that it is a violation of a criminal's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination to require a criminal to register a firearm that he possesses illegally to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

What exactly is that??? Does anybody know?

Interviews with family, neighbors and doctors?

Interpol?

A psych test?

A written test?

A strip search??

 

I had an "enhanced" background when I got a Top Secret clearance. That took awhile. :rolleyes:

(for the record there was no strip search for that one)

I believe it’ll apply to all private sales too. That’s what the talk was and it’s already implemented in some states. Our RINO governor is pushing it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I believe it’ll apply to all private sales too. That’s what the talk was and it’s already implemented in some states. Our RINO governor is pushing it!!

Yeah we have that here, but there’s nothing “enhanced” about it. Same ole 4473. At the local gun show a dealer has a table set up to process em. Takes about 10 minutes. Just kind of an inconvenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

So, it is basically an extension, giving the government 10 days, instead of the old 3 day limit, to perform the background check and object.

 

 

That's the only thing I see. Pretty dumb.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, you have all missed the big change

 

SEC. 5. NEW TERMINOLOGY FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) by striking “adjudicated as a mental defective” and inserting “adjudicated with mental illness, severe developmental disability, or severe emotional instability”.

 

Now you may think the change is in the form of political correctness in the terminology, but it is most definitely not!

 

Under the new definition, everyone receiving disability benefits for mental health would be instantly barred from legal gun purchase, and the very broad definition change would make it very easy to deny people rights.  Anorexic- no gun for you Bulemic, no gun for you either, binge eater-nope, that is a mental health disorder.  Think I am overreacting?  Understand that when it changes in this statute, the definition can be carried over to future legislation without specifically being included.

 

Mental defective is a very narrow term

 

mentally defective

 adjective Referring to a person who has been determined by a court, board, commissioner other lawful authority—as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition or disease—as one who:
(1)  Is a danger to him- or herself, or to others; or
(2)  Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs.

noun
(1)  A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case;
(2)  A person found to be incompetent to stand trial, or found not guilty, by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
 
We should all be screaming bloody murder about this if we want to legally keep our guns.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears it covers a whole range of diagnoses.  Also disturbing is it also would likely change what Adjudicated means as it applies to what due process might be required- could a City judge's adjudication without provided legal counsel or a jury be enough?  I'll let your imagination be your guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2019 at 6:13 PM, J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE said:

It appears it covers a whole range of diagnoses.  Also disturbing is it also would likely change what Adjudicated means as it applies to what due process might be required- could a City judge's adjudication without provided legal counsel or a jury be enough?  I'll let your imagination be your guide.

Exactly. Adjudicated can be interpreted as someone “making a formal judgement or decision”. Doesn’t have to be a court of law. Could be some “Gun Tzar” appointed by politicians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to requiring all gun sales go through an FFL with the NICS check, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation must clear the recipient of any domestic violence records, restraining orders, etc. IIRC, CBI does their check and then the NICS check.  Most FFL's will charge a fee of $10-15.

 

The question I have is, IF Congress were to pass universal background checks nation-wide (and assuming the president signs it), would Congress also appropriate the money to hire additional personnel to process the checks?  If not, there would be a tremendous bottleneck, and who knows how long it would take to get an approval! :o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

...The question I have is, IF Congress were to pass universal background checks nation-wide (and assuming the president signs it), would Congress also appropriate the money to hire additional personnel to process the checks?  If not, there would be a tremendous bottleneck, and who knows how long it would take to get an approval! :o

 

 

Like the Gov't would even care...

 

:angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the antis really cared about reducing gun-related violence all they'd need to do is increase funding for BATFe. They are probably the most under-funded agency in the entire government and can't even send agents out into the field to check on FFLs and verify their books are accurate anymore. It's not until there's a huge problem that they can even spare agents to follow up on anything. No wonder why so many illegal gun sales fall through the cracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find in the proposed bill where it requires that non-FFL to Non-FFL transfers are required to go through a FFL which currently only applies to transfers between residents of different states.  Transfers between residents of the same state are not in interstate commerce; therefore, a Federal UBC law would be unconstitutional.  The law could require FFL's to process these transfers through the NICS system; but, can't compel the citizen or permanent resident alien residents to involve an FFL in the transfer.  Only the Sates can do this; so, to incentivize the States to pass UBC laws would have to offer a bribe for the States to adopt a UBC law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.