Justice Department Declares FixNICS Act a Success

FixNICS law bill Fix NICS

Courtesy NSSF

By Larry Keane

In March 2018, President Trump signed into law the NSSF-championed Fix NICS Act. This bill, and versions sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Reps. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) and John Culberson (R-Texas) in their respective chambers, was aimed at ensuring relevant state and federal agency records are submitted to the NICS database. Sen. Cornyn named his legislation after NSSF’s ongoing FixNICS® campaign, which has changed law in 16 states resulting in increase of more than 240 percent of disqualifying adjudicated mental health records submitted to the FBI.

The U.S. Attorney General was charged by the Fix NICS Act to assess the plans and efforts of federal agencies, states and tribes to improve record submissions. The Attorney General is also required to publish a semiannual report on compliance with the Act. The first of these reports was recently released and, while it is early in the implementation process, the results are positive.

The Attorney General received “satisfactory” compliance plans from 45 Federal agencies, all 50 states, D.C. and Indian tribal governments. Another 44 Federal agencies have certified that they have no relevant records and do not expect to create any in the future.

Better Records, Better Screening

Between April 2018 and August 2019, there was a 6.2 percent increase (over six million records) in the number of records in the three databases searched with every NICS check: III, NCIC and the NICS Indices. The NICS Indices, the primary source for records related to mental health adjudication and illegal alien prohibitors, saw an increase of 15 percent in the number of records.

The increase in the number of records isn’t the only positive impact of the Act so far. According to the report, “The number of Firearm Retrieval Referrals (FRRs) (where a prohibited person is able to purchase a firearm because the background check could not be concluded within three business days due to  incomplete records) decreased each month in comparison to the same month during the previous year, for an average monthly decline of 102 FRRs.”

Also, there was also an increase in the percentage of NICS checks receiving an immediate determination in most of the months analyzed. “With the exception of June 2018, there was an increase in the percentage of NICS checks resulting in an immediate determination compared to the previous year. Specifically, there was an average increase of 0.51 percent for each month when compared with the same month of the previous year.”

Immediate Determination Rate for NICS Checks

There is further evidence in the report that the Fix NICS Act is leading to improvements beyond an increase in the number of prohibiting records. A long-standing concern for NICS has been the number of arrest records in NICS without a corresponding disposition. These gaps are the source of delays as examiners must conduct research to determine whether an arrest resulted in a disqualifying conviction.

The report credits the Act with helping to close this gap: “The Act has provided the impetus for a number of agencies to review their arrest records and identify any missing dispositions. As a result, the total arrest to disposition completion percentage for all Federal agencies increased from 60 percent to 67 percent between March 31, 2018 and August 31, 2019.” Examples given for this improvement include a movement in the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to submit dispositions via an electronic method, rather than in a paper format.

States Stepping Up

Examples of states working to improve their record submissions include:

  • North Carolina, which “established a NICS Working Group of internal and external subject matter experts to ensure the State is doing its part to provide the NICS with more complete information…Since March 2018, the SBI [North Carolina State Bureau of Identification] has updated 284,289 criminal convictions that previously had not been reported to the national database”;
  • Ohio, which “established a NICS Working Group to assist in reporting all relevant records to the NICS. The NICS Working Group has been educating local courts regarding their reporting responsibilities to the NICS through development of quick reference guides for each court level within the State of Ohio”; and
  • Wisconsin, which “implemented programmatic changes to require entry of misdemeanor warrants into the NCIC. This change resulted in a 297 percent increase of misdemeanor warrants in the NCIC from July 1, 2018, to January 1, 2019. Wisconsin also has been actively submitting missing dispositions over the last year, adding more than 3.3 million to the criminal history records. On June 30, 2018, Wisconsin had a disposition completion rate of 34 percent, and by June 30, 2019, that rate had increased dramatically to 82 percent.”

NSSF is encouraged by the strong compliance by Federal agencies and states so far and hopes to see further improvements in the databases as the Fix NICS Act is fully implemented.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

comments

  1. avatar Biatec says:

    This is disgusting. Its delusional like socialism. You dont care about the 2a.

    It is unconatitutional and will never work. Stop lying and pretending it works.

    1. avatar DC says:

      If you can’t be trusted with a firearm, you can’t be trusted in public without a custodian.

      1. That is exactly the case. If you are not allowed to provide for your own defense, then the government which removed that right is responsible for providing that defense for you.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        DC, that should read “an *armed* custodian”!

    2. avatar 41 says:

      The only way gov can fix something is by undoing something they’ve done.

      More gov acts do nothing for the Citizens.

      1. avatar Mr White says:

        The way to Fix NICS is to abolish it.

        1. avatar Matt(TX) says:

          Mr. White has it right.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          NICS’ only(!) accomplishment has been to spend money.

  2. avatar Prndll says:

    ya want something done? This is better than than Walmart taking ammo off the shelves and asking people not to open carry.

    I’m not a fan of the NICS system but if we’re to be forced into this, then I expect a better system. Because I just don’t see NICS going away anytime soon either way.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It accomplished nothing in the past, and will accomplish nothing in the future, so how is that “improved”?

  3. avatar WI Patriot says:

    So, as a veteran, for every gun I’ve purchased I’ve always been on “delay”, eventually getting a proceed…so now, with the system “fixed”, I should never have to experience that “delay” ever again…

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      WI Patriot,

      Disclaimer: I enthusiastically advocate for the total abolition of the NICS system.

      Having said that, are you aware that you can get a Person Identification Number from the ATF which will eliminate those “hold” results on your background checks? While that sucks, it is a way for you to be able to purchase firearms and promptly walk out of the store with your new purchase, rather than having to return after a few days to pick-up your new purchase.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Or, (check your state law) get a carry license and quit even being entered into the system. Works in TX, as in, you still have to fill out the 4473, but the dealer does not submit it, just files it in his records. Then write a check so your credit card records do not reflect you buying a gun, and welcome to the dark side!

        1. avatar Hush says:

          Writing a check may not work as good as it should. If credit card companies can be forced to report certain transactions, the banks could also be made to do the same. Use cash it’s the American way!

  4. You will be declared ‘An Enemy of The State! ‘ Because THEY are creating the infrastructure and bureaucracy to do it with great ease! An individual or small group will have their Constitutional Rights ripped from them and those so unlucky will be incarcerated! It’s called e New World Order! A Militant, Authoritarian, One World Global Governance with redundant layers of bureaucracy to nullify your constitutional rights, making them meaningless! Help fight the future!

  5. avatar arc says:

    OK, so if this little shithole can be a GFZ, then every 2A sanctuary can remain. Likewise, I want a sanctuary where I don’t pay state or federal taxes! I’ll pay local taxes that help my local community and build my local roads, and schools, etc.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Well, when you find Gault’s Gulch, let us know.

  6. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Just follow the U S Constitution as written,,, quit trying to fix things that aren’t broken.
    Put some teeth into the law’s we have & use it…

  7. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    So “FixNICS” even has a graphic logo to go with it? Really?

    Howzabout just abolishing the unconstitutional step of asking pretty-please permission from the Gov’t through the process that inherently assumes you’re guilty and tells you to prove your innocence? That would be nice.

    If a felon got his hands on a gun, then if everyone carried he’d be put into check really quick if he tried to commit a crime with it.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      This 👆👆👆👆👆👆

      Buh, bye NICS would be better. But, it’s probably an unreachable star.

      1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

        Yup! Not when the intention is to slowly create an “Authoritarian Police-State”….One brick at a time…Have to build up that infrastructure…..

  8. Guess that most people don’t remember:

    How that the unconstitutional 1968 Gun Control Act, (Which was enacted and passed by a Democratic Party controlled congress. And signed into law by a President that was also a Democrat.), has an amazing likeness to what the Nazi’s did in Germany. In that it resembles both the Gun Control act enacted by the Weimar Republic in Germany in 1928, and the Nazi gun law of 1938. Which resulted in a nationwide seizure of the weapons of their political opponents, (and Jews), by the Nazi government. The Nazi’s were able to confiscate these weapons using the registration records that were required in the earlier Gun Control act of 1928.

    Even more sickening is that prior to those German ‘gun control laws‘, the American Army Of Occupation had disarmed the German civilian population in Dec. 1918. [President Woodrow Wilson, (Democrat), was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army at the time.] Thereby making it impossible for the German people to resist the rise of the Nazi Party into power. For the U.S. forces occupied post World War I Germany until Jan. 24, 1923. So they had to have known about the Nazi’s. (For the Nazi Party was formed in 1920, and Hitler became leader of the party in 1921).

    And then the democratic party controlled U.S. government brought over more than ONE THOUSAND NAZI’S after W.W. II and put them to work in our government.

    Those who do not learn from history are DOOMED to repeat it. How in the hell did America become so IGNORANT?

    1. avatar Lotso says:

      The same way you became so unbelievably fat: gradually.

      1. Blow it our your rear, punk.

        1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          Read your own link Dave. The paper says “U.S. Troops to return home”. Once again there was no occupation of Germany by any troops after WWI.

        2. Here you go, moron:

          “AMERICAN ARMY OF OCCUPATION . . .”

          “. . . . The proclamation also orders that all civilians turn over to the proper authorities by December 15 all firearms in their possession.”
          https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058396/1918-12-16/ed-1/seq-1/

          Go to hell.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Am I hearing there is someone so ignorant that he thinks there was no “army of occupation” in Europe after WWI or WWII? Does he also think there was none in Japan? I mean, I’ll confess I graduated from High School only 19 years after the end of WWII, But it is unimaginable to me that we would teach NOTHING about such an important period, even 75 years later.

        4. “Am I hearing there is someone so ignorant that he thinks there was no “army of occupation” in Europe after WWII? Does he also think there was none in Japan? I mean, I’ll confess I graduated from High School only 19 years after the end of WWII, But it is unimaginable to me that we would teach NOTHING about such an important period, even 75 years later.”

          Amazing, isn’t it? It’s sad that our treasonous education system is obviously guilty of unleashing such profound ignorance upon our society. More especially that many of these morons don’t realize the meaning and intent of a written Constitution.

    2. avatar thomaspaine says:

      “—————–Even more sickening is that prior to those German ‘gun control laws‘, the American Army Of Occupation had disarmed the German civilian population in Dec. 1918. [President Woodrow Wilson, (Democrat), was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army at the time.] Thereby making it impossible for the German people to resist the rise of the Nazi Party into power.————————”

      Totally False. How many times do we have to go through this. German gun laws did not disarm the German people after WWI. Later when Hitler took power he actually made guns easier to get not harder and yes he did pass gun registration but only the Jews were affected and even they kept their guns until the very late 1930’s and they could have at any time prior to their round up created an armed up rising when they still had their guns but chose not to do so.

      https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        E. David got it wrong on Wilson’s occupation army. No Army occupied Germany after WWI. He got WWI and WWII mixed up.

        1. WRONG:

          https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85058396/1918-12-16/ed-1/seq-1/

          Perhaps you should know what you’re talking about before commenting further?

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        “Yes he did pass gun registration but only the Jews were affected.”

        So… you realize you just proved yourself wrong, correct? Re read your own words, slowly. Hitler did what again? Confiscated guns from who? The jews? The people he wanted to kill?

        1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          I suggest you re-read what Dave wrote in his original post.

      3. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

        That doesn’t make it better.

        That makes it FAR worse. That makes it racist, disgustingly so. To say otherwise is to whitewash a very dark time in human history.

        If it would have made a difference or not is up to fictional history. That puts in the realm of the subjective.That said, if die you must, dying with a weapon in your hand is far better than dying helpless.

      4. NOT FALSE, LIAR:

        https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        Pull your friggin’ heads out before making any more false claims. Because I’ll SMASH you with the facts and make you out to be the utter fools that you actually are.

        1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          Go back and read your original post. Once again Hitler did not confiscate guns from the German people your statement was false nor was your statement correct about guns being confiscated after WWI before Hitler was even in power. He confiscated them from the Jews and by the time of the round ups it was too late for any armed resistance because they had decided amongst themselves not to result to violence. That is historic fact.

      5. Go to hell, LIAR:

        “Based on newly-discovered, secret documents from German archives, diaries and newspapers of the time, Gun Control in the Third Reich presents the definitive, yet hidden history of how the Nazi regime made use of gun control to disarm and repress its enemies and consolidate power. The countless books on the Third Reich and the Holocaust fail even to mention the laws restricting firearms ownership, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless. A skeptic could surmise that a better-armed populace might have made no difference, but the National Socialist regime certainly did not think so—it ruthlessly suppressed firearm ownership by disfavored groups.”
        https://www.independent.org/guncontrol/

  9. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    DOJ can claim whatever they wish,the fact remains it is a unConstitutional infringement.

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    The government declares its efforts a rousing sucess based on things no one cares about. No one cares about statistics for missing dispositions. The reason for the needed ‘fixes’ are because people somehow manage to dodge getting flagged by nics even though they’ve been in and out of looney bins for years or are otherwise obviously prohibited persons but no one bothered to do anything about it.

    And, yes, hopefully all these incremental statistics add up to a non-event we’ll never know about (since it never happened). But what I really want to see is determinate accountability so that agencies, officials and agents whose job it was to use this information are in some way responsible when one of their charges shoots up a public area and all we normally hear is “oops, mistakes were made, we’ll try much harder next time.”

  11. avatar Jayk74 says:

    The only fix that the NICS needs is to be permanently dismantled. As well as the 1968 gun control act that sets out who cannot own guns.

    I wonder with the extra submissions of “prohibited persons since the “fix”, what the ratio of true violent/unstable people who shouldn’t have guns is is compared to those getting screwed because someone called the cops over an argument or someone smoked the wrong plant in the wrong state, or maybe sought help because they were going through some stuff.

    1. Precisely, for basically it is nothing more than a permission slip. Which of course converts an inalienable natural right into a privilege. If a person is free from confinement then they have not only the right but the duty to provide for their own defense.

  12. avatar captainlouisrenault says:

    The problem is that the current improvements even though needed are far from ideal as we need to vet all gun purchases not just new guns. At present any felon and any nut case can buy a second hand gun with no questions asked and of course no vetting. This Nation is being run by corrupt Congressmen that are prostitutes of the Lunatics that run the NRA. Historical facts from other countries prove that the vetting of all guns , although not a panacea, does indeed cut down on criminals and lunatics being able to purchase guns at will.

    Fact: The Brady bill in the decades it has been enforced has not taken one gun and extending it to cover second hand purchases would not confiscate guns either. Only sane people can comprehend this.

    Fact: people in Japan can and do own both rifles and shotguns and their vetting has resulted in the lowest amount of gun crime in the world.

    Fact: German gun laws are the next most strict and the recent terrorist nut case had to result to making his own home made gun to try and carry out mass murder. It did not go well for him his unreliable gun only let him kill two people while in the U.S. he would have killed dozens. A decade ago Germany had young people shooting up schools but their increased gun laws put an end to it now for over a decade. Now think about that one as there is no counter argument against what the Germans and their gun laws accomplished. But the Germans have one advantage over the Americans when it comes to gun laws that work i.e. they are not idiots.

    Fact. Britain’s gun laws last year prevented a gang of terrorists from even getting shotguns. Result, they tried knives and got the shit beat out of them in a local bar by the patrons. In the U.S. dozens would have died.

    Fact: In the terrorist attack in France last year that killed 90 people the terrorists had to be supplied by a foreign Middle East Country that was technically at war with France. France’s own domestic laws prevented the terrorists from getting zero guns. In the U.S. the terrorists could have bought all the guns they wanted with no paperwork and would have needed no foreign country to supply them. France since then has done a very good job at preventing this from happening again with increase surveillance and without having to worry about terrorists getting guns domestically because they have gun laws that work.

    In the U.S. nothing has been done in the way of new Federal gun regulation and the Nation is once again bracing for another wave of mass murder during the holiday season. The U.S. is run by Rich Corrupt Congressional Prostitutes so the mentally ill can wreck havoc on society.

    2A was never written to guarantee the right of criminals and lunatics unfettered access to weapons. If it had been it would have stated such. No Constitutional right is unlimited because if it was you could own nuclear bombs or falsely yell fire in a theater.

    90 per cent of Americans in dozens of surveys want vetting of all gun purchases. Only the paranoid lunatics refuse to summit to logic and reason in regards to supporting such new laws and this is the group the NRA gets its blood money from.

    In Japan, Germany, France etc, etc sane citizens own guns and hunt animals, in the U.S. the Lunatics own guns and hunt humans. I cannot make it any more simple than that but only people who are not in need of mental health care will fathom the statement for no amount of logic or reason is able to convince them otherwise.

    Extending the Brady Bill to cover all gun purchases could do nothing but help gun owners by cutting way down on criminals and lunatics easily getting guns. The current insanity lets them buy guns easily. Its a simple fact but impossible to understand by the illogical paranoid people who need mental health care along with their mindless ranting against this.

    Universal Background checks is the best way to save gun ownership for without it draconian gun laws are a certainty by a now panicked and gullible public which will fall easy prey to the radical Far Left gun banners after the 2020 elections when they have their new Democratic President who will be hell bent on banning everything and we as gun owners will have no one to blame but ourselves because when we could have done something we did nothing and hoped mass murders would just go away. Well its been over 20 years since the first mass school murder at Columbine and guess what they have not simply gone away and never will until we do do something about it.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Well, that was quite the rant. A few nuggets of sense and truth, but lost in a sea of nonsense. Advocating for UBC won’t win you too many friends here. I don’t recognize your username, so I’m not quite certain if you’re a troll or just confused.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Stating an opposing point of view is within the rights of the 1st Amendment which the people on this forum defecate on at will. Your welcome to disagree and state your views but not outlaw my opposing views. The only person who is confused is you about the rights under the Constitution. As far as gun control the courts determine what is and what is not legal and because of the deliberate vagueness of 2A they have mostly ruled against 2A and that too is historical fact. I ask you what gun and magazine bans just in the last 2 years have been deemed unconstitutional including the latest from California on assault rifles. So far zero bans in the last 2 years have been declared unconstitutional. Do not rant at me for simply stating facts, rant at the courts for stabbing you in the back.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What a moron. “The courts” saying ANYTHING about gun control is clearly unconstitutional, “shall not be infringed” encompasses the courts as well as federal, state, county and city legislative bodies, because it encompasses everybody. That is the reason it is not simply included in the laundry list of the 1st Amendment, since that simply prohibits *Congress* from making a law affecting those rights. And a law being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS generally takes decades, your “evidence” is meaningless.

    2. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

      “2A was never written to guarantee the right of criminals and lunatics unfettered access to weapons.”

      Wrong, it doesn’t say “The right of some of the people to keep and bear arms…”, or, “The right of the people except for crooks to keep and bear arms…” it says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms…”

      That’s *all* of the people…

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Your looking at 2A from the pro gun point of view that is your right but most Constitutional Scholars from many, many years past including up to the present have stated that 2A was deliberately written in the vaguest of terms because the founders of the U.S. wanted wiggle room out if their power over the people was threatened. The History of the Courts have proven that they have not been kind to the 2A and merely given lip service to it and upheld most all of the major restrictions and bans and that is historical fact. I am not saying I agreed with some of the bans but it was the courts who upheld the bans.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You CANNOT be that stupid. Vague?? 27 words state in the most direct and clear way possible, the natural right of the people is not to be infringed, by you or anyone else. Read what you wrote! Tome after textbook after term paper have spent MILLIONS, perhaps billions of words trying to weasel their way around the astonishing clarity of those 27 words, including the pretense that they are somehow vague. If you think your bullshit on that subject is going to fly, you are stupider than you imagine we are.

    3. Not quite, traitor. The actual FACT is that our governments were EXPRESSLY CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN from interfering with that specific right in ANY way, shape or form. It was REMOVED from their purview. As Mr. James Madison had shown most conclusively when presenting the Bill of Rights to the States for ratification:

      Congress of the United States
      begun and held at the City of New-York, on
      Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

      THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

      RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

      ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. . . .

      . . . Amendment II

      DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

      (Limited power over which was already delegated in the original Constitution: Art. 1, Section 8 – Clauses; 14, 15, 16, & Art. 2, Section 2 – Clause 1. That being the only delegated authority over arms – in the hands of the militia. And even that only when: governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States.)

      RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]

      the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed. . . .

      . . . ATTEST,

      Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives
      John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate
      John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.
      Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate
      http://www.shall-not-be-infringed.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Bill-of-Rights-1.jpg

      And that right was a PREEXISTING ONE:

      “By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law . . . That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”–English Bill of Rights 1689.
      http://www.shall-not-be-infringed.org/preexistent/

      Our governments are not permitted to do SQUAT about our right to keep and bear arms. They can only legally provide punishments for abuse or misuse of that right. And after a person has served their lawfully imposed sentence for a crime committed. They have not only the right but the duty to once again provide for their own self-defense. Don’t like it, communist? LEAVE.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        “Our governments are not permitted to do SQUAT about our right to keep and bear arms.”

        Except that they indeed have restricted the right to keep and bear arms. That’s historic fact and there are many, many laws that have done just that and I had nothing to do with those decisions but I do not claim they do not exist either because I am still of sound mind and will. I suggest you go to New York City and try ad get a concealed carry permit or legally buy an assault rifle. Just a few of many laws/ restrictions/confiscations that did just what you claim cannot be passed but they were and declared legal by the courts.

        Bernard Goetz tried to get a permit in New York City and he was denied one and got in a lot of trouble when he purchased and carried a gun illegally. Again the courts sanctioned the laws of New York.

        1. They have ILLEGALLY enacted laws which they were CONSTITUTIONALLY EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from enacting. Not only were they never delegated any authority to enact them. But they were EXPRESSLY CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN from enacting them. Which of course means that those laws are NULL and VOID. And THAT is TRUE Constitutional law that was upheld by the Federal courts for well over one hundred years.

          That this was previously well known to those in the federal government is made very apparent by the fact that they didn’t enact ANY gun control laws until 1934 – 145 years after the Bill of Rights. Other than legislation which had supported the right of freed African American slaves to keep and bear arms after the Civil War, and for the people of states such as Kansas when joining the Union.

    4. “2A was never written to guarantee the right of criminals and lunatics unfettered access to weapons.”

      WRONG. That is EXACTLY WHAT WAS INTENDED:

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon was demanded because of what had just recently transpired in the state of Massachusetts at that time. That had concerned a law which had been passed disarming for a period of three years those that had participated in Shay’s rebellion. And that law brought fellow armed citizens running from all of the surrounding states to Massachusetts – almost resulting in another Revolution. This of course made the state of Massachusetts rescind the law and restore the arms to those that had rebelled. These events had occurred just prior to, and even during, the first Constitutional Convention. Those that had participated in Shay’s Rebellion were guilty of treason – one of the highest felonies that can be perpetrated. All of which gives us a good understanding of just what was intended by the words; shall not be infringed. Thus proving beyond all shadow of doubt that all state and federal felon in possession as well as other prohibitive laws are unconstitutional. For those laws most assuredly violate the clear intent of the amendment.

      The following is what Mr. Thomas Jefferson had to state on the subject:

      “The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.”

      —Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith*, Nov. 13, 1787. (*William S. Smith, U.S. Representative, Diplomat and First U.S. Marshal of New York.)

      Don’t like it, TRAITOR? Leave.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Except none of your rant reflects reality. The legislatures and the courts have indeed restricted 2a rights and continue to do so up to this very moment. That is reality like it or not and the Courts have never given 2a the slightest consideration or validity.

        In reality the Founding Fathers never intended any Constitutional right to be unlimited especially when it results in serious harm or injury to the public such a shouting fire in a theater to see people get stomped to death in a stampede for the door. This is exactly why we have a court system which often follows plain common sense such as the theater example and it is also common sense not to let maniacs and felons have guns either and they are prohibited from owning guns that is also historic fact resulting from laws passed by legislatures and upheld by the courts. Argue with them not me, call them traitors not me, for simply pointing out historic facts and decisions and laws and wake up to reality

        1. WRONG AGAIN, COWARDLY TRAITOR. Show me WHERE there is ANYTHING that supports that which you claim, in ERROR, in ANY of our founding documents.

          From among the rights retained by our policy, we have selected those of self defence or bearing arms, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to keep natural rights necessary for liberty and happiness, out of the hands of governments; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and beyond the reach of Mr. Adams’s system, or of any other, unable to reserve to the people, and to withhold from governments, a variety of rights.

          -John Taylor, U.S. Senator, (1792 – 94, 1803, 1822 – 24). An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; The Good Moral Principles Of The Government Of The United States, (1814).

          Mr. Taylor was AT the debates concerning our Constitution and Bill of Rights. So was this highly respected early American legal authority:

          Judge [St. George] Tucker’s Lectures on the Judiciary of the United States, as delivered by him as Professor of Law at this University [William & Mary] . . .

          . . . And here we cannot but observe, that the judiciary power cannot of itself oppress the citizen: The executive must lend its aid in every case where oppression can ensue from its decisions: but its decisions in favor of the citizen are carried into instantaneous effect by delivering him from the coercion of the executive officer the moment that judgment of acquittal is pronounced; and herein consists the excellence of our constitution, that no individual can be oppressed, whilst this branch of the government remains uncorrupted: it being a necessary check upon the encroachments of power by either of the other. Thus, if the legislature should pass a law dangerous to the liberties of the people, the judiciary are to pronounce, not only whether the party accused be guilty of a violation thereof, but whether such law be permitted by the constitution. If, for example, a law were passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble peaceably, or to keep and bear arms, it would be the province of the judiciary to decide that the power of the legislature did not extend to the making of such law, and consequently to acquit the prisoner from any penalty which might be annexed to the breach of such an unconstitutional law. . . .

          [The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser. Washington City, Vol. II. No. CCI. Friday, February 19th, 1802, Pg. 2]

          There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

          –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, Independent Journal, Saturday, June 14, 1788.

          And those are the ACTUAL FACTS.

        2. LIAR:

          “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights* seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

          –United States District Court Judge St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, July 10, 1752 – Nov. 10, 1827.

          (Mr. Tucker was a Lawyer and Professor of law at the College of William and Mary. He was appointed one of the committee to revise the laws of Virginia, and he served with James Madison and Edmund Randolph as Virginia commissioners to the Annapolis Convention. In 1803 Tucker became a judge of the highest court in Virginia. In 1813 he was appointed by President James Madison to be the United States District Court Judge for Virginia. Tucker also, as District Court Judge, sat with Chief Justice John Marshall on the U.S. Circuit Court in Richmond.)

    5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      captainlouisrenault,

      … the current improvements even though needed are far from ideal as we need to vet all gun purchases not just new guns. At present any felon and any nut case can buy a second hand gun with no questions asked and of course no vetting.

      Do you even hear yourself? It is already illegal for felons and adjudicated mentally ill people to purchase and posses firearms. What on God’s green Earth makes you think that felons and mentally ill people — who willingly violate purchase/possession laws — will abide by background check laws?

      Newsflash: criminals by their very definition refuse to obey laws!

      Newsflash: criminals who willingly violate purchase/possession laws will willingly violate background check laws.

      1. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

        Except that you totally ignore gun control law history and reality. As I pointed out in my post when all guns are vetted the supply of instantly available guns drys up very quickly. Illegal guns become very scarce and very expensive. Yes they will to some degree always exist but the success of other countries laws in keeping guns out of the hands of the bulk of criminals and terrorists has already been proven. Go back and read my original post and its examples. What we have now is pure insanity and your reasoning is not valid as its akin to proclaiming that you should not learn to swim if you never own a boat or that if we fail a few times to prevent a mass shooting then why prevent hundreds of mass shootings. Why have laws against rape and murder if they do not always prevent all people from committing them. If we did not have laws against rape guess how many more people would commit rape? I think any sane person can see how ridiculous it is not to have such laws.

        Mass shootings do not happen in other countries with the same frequency that they happen here. I mentioned Germany and how about a decade or even more ago (time passes so quickly) that they too were having school shootings and so was Britain. Britain’s last school shooting was way back in the 80’s and ditto for Germany. Historical fact in regards to their laws showed they had positive results while we did nothing for the last 20 years and we continue to have them on average every other week when the gruesome score is tallied at the end of the year. Just divide the incidents by the weeks of the year.

        History is not on your side because it shows your viewpoint is wrong because other countries have proved you wrong.

        1. And the ONLY reason that these mass shootings happen here is BECAUSE of prior INFRINGEMENTS. In addition to the fact that none of those other countries have ANYTHING to do with the U.S. For We The People have a CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

        2. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          To E. David

          “And the ONLY reason that these mass shootings happen here is BECAUSE of prior INFRINGEMENTS. In addition to the fact that none of those other countries have ANYTHING to do with the U.S. For We The People have a CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHT to keep and bear arms.”

          Another poster by the name of Minor refuted your previous claim that a Constitutional Right is unlimited as the courts ruled numerous times its not and that included the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amenement etc etc..

          Other countries do indeed have everything to do with what goes on here as their successes proves what failures we are when it comes to preventing mass murder.
          Those that do not understand the past are condemned to reliving it in the future is a phrase that is as valid today as when it was first uttered. The Far Right are poster boys for that truth.

          The Far Right has a paranoia in regards to the study of anything outside their own little town of Poddunk Junction as it just might challenge their beliefs that everything the U.S. does or has done is superior to every other country and the way they solve problems. Its the height of hypocrisy and ignorance which seems to be the goal of the Far Right because they believe the ultimate catastrophe is to face the truth which will shatter their preconceived notions on what is and what is not reality.

          Your vague rant about prior infringements being responsible for what happened in the latest mass school shooting really is beyond all sane or logical thought. Rather it is a lack of infringement that let the mass slaughter happen.

        3. The other poster didn’t refute SQUAT, traitor. Nor provide ANYTHING from our founding records that proves what he claims.

          “Shall not be infringed” means PRECISELY that which was originally written despite any claim by the courts to the contrary.

          All of the rest of your inane drooling has absolutely no depth, weight or substance. So go spew your drool somewhere else.

        4. “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by ANY rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

          –U.S. District Attorney William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829). Appointed by President George Washington as U.S. District Attorney for Pennsylvania in 1791.

          Gee, it sure looks like you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about, now doesn’t it?

        5. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          Hey E.Dave

          Now lets burst your fantasies on Constitutional rights being unlimited as in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. If both are unlimited then lets see you go on face book today and threaten some elected official, the higher the better, and then claim your going to do it with a gun you just converted to full auto. In about 10 minutes the law will break down your door and haul you away naked and in chains. Then you can write us from prison and tell us how your 1st and 2nd amendment rights will get you out of prison in the next 100 years. Your fantasies are not commensurate with reality. See a shrink.

        6. Hey Bonehead, the mere fact of any of We The People being armed doesn’t effect others in even the slightest degree. Just as the mere fact of having a pen or keyboard doesn’t effect others. We can only be held liable for abuse or misuse of those rights. Not for the exercise of those CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS. Perhaps you should pull your head out of your rear-end and learn the realities of TRUE American law?

        7. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          Sorry david e.

          “We can only be held liable for abuse or misuse of those rights. Not for the exercise of those CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED RIGHTS. ”

          There is a law against buying a newly manufactured machine gun or a used one without paperwork so you just admitted the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited because if it were you could own these weapons without restrictions along with atomic bombs and poison gas. It is you that need to get your head out of your ass as you just caught yourself in your own lies and or warped fantasies.

          Further if the courts so declare any future law taking all your 2nd Amendment rights away except for single shot muzzle loaders that were in common use in Washington’s time it would again prove you do not have unlimited 2A rights if the Courts declare the law constitutional. The courts could easily rule that only muzzle loaders were legal during colonial times and were the only weapons in common use and since modern weapons of mass destruction were never in existence then the Constitution therefore does not cover them. They have already declared atomic bombs are not covered by the Second Amendment and that newly manufactured machine guns are not legal for the public to own anymore although in the past they were. Again proving 2A rights are not unlimited because the courts have ruled such. The Reagan machine gun ban proves you wrong again. Once again who really has their head up their ass? Its you not me as I am sane enough to understand reality while you rant and howl at the moon from your padded cell. In the future before putting in to use “La Bouche” make sure you have taken your daily dose of prosaic as right now your living in your own little fantasy world totally devoid of the present reality.

          It was you that stated you had unlimited 1st and 2nd Amendment rights when in reality you do not and you damn well know it or else you would have went to face book and ranted your head off and converted a gun to full auto. You made an ass out of yourself, you were proven wrong not just by me but my Minor as well who is well versed in Constitutional and Court decisions. The only Constitutional Rights you have is what the legislature and the Courts give you not the Constitution. So quit quoting your fantasies about Constitutional rights which in most case is not relevant to reality as current laws prove it to all people still in control of their mental faculties.

        8. WRONG, dolt:

          “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”–Tenche Coxe, In 1786 he was sent by Pennsylvania to the Annapolis Convention, and in 1788 to the Continental Congress. The Pennsylvania Gazette, on Feb. 20, 1788.

          I will attempt to illustrate this, by putting one or two cases.–Every man has a right to possess military arms, of every sort and kind, and to furnish his rooms with them.

          —Mr. Christopher Gore, Attorney for the Defense, TRIAL OF T.O. SELFRIDGE, ESQ. Aug., 1806.

          [Trial Of Thomas O. Selfridge, Counsellor At Law, Before The Hon. Isaac Parker, Esquire. For Killing Charles Austin, On The Public Exchange, In Boston, August 4th, 1806. Taken In Short Hand By T. Lloyd, Esq. Reporter Of The Debates Of Congress, And Geo. Caines, Esq. Late Reporter To The State Of New-York. And Sanctioned By The Court, And Reporter To The State. Second Edition. Published By Russell And Cutler, Belcher And Armstrong, And Oliver And Munroe. Sold By Them, By W.M. Blagrove, No. 5, School-Street, And By The Principal Booksellers Throughout The Union. Pgs. 41-42]

          “Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!”

          –Chief Justice Joseph Henry Lumpkin, Supreme Court of Georgia,

          [AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 243, Nunn v. The State of Georgia, No. 36.-Hawkins H. Nunn vs. The State of Georgia.]

          Cheap Guns for the People.

          The army appropriation bill was being considered. The clerk of the House of Representatives read in his silver drone; “Sales of ordnance store are authorized to civilian employees under such regulations,” &c.

          What kind of stores asked Mr. DRIBCOLL of New York. Mr HULL, the Iowa martialist, explained that revolvers, rifles, any ordnance stores could be sold to “teamsters and to those who may have to defend themselves.” Civilians all to whom the Government doesn’t issue arms. Originally, Mr. HULL said, the provision included members of Congress but it was decided that they “had better buy from private individuals than the Government.” [Laughter] Doubtless there was much to laugh at, though the reader’s risibles be unwrung.

          Now our soon to be parted with friend Dr. JOHN WESLEY GAINES came forward as usual. He wanted to amend so that the Secretary of War shall furnish members of Congress thirty days before the sale with a list of the stuff to be sold. This so-called “junk,” he was informed, was often valuable for private use and ornament. He wanted to give the people a chance to buy guns pistols and so on. JOHN WESLEYS people are either very warlike or very fond of adornment or both:

          “I want a list of things to be sold sent to members, delegates and Senators so that they can give the list to the newspapers in their neighborhood. They will publish it, and the people in every part of the United States, in every district, can send and buy cannon or guns or pistols or the things to be sold; and the gentleman knows that all of these implements of war are very much sought after, both for the use of private and for ornamenting the corners of our streets and as relics.

          “Mr. DRISCOLL–They get the cannon for nothing now, for ornamental purposes.

          “Mr. GAINES of Tennessee–I had a great deal of trouble in getting two, and the gentleman helped me to get both of them, but the law has been recently changed, and it is easier to get them now.”

          We trust Dr. GAINES implicitly. May he have as many cannon in front of his house, as many condemned horses in his stables and as many guns and pistols on his walls or his person as they can carry. But aren’t the people tolerably stocked with firearms at present? Isn’t the crop of winter killings ample enough? “Does the gentleman,” asked Mr. MANN of Illinois, “think it more important to make it easy for the people to buy firearms than it is to buy blankets, boots and shoes?” Of course not. Mr. MANN wasn’t going to give people a chance to buy condemned guns or anything of that kind to carry around for the purpose of raising Cain.”

          Dr. GAINES subsided But why does he want guns and pistols? Can they add anything to his noises? And why do his people want them? Is he not a ample blockhouse, palisade and set of patereros?

          [The Sun, New York, Friday, February 5, 1909. Vol. LXXVI.–No. 158. Pg. 6]

          You and your treasonous kind can go straight to hell.

        9. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

          “Just as the mere fact of having a pen or keyboard doesn’t effect others”

          Boy your really way out there tonight. Try watching the evening news some time and watch people being arrested and dragged off in chains for what they posted on Facebook. Last year a man was arrested for telling people to go ahead with their plans to commit suicide even though he lived in another state and had never met them face to face. Now tell me people with key boards do not affect other peoples or their lives or that the keyboard nut case is not held liable for his posts that resulted in convincing another person to commit suicide even though it was not his original idea. I am sure they would like you to visit them in prison. Several months ago a young woman was charged with telling her boy friend to commit suicide even though she did not originally suggest he do it but rather he told her he was thinking about doing it.

          Try again you just keep digging your hole deeper. Quite while you are ahead.

        10. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION – THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND – ARTICLE II OF AMENDMENT, RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE:

          “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          Making any ‘law’ that is in contravention of that right NULL and VOID. And that regardless of what any creature of that same Constitution; legislator, judge or executive officer opines, rules or declares to the contrary.

          You ignorance has no bearing whatsoever on actual facts.

        11. avatar Allan Walstad says:

          I went back and reviewed your original comment. You might take a closer look at history. Differences in homicide rates tend to reflect cultural differences having little to do with the gun laws themselves. A very good example is to compare New York City and London. Before 1920, there were almost no restrictions on guns in Britain, yet London’s homicide rate was far higher than in New York, which already had the Sullivan Law since 1911 (xenophobically intended to disarm immigrants, just as Southern gun control laws were actually aimed at blacks—but I digress). If you want to compare countries as different as Japan, then why not compare Mexico, with uber-strict gun laws and far more homicides? Beware cherry-picking. I’m reminded of a highly touted paper (one of the Kellerman propaganda pieces) from the 1980s insinuating that the the homicide rate in Vancouver was lower than in Seattle because of Canada’s stricter gun control. In fact, the homicide rates for the Caucasian population (75-80% of each city) were identical. The entire difference between the cities was due to the differences between their minority compositions. Your mistaken view of international mass shooting prevalence comparisons can be cured by spending some time at crimeresearch.org . Your belief that making things illegal makes them dry up runs up against our long experience with the failed war on drugs. Black markets are for real. “Universal” background checks? Most mass-shooters in the US passed background checks. In other cases—well, Adam Lanza killed his mother to acquire her legally-owned guns and shoot up an elementary class in Connecticut. Most mass shootings occur in places where citizens, even with carry permits, are not allowed to possess concealed defensive weapons—either by law or by the misguided choices of property owners. Some active shooter situations have been stopped by ordinary people carrying guns, despite the prohibition; how many more might have been stopped? It seems most people on this site oppose any and all restrictions on 2nd Amendment grounds, whereas you seem more interested in presenting a consequentialist argument. Problem is, you just don’t have enough information.

        12. avatar Allan Walstad says:

          Correction of my other reply: London’s homicide was far LOWER a century ago.

    6. avatar jonhaul says:

      Background checks violate the 5th amendment and are security theater. Only slaves ask permission to exercise their rights. Why are you here again?

  13. avatar 24and7 says:

    Start executing career criminals and people that commit heinous acts..the ultimate fix..

    1. EXACTLY what was intended. We The People are to be “at all times armed” against ALL enemies; foreign or domestic.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Exactly correct, and it would be far easier to see if the constitution were consistently followed. If it were perfectly clear that a free man on the street could ALWAYS buy a firearm on a moment’s notice, what a court should do with a violent offender would be instantly clear. Lock the MoFo up! Instead, we seem to be focused on the insane concept that a known killer is more valuable to society on the street than in the ground. We just need to tell him that killing is bad, and he shouldn’t do it any more. All is good!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email