[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S. 649 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]
Calendar No. 32113th CONGRESS
1st SessionS. 649
To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.
This part always makes me laugh. No different than the silent filibuster. The first and second reading of the bill is only the title. It is never the entire legislation. This is established practice across the country in most states, too.
Think about it. Would there be huge political shifts in our congress if it wasn't this easy to pass law?
If the bills actually had to be read and a Senate roll call vote taken at the readings we won't have to worry about three quarters of this mess. They would get the job done and not want to go back to revisit it any time in the near future.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 21, 2013
Mr. Reid introduced the following bill; which was read the first time
March 22, 2013
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
These are the stated purposes of this bill. It is all housekeeping. It is about establishing better outcomes to these established laws. There is not that much new here and why the bill is reasonable in length. The amendments are where there is probably new law.
Maybe a better way to look at this bill is to strengthen it with better language.
Sec. 101. Short title.
Subtitle A--Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From Buying a Gun Are Listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Sec. 111. Reauthorization of NICS Act Record Improvement Program grants
Sec. 112. Penalties for States that do not make data electronically available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Sec. 113. Clarification that Federal court information is to be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
There is nothing earth shaking with this bill. It authorizes the Attorney General to require compliance with existing laws and to set up funding in the way of grants to facilitate electronic records that will provide national access. The DATA bank is simply a matter of existing public records that are currently inaccessible electronically and composed to criminal infraction. There is no registration of anything here. There is no reason to oppose this measure.
Compliance of the states is based on 'percentage reported.'
Remember the federal date base already contains some violent offenders if they also committed federal crimes. So, the federal government, in this case US Justice Department, already has a general idea of what to minimally expect from every state.
This is the standard used for states to report. The AG can't simply make it up as he goes. There is a standard prescribed in the law.
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (referred to in this section as `NICS') including court disposition and corrections records.
I do want to mention something here about the funding.
``(1) In general.--There are to be authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
This is not all that much money. It would be to any individual, but, what this breaks down to is APPROXIMATELY $2 million per state. Now there are US provinces and territories, so that is not accurate as well as tribal lands, but, this not an expensive grant program. Add to that grants already in use by states in regard to HHS and electronic medical records and this aspect becomes less expensive.
HOWEVER. Under no circumstances do these monies enter into any type of sequestration or budget cuts. I think that should be clear in this bill as well. This is too important and given the level of demands by the NRA of preferred Congressmen and women it is important these monies are never toyed with.
Also, the distribution of these funds are based on the reporting compliance of the states and the discretion of the AG. The monies assist the entire nation to build an accurate data base of those not eligible to buy guns. It is important.
SEC. 112. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
``(A) During the 2-year period...the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
``(B) During the 3-year period after the expiration of the period described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General may withhold 4 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 70 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
It could be argued this should be stronger. Basically, the 3 and 4 percent is a FINE / PENALTY for noncompliance. It is built directly into the bill. There should also be a penalty for NON-PARTICIPATION. If a state, like Texas, decides invoking this bill will insult political dogma it might refuse the monies all together. There should be a fine applied to other monies Texas or Louisiana or Arkansas receives from the federal government. To make it as painless as possible, but, still effective.
But, the percentage could be easily argued to 5% and 10% at the very least. These grant monies are important. Additionally, any private contractors invoked by the states have to BID on the contracts with MARKET VALUE contractual funds in the bid.
``(2) Mandatory reduction.--After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General shall withhold 5 percent of the amount....if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.''.
Make that 25% at least. The states have to prove by the end of the funding they have mastered their capacity for electronic records in this date base.
(b)...the Attorney General shall publish, and make available on a publicly accessible website, a report that ranks the States by the ratio of number of records submitted by each State.
This provides the opportunity for NGOs to police the states with least compliance and actively pursue better legislators and / or legislation within that state. It is also the beginning of solid information about the way guns are handled in the USA.
TITLE III--SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ACT
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ``School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013''.
This is a really great aspect of this bill. It provides a community based intervention for schools. It is important.
SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Section 2705 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``2001 through 2009'' and inserting ``2014 through 2023''.
This is a long program, too. That is a good thing. It provides time to build competency. It is a tough problem to overcome. They need time and funding.
This funding should also be independent of any funding the state receives. Let's say Louisiana wants to refuse the state funding, but, New Orleans wants to improve their school systems in the way these monies emphasis, it should be able to do that. I think The American Jobs Act was allowing that option, even though it didn't pass. But, I don't see why cities (sometimes with substantial gun problems) should be eliminated from these funds just because the state isn't interested.
I am fairly certain I didn't mention this before.
``(A) indicating whether--``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;
The audits that determine funding will be conducted by the Office of Inspector General and then reviewed by Justice to determine grants.
This is important, too.
(1) in section 501 (42 U.S.C. 3751)--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or purposes'' after ``one or more of the following programs''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:``
(H) Making subawards to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to assist the National Center for Campus Public Safety in carrying out the functions of the Center required under section 509(c).''; and
Institutions of Higher Education and other nonprofit organizations can also apply for these funds to contribute to the NCCPS (National Center for Campus Public Safety). That is interesting. I suppose of educational institutions have contracts with non-profits and/or their own police force, this would have to be a part of it.
This section does communicate with Homeland Security so there is already involvement that would justify a greater roll with the Justice Department. There should be no cracks in the infrastructure.
There were no wording changes to this section either.
That is the bill. I'll get to the amendments later.
These are the stated purposes of this bill. It is all housekeeping. It is about establishing better outcomes to these established laws. There is not that much new here and why the bill is reasonable in length. The amendments are where there is probably new law.
Maybe a better way to look at this bill is to strengthen it with better language.
Sec. 101. Short title.
Subtitle A--Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From Buying a Gun Are Listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
Sec. 111. Reauthorization of NICS Act Record Improvement Program grants
Sec. 112. Penalties for States that do not make data electronically available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
Sec. 113. Clarification that Federal court information is to be made available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
There is nothing earth shaking with this bill. It authorizes the Attorney General to require compliance with existing laws and to set up funding in the way of grants to facilitate electronic records that will provide national access. The DATA bank is simply a matter of existing public records that are currently inaccessible electronically and composed to criminal infraction. There is no registration of anything here. There is no reason to oppose this measure.
Compliance of the states is based on 'percentage reported.'
Remember the federal date base already contains some violent offenders if they also committed federal crimes. So, the federal government, in this case US Justice Department, already has a general idea of what to minimally expect from every state.
This is the standard used for states to report. The AG can't simply make it up as he goes. There is a standard prescribed in the law.
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (referred to in this section as `NICS') including court disposition and corrections records.
I do want to mention something here about the funding.
``(1) In general.--There are to be authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018.
This is not all that much money. It would be to any individual, but, what this breaks down to is APPROXIMATELY $2 million per state. Now there are US provinces and territories, so that is not accurate as well as tribal lands, but, this not an expensive grant program. Add to that grants already in use by states in regard to HHS and electronic medical records and this aspect becomes less expensive.
HOWEVER. Under no circumstances do these monies enter into any type of sequestration or budget cuts. I think that should be clear in this bill as well. This is too important and given the level of demands by the NRA of preferred Congressmen and women it is important these monies are never toyed with.
Also, the distribution of these funds are based on the reporting compliance of the states and the discretion of the AG. The monies assist the entire nation to build an accurate data base of those not eligible to buy guns. It is important.
SEC. 112. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT MAKE DATA ELECTRONICALLY AVAILABLE TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
``(A) During the 2-year period...the Attorney General may withhold not more than 3 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 50 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
``(B) During the 3-year period after the expiration of the period described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney General may withhold 4 percent of the amount...if the State provides less than 70 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.
It could be argued this should be stronger. Basically, the 3 and 4 percent is a FINE / PENALTY for noncompliance. It is built directly into the bill. There should also be a penalty for NON-PARTICIPATION. If a state, like Texas, decides invoking this bill will insult political dogma it might refuse the monies all together. There should be a fine applied to other monies Texas or Louisiana or Arkansas receives from the federal government. To make it as painless as possible, but, still effective.
But, the percentage could be easily argued to 5% and 10% at the very least. These grant monies are important. Additionally, any private contractors invoked by the states have to BID on the contracts with MARKET VALUE contractual funds in the bid.
``(2) Mandatory reduction.--After the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General shall withhold 5 percent of the amount....if the State provides less than 90 percent of the records required to be provided under sections 102 and 103.''.
Make that 25% at least. The states have to prove by the end of the funding they have mastered their capacity for electronic records in this date base.
(b)...the Attorney General shall publish, and make available on a publicly accessible website, a report that ranks the States by the ratio of number of records submitted by each State.
This provides the opportunity for NGOs to police the states with least compliance and actively pursue better legislators and / or legislation within that state. It is also the beginning of solid information about the way guns are handled in the USA.
SEC. 121. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this subtitle is to extend the Brady Law background check procedures to all sales and transfers of firearms.
I already read this and registered my concerns on previous entries. The wording is exactly the same as previously noted.
TITLE II--STOP ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING IN FIREARMS ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013''.
SEC. 202. HADIYA PENDLETON AND NYASIA PRYEAR-YARD ANTI-STRAW PURCHASING AND FIREARMS TRAFFICKING AMENDMENTS.
These are the trafficking law updates. It demands citizenship for purchase, but, if there is any intent to use the weapons in a crime there are penalties. This section reaffirms the importance of "LICENSED" gun anything in regard to sales. The government is trusting those licensed entities to follow the law and provide good serve to the public while insuring their safety. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this updated section of the bill.
If anything, this section of the bill insures the 'gun economy' in the USA. It assigns responsibility and economic permanence to the USA economy. It provides that services provided will be lasting and lawful while realizing fees for service.
...the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.)...
I didn't mention these three laws in the list above. The wording in this section is all the same as previously stated in other entries. But, I don't believe I made something clear about Section 7.
SEC. 207. LIMITATION ON OPERATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
The Department of Justice, and any of its law enforcement coordinate agencies, shall not conduct any operation where a Federal firearms licensee is directed, instructed, enticed, or otherwise encouraged by the Department of Justice to sell a firearm to an individual if the Department of Justice, or a coordinate agency, knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such an individual is purchasing on behalf of another for an illegal purpose unless the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division personally reviews and approves the operation, in writing, and determines that the agency has prepared an operational plan that includes sufficient safeguards to prevent firearms from being transferred to third parties without law enforcement taking reasonable steps to lawfully interdict those firearms.
This removes authority from ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) to carry out gun walking trials WITHOUT first approval of US Justice Department. It assigns responsibility for these decisions. Accountability and no more he said, she said. Sec. 207 has implication beyond the USA, so at some point the State Department needs to be written into the law. It is a communication issue, possibly even Homeland Security needs to be included in that level of concern. I am thinking after Justice approves, there is a submission process to Homeland Security and / or the State Department depending on where the approval will impact and before implementation.TITLE III--SCHOOL AND CAMPUS SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS ACT
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.This title may be cited as the ``School and Campus Safety Enhancements Act of 2013''.
This is a really great aspect of this bill. It provides a community based intervention for schools. It is important.
SEC. 304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. Section 2705 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797e) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$40,000,000''; and
(2) by striking ``2001 through 2009'' and inserting ``2014 through 2023''.
This is a long program, too. That is a good thing. It provides time to build competency. It is a tough problem to overcome. They need time and funding.
This funding should also be independent of any funding the state receives. Let's say Louisiana wants to refuse the state funding, but, New Orleans wants to improve their school systems in the way these monies emphasis, it should be able to do that. I think The American Jobs Act was allowing that option, even though it didn't pass. But, I don't see why cities (sometimes with substantial gun problems) should be eliminated from these funds just because the state isn't interested.
I am fairly certain I didn't mention this before.
``(A) indicating whether--``(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;
The audits that determine funding will be conducted by the Office of Inspector General and then reviewed by Justice to determine grants.
This is important, too.
(1) in section 501 (42 U.S.C. 3751)--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or purposes'' after ``one or more of the following programs''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:``
(H) Making subawards to institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to assist the National Center for Campus Public Safety in carrying out the functions of the Center required under section 509(c).''; and
Institutions of Higher Education and other nonprofit organizations can also apply for these funds to contribute to the NCCPS (National Center for Campus Public Safety). That is interesting. I suppose of educational institutions have contracts with non-profits and/or their own police force, this would have to be a part of it.
This section does communicate with Homeland Security so there is already involvement that would justify a greater roll with the Justice Department. There should be no cracks in the infrastructure.
There were no wording changes to this section either.
That is the bill. I'll get to the amendments later.
