Brian, regarding your worry, didn’t you read the part that says “or in court”? I’m not aware that any federal agency can simply decline to show up when presented with a legitimate lawsuit, and the bill sounds like it’s legitimizing exactly that kind of suit.

There’s always a danger that Congress can pass another law that would screw us, but does that mean FOPA wasn’t worth passing?

My biggest worry is that this part will die the same death as the part in the 1986 FOPA that allowed people to appeal being a prohibited person. “We don’t like that part, so we just won’t fund it.”

I’m not sure there is direct funding of that sort.

Of course, given that the standards used to determine if an individual may get their permission to execute a right back is

“[the agency] may grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

I can see easier and quieter ways to defang the useful stuff.

Extreme anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence have expressed “strong concerns” over this aspect of the bill—surely a sign that it represents progress for gun ownership rights.

After all, it’s not like these people have expressed strong concerns over antigun laws simply because they weren’t antigun enough.

And, hey, what possible problem could there be with having agencies with known antigun policies have entire facilities and groups determining who can and can’t be trusted with a weapon? It’s not like the APA has shown itself to have the level of bias typically found in small town newspapers on the subject, or that the modern DSM-IV-TR’s diagnosis policies could be interpreted as only including situations where the individual is harmful to himself/herself or others.

But that’s worth giving a complete and total pass on our HIPAA mental health document privacy on this subject. I mean, it’s not like you can already contest improper inclusion in the NICS through the FBI and federal courts. Requiring those improperly included to wait for the Veteran’s Association to prove two negatives sounds like a great idea.

:shrug:

The GOA made assholes of themselves claiming it’d do new bad things rather than simply add onto the existing problems, but you all trying to pull a gold star out of this turd pile shows either a vastly higher opinion of the very folks messing up the current system or a remarkably low definition of success.

My biggest worry is that this part will die the same death as the part in the 1986 FOPA that allowed people to appeal being a prohibited person. “We don’t like that part, so we just won’t fund it.”