A Coalition of States, including NJ, will Keep Data to "Supplement" NICS

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Hmmm... I don't think I saw this posted elsewhere. I wasn't sure what forum to put it in... so I chose the pending legislation section, and a moderator can move to another place if they think there's a better fit. (My concern actually is the apparent LACK of legislation authorizing this new program!)

According to this article, a handful of states just announced they will be collaborating to share information on gun owners that disqualifies them from gun ownership. Here's a key quote:

"The information-sharing group — New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and now, Massachusetts — will supplement the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, with each state telling the others about people who are disqualified from having a firearm, because of severe mental illness, for example."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/massachusetts-joins-coalition-of-states-sharing-gun-data/ar-BBJxeRp?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

This raises a WHOLE bunch of questions in my mind!:

• If it's info that disqualifies a person from gun ownership under current law, like an adjudicated commitment, why aren't they just reporting it directly to NICS?
• If they're keeping information over and above what's allowed by Federal law, what legislation (legal process) authorizes this database of highly personal information to be kept on American citizens? Is this even legal?
• What info - exactly - do they plan on keeping and sharing?  
• How will confidentiality/HIPAA rights be protected?
• Will citizens be denied (or even delayed) in exercising fundamental, Constitutional rights due to a more complex, layered background check?  
• Why do I sense this is an area RIPE for abuse and in need of swift lawsuits?

This article just struck me as a "rogue" move by a handful of anti-2A governors to create a whole new multi-state apparatus in order to deny MORE citizens their rights. The potential for abuse seems staggering to me... but maybe I'm overreacting? Overthinking this? Please chime in! I know that some of you have a firmer understanding of the 2A legal framework than I do

UPDATE: Here's another article on this... with a little more detail. Still sounds worrisome to me: https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2018/02/22/northeast-governors-say-theyll-share-gun-information-270318

 

[capt14k 2,052]

This sounds like another lawsuit needs to be filed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[voyager9 3,434]

This is trouble. It allows the states to set their own limits on who can and cannot access a firearm. Given the states involved we all know where that leads..

and wtf?

so if a person can’t buy a gun in New York they don’t drive to Connecticut or New Jersey or Rhode Island and buy the gun

 

[myhatinthering 462]

and the slope got more slippery

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

15 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

This is trouble. It allows the states to set their own limits on who can and cannot access a firearm. Given the states involved we all know where that leads..

and wtf?

Quote

so if a person can’t buy a gun in New York they don’t drive to Connecticut or New Jersey or Rhode Island and buy the gun

 

This presumably is for long guns only - if you can pass Federal NICS, but fail a state-specific background check, this would prevent you from driving to a participating state and attempting your long gun purchase there.

Won't stop you from driving to a "free" (non-participating) state for your long gun purchase.

[voyager9 3,434]

2 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

This presumably is for long guns only - if you can pass Federal NICS, but fail a state-specific background check, this would prevent you from driving to a participating state and attempting your long gun purchase there.

And what would be in a state-specific background check that isn’t in NICS?  Smacks of unconstitutional. 

This is laterally coordinating in a better way but also deepening and substantively deepening

holy s.... what?

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

And what would be in a state-specific background check that isn’t in NICS?  Smacks of unconstitutional. 

 

Whatever the NJSP is doing in addition to the Federal NICS check when they approve/deny a purchase at a NJ FFL.  Checking that the NJ FID is valid/not rescinded?

[PD2K 115]

The typical cast of rights-infringing characters...I'm shocked Moonbeam Brown hasn't jumped on this train.

[matty 810]

POC vs Fed NICS only thing