In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

CCRKBA CALLS SHAYS-MEEHAN VOTE THE ?ST. VALENTINE?S DAY MASSACRE OF BILL OF RIGHTS?

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited February 2002 in General Discussion
CCRKBA CALLS SHAYS-MEEHAN VOTE THE`ST. VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE OF BILL OF RIGHTS'February 14, 2002Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 www.ccrkba.org NEWS RELEASEFor Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-4911BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON - Calling it "the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of the Bill of Rights," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today condemned the US House of Representatives for its middle-of-the-night passage of the "Shays-Meehan" campaign finance reform bill."Running scared from the horrible disclosures surrounding the Enron scandal, the U.S. House of Representatives massacred the First Amendment rights of every grassroots interest group in the country," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "And rather do it in the light of day, they waited until the early morning hours of St. Valentine's Day, while the nation slept, to adopt legislation that is a direct assault on freedom of speech."CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron noted that many of those who voted for the Shays-Meehan package are also long-time backers of restrictive gun control."It's a sad day when so many members of Congress who are already after our Second Amendment rights are now after our First Amendment rights as well," Waldron stated. "If you look at the vote, many of the people who supported the so-called campaign finance reform bill are also the most ardent proponents of gun control."Gottlieb noted that, while CCRKBA does not oppose the ban on so-called "soft money" donations to national political parties, the organization strongly objects to language that would restrict broadcast advertising for 60 days prior to a general election. The House narrowly rejected an amendment backed by various gun rights organizations that would have specifically protected pre-election advertising related to the Second Amendment. Gottlieb said that vote was "telling.""For years," Gottlieb said, "CCRKBA and others have been warning the country that Congressional zealots are not merely after the Second Amendment, but the entire Bill of Rights. Passage of Shays-Meehan is proof positive that those who oppose a citizen's right to own a gun are now focusing on their right to free speech."It comes as no surprise," he concluded, "that Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason said the bill, as written, is unworkable and unenforceable, and that some provisions of the bill are, in his words, `flatly unconstitutional'."With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2264
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have deep misgivings about this bill. It sure seems like "It's for the children" legislation which could have profoundly negative effects on the democratic process and free speech. I cannot quote it exactly, but Will Rogers once commented something along the lines of: the country faces its greatest perils when Congress is in session. I fear this may prove to be the case here.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    No doubt about it-this bill is unconstitutional. The bill prohibits so called "special interests" groups from running ads that mention a candidate 30 or 60 days before an election.For example the NRA can run a commercial talking about gun rights, but they CANNOT mention a candidates name. So they can say something to the effect "Vote for the second amendment on election day", but they cant say "Do not vote for Algore because he is anti second.""Congress shall make no law....abridgin the freedom of speech"One pro cfr house member said that they are not violating the first amendment, because they are allowing them to speak, they are just telling them certain things they cannot say..WOW! And then equated it with my all tiome favorite BS phrase, "well you cant shout fire in a crowded theatre"
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gap1916gap1916 Member Posts: 4,977
    edited November -1
    Can I be a Special Interest Group? and dont know it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DarkStar11DarkStar11 Member Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Can they say "The Democrat running for (Senate or House) in the State of (whatever), representing the districts X,Y,Z, is against Second Amendment rights"? No naming names....It is a bad bill, and unconstitutional.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Darkstar- I do not think there is a prohibition as you stated. However, one can certainly invision the cries of plugging the "election speech loophole" when special intersts groups attempt to find away to express their 1st amendment rights, without getting thrown in jail.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ibtruknibtrukn Member Posts: 443 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yeah, you can have a "say" if you OWN tv station or a newspaper, otherwise, as they say in south russia, "tuff shisski, y'all"First the first amendment.Second the second amendment.And you thought the NICS check was bad? That's just scratching the surface.And who is to blame?Well, Clyde, who did YOU vote for?HHHHHMMMMM????
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • njretcopnjretcop Member Posts: 7,975
    edited November -1
    This bill will not stand up in the Supreme Court. It is doomed.....-Charlie
    It's the stuff dreams are made of AngelNRA Certified Firearms InstructorMember: GOA, RKBA, NJSPBA, NJ area rep for the 2ndAMPD. njretcop@copmail.com
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mudgemudge Member Posts: 4,225 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The scum-bags in congress who voted for this bill (my rep. was one of them and I'll bet her ears are still ringing after she read my letter to her about it) have violated their oath of office. They swore to uphold the Constitution and then voted against the Armey amendment that said that nothing in this bill could infringe upon the First Amendment.THE SCUM VOTED AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!1)I'm not convinced it'll get out of the Senate-House Conference Committee.2)If it should, somehow, make it to the Senate, it has a good chance of being filibustered to death.3)If it gets to "Dubya's" desk, as is, he'll never sign it.4)If he gets a bill he will sign, it'll never get past the Supreme Court.Mudge the politico
    I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    My representative(Greenwood-Republican) also voted for it. But the people around here love his "moderate" status. This is the same guy who said he would only run for one term(that was 12 years ago_ and promised he would never take PAC money(couldnt keep that promise either).One can certainly see why Jim needs campaign finance-because he is dishonet, has no scruples, and cannot tell the truth.
    Happiness is a warm gun
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.