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.
Gun grabbers persist, new bill in congress
Henry0Reilly
Member Posts: 10,893 ✭✭✭
Originally posted {elsewhere} by 22WRF
Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert
-- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been
introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady
law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last
year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it
than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the
states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited
from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of
section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the
elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health
records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and
other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check
prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most
people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted
felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are
prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may
not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this
bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an
amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by
President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun
Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely
yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for
self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under
indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the
crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the
federal government all of these indictment records, updated
quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that
prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this,
too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen,
especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some
type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally
"incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999,
the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of
veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check
system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people,
as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening
for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The
problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all
children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown
how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun
community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm
is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as
soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often
mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million
Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that
our private data gets added into government computers, the more
likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of
'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill
requires all relevant data related to who is in this country
illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the
states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what
records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow
the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment
records, library records (we've already seen how these have been
deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital
records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an
illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most
virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors
of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated
"D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun
control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your
Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups
like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact,
the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report"
entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows
Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only
defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith
(R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years,
look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a
way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun
administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second
Amendment rights.
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun
organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you
contact your representative immediately. Please take action today
and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf of
those millions of Americans who:
* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check
system for no apparent reason;
* know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive
husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while
some bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives;
* have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down
completely -- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally;
* are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as
"the gun control bill that would stop future calls for gun control"
-- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills
dealing with gun show background checks, private sale background
checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration
system;
* are wondering why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked
by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant
check system has any relation to crime reduction;
* are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration
tried to use the system -- without further legislation -- to impose
onerous fees and to retain records forever; and
* are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge
should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a
gun --
I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation
sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
McCarthy, McCarthy, for some reason that name rings a bell...
Gun Owners of America Legislative Alert
-- Oppose McCarthy Gun Control Bill, H.R. 297
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The first major anti-gun bill of the new Congress has already been
introduced, and it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership.
On the first full day of the new Congress, anti-gun Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy introduced H.R. 297, the most massive expansion of the Brady
law since it passed in 1993. This is a bill you helped kill last
year, but the new House leadership will be even more eager to pass it
than were their predecessors.
This bill provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the
states to "provide the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System [NICS] with all records concerning persons who are prohibited
from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of
section 922 of title 18, United States Code, regardless of the
elapsed time since the disqualifying event."
Covered under this bill are records pertaining to the Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban, lists of persons under indictment, mental health
records, records relevant to the identification of illegal aliens and
other records.
NICS is the system used by the FBI to conduct a background check
prior to a firearm sale by a federally licensed gun dealer. Most
people are aware that NICS records include a list of convicted
felons, but there are many other categories of persons who are
prohibited from possessing firearms for which computerized lists may
not be available. It is these categories that are targeted by this
bill.
For instance, the bill expands upon the unconstitutional Lautenberg
misdemeanor gun ban [922 (g)(9)]. This gun ban, passed as an
amendment to a 1996 omnibus spending bill and signed into law by
President Clinton, was originally introduced by leading anti-gun
Senators Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Edward Kennedy.
Under the Lautenberg ban, people who have committed very minor
offenses that include pushing, shoving or, in some cases, merely
yelling at a family member can no longer own a firearm for
self-defense.
The Lautenberg gun ban should be repealed, not expanded.
The bill also seeks to computerize records of persons "under
indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year." Such persons, though not even convicted of the
crime in question, are prohibited from possessing a firearm.
The gun grabbers are seeking to force the states to provide the
federal government all of these indictment records, updated
quarterly. Given the maxim among those in the legal profession that
prosecutors can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," this,
too, is a gun prohibition that should be repealed, not expanded.
Mental health records are also covered under the McCarthy bill.
This could have a significant impact on American servicemen,
especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some
type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from
post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally
"incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999,
the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of
veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check
system.
Mental health records can also have a future impact on young people,
as this country trends closer to mandatory mental health screening
for students. In a 2003 report by a subcommittee of the President's
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the author states that "The
problem of emotional disorders in children is large -- 20% of all
children are affected -- and it seems to be growing." It is unknown
how these people will be categorized in the future.
The fact that metal health 'experts,' a notoriously anti-gun
community, would have a say in who is allowed to possess a firearm
is, quite frankly, frightening. Many in the profession would just as
soon consider anyone who owns a gun as 'mentally incompetent.'
Another sobering thought is how computerized data are often
mishandled. Consider the disturbing news reports that 25 million
Social Security number records of veterans were hacked. The more that
our private data gets added into government computers, the more
likely we are to have our identity compromised.
Perhaps the provision that would lead to the greatest number of
'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens.
Federal law prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill
requires all relevant data related to who is in this country
illegally. But what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the
states would be relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what
records are not relevant?
In order to identify illegal aliens, "relevant" records could allow
the FBI to demand state tax returns of all citizens, employment
records, library records (we've already seen how these have been
deemed relevant to terrorism investigations), DMV and hospital
records -- all in the name of making sure that you're not an
illegal.
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most
virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors
of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated
"D."
These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun
control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your
Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups
like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS). In fact,
the McCarthy bill is taken point by point from a 2002 ASG "report"
entitled "How America's Faulty Background Check System Allows
Criminals to Get Guns."
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer. It passed out of the House that year, and was only
defeated by a GOA-supported filibuster by former Sen. Bob Smith
(R-NH). Since the bill has already been around for several years,
look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a
way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
The Brady law needs to be repealed, not expanded to allow anti-gun
administrations to find new ways to strip citizens of their Second
Amendment rights.
ACTION: Gun Owners of America is the only national pro-gun
organization opposing the McCarthy bill, so it is imperative that you
contact your representative immediately. Please take action today
and spread the word about H.R. 297! We need all the help we can get.
You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Representative a
pre-written e-mail message. And, you can call your Representative
toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
---- Pre-written letter to your Representative ----
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America has told me that anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
is trying to expand the Brady Law via H.R. 297. Well, on behalf of
those millions of Americans who:
* have had their gun purchases held up by the Brady background check
system for no apparent reason;
* know of people who have been targets of stalkers or abusive
husbands -- and were killed (or simply forced to live in fear) while
some bureaucrat in West Virginia fumbled around with their lives;
* have tried to buy a gun when the NICS system was shut down
completely -- thereby blocking gun purchases nationally;
* are just curious why the Brady Instant Check -- which was billed as
"the gun control bill that would stop future calls for gun control"
-- almost immediately became a stepping stone for gun control bills
dealing with gun show background checks, private sale background
checks, and more personal information for the NICS registration
system;
* are wondering why the FBI brags about the number of sales blocked
by the Brady check, but can produce no data showing that the Instant
check system has any relation to crime reduction;
* are struck by the fact that the anti-gun Clinton administration
tried to use the system -- without further legislation -- to impose
onerous fees and to retain records forever; and
* are wondering why the folks responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge
should be put in charge of determining whether or not I can have a
gun --
I would ask you to oppose H.R. 297, the anti-gun legislation
sponsored by liberal Carolyn McCarthy. Thank you.
Sincerely,
McCarthy, McCarthy, for some reason that name rings a bell...
I used to recruit for the NRA until they sold us down the river (again!) in Heller v. DC. See my auctions (if any) under username henryreilly
Comments
Just got the same e-mail
And such people get down-right nasty when I urge them to join, help and support just ONE of the national gun rights groups. It appears to me that the majority of gun owners are content to do nothing but play with their guns untl the time comes when the government rips those guns out of their hands.
84 million guns owners and only about 5% of those owners are actively working to try and save gun rights? That is a tragic joke.
Perhaps we HAVE been 'voting'..and 'writting our elected officials" for many years...and finally realize...THE FIX IS IN...
That it is GOING to happen..the only question being...WHEN ??
Today, you guys are doing what we did,years ago..merely delaying the inavible..proud when we could bargin down some piece of legislation...too stupid to realize that WE WERE LOSING, every time some law was passed.
For my part...how stupid is it too get on your knees and beg public officials to obey the Constitution ? And trust me...were you to give a public servant an order (yes, they USED to be called that) you will find yourself in jail.
Crawling on my belly...ain't for me, any more.
Voting? What a joke. "I will sign an Assualt Weapon Ban..put it on my desk"...you boys go right ahead...pretend you know which way is up.
Better by far..you ALL be forced to decide..."Am I an American...or a Subject of the Elites".
Judging by the number of gun owning anti-gunners...'subjects' fit better then 'citizen'.
'Stopping' is not an option...wherever did you get that idea ?
Instead, I would urge you to direct your activities toward something that would have an inpact on the future.
Train your children..and the neighbors..how to effectively fire a rifle.
Lay back a years supply of that food you talk so knowlegebly about....
or two, even. See to clean water...not out of a tap. Find a means of transportation not dependent upon Washington corruption..
May I suggest that if you ACTUALLY go to work on what is important...ensuring the survival of your family in the event of a civil breakdown...you no longer would have the time to beg politicians on your knees to 'do right'...and the sense of inpowerment would be intoxicating...the REAL knowlege thatyou no longer are totally dependent upon the failing system...that all your oting and writting will only slow the decline.of......
Carolyn McCarthy. There's a piece of work. I'm very sorry her husband was killed and her son crippled by that crazy SOB on the NY subway. But that was the reason she was elected by those brilliant voters in NY. What other qualification did she have other than after the tradegy she became vocal about "gun control" and was instantly adopted by the Brady Bunch. Her only reason for being there is to kill the Second Amendment. I wonder what she would be doing if I had been on that subway, pulled out my illegally carried .45 and killed that creep before he shot her family. Would she have been a supporter of the 2nd? Would she have been an advocate of concealed carry? Would she have even bailed me out of jail? I doubt it seriously. She strikes me as brainless before and after the event. While I rant, I believe if anyone is so stupid that they cannot understand the reason for the Second Amendment, and that its only meaning is the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, then that person cannot be trusted on any other subject especially relating to the Constitution of the United States. Sadly that includes MOST Democrats, the biggest theat to freedom we face, the Democrat Party of today. Someone on another forum said he was a Southern "yellow dog Democrat". That came from total ignorance. I am one too, I would vote for a yellow dog before I vote for another Democrat. The biggest problem we face today is voter apathy. But who cares.
Actually, if you were there, you would have been branded a criminal, Ms. McCarthy would look at it as if it were a granted thing, and never look at it again.
No good deed ever goes unpunished in the Sozialist Republik of New York, you know.....
Now hang on a minute. I see an article that covers this bill on the NRA site, but I could swear that it sounds as if they are supporting it. Am I just reading it wrong? Surely the NRA is not supporting this bill. Please, tell me I'm reading this wrong.
I've not found anything on this bill, period. Wanna supply me with a link to it???
http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=197
Take another look at WHO supports it.
quote:Originally posted by Henry0Reilly
The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, is one of the most virulent anti-gunners in the entire Congress. Of the 32 cosponsors of the bill last year, 31 were GOA "F" rated, one was rated "D." These representatives support the bill because it enhances their gun control agenda, not because they are concerned about protecting your Second Amendment rights.
Also among the bill's supporters are anti-Second Amendment groups like the Brady Campaign and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS).
This bill was first introduced in 2002 by Rep. McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer.
look for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to put this bill on the fast track as a way to thank Sarah Brady and her anti-gun cohorts.
You better by God decide one of these days...Support the Second Amendment...or support the NRA...YOU CANNOT DO BOTH
I was just making sure that I wasn't reading the NRA statement wrong. Obviously not. It is perfectly clear to me now.
Look, I am not trying to start anything here,
It is perfectly clear to me now.
fitzx2,
You are NOT starting anything new here. Don't worry about it.
Some of us have been trying to wake the sheeple up for a long time.
We are fighting an uphill battle, that's for sure.
I'm just glad that it is becoming clear to you.....now. [;)][:D][:D]
Welcome to the forum.
Yes, its taken a while, but the cloudiness in my head has slowly been clearing over the past couple years. The dark haze has lifted and I can see more clearly now. The air is better too, and I can breathe. Everything seems to be in much sharper focus now, and its good.
Don't know if you are being faceteous...but welcome here.
There is nearly continual open warfare hereabouts over the NRA..some small but vocal minority feel that the NRA has sold us out...consorting with the enemy, so to speak.
Number me WITH that minority, if you please...
They drummed Neal Knox out of power many years ago...and the NRA hasen't fought for the Second Amendment since.
Welcome to the board!
It is very pleasing to see new members joining, who have, or are opening their eyes!
You fellas are in great company on this forum! I for one am glad you decided to join and post! we need more people like you! I can tell by your few posts that SOME of your greatest allies on this site will be HIGHBALL, Pickenup and quite a fews others whos name slips my memory at this time.
There is a great number of people on this site who are also having a hard time breathing with the clutch of corrupt government wrapped around their necks..
Welcome once again and post often!
This bill, cosponsored by Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and others, would improve availability of criminal history and other records for conducting background checks on firearm buyers. It also addresses concerns over past implementation actions by the FBI, prohibits the FBI from charging a "user fee" for background checks on gun buyers, and directs the General Accounting Office to audit and report to the Congress on past expenditures for NICS record improvements. I myself hate Dingell and McCarthy. But they are enemies that will not allow us to act as if they don't exist. We have to interact with them. Since I am forced to participate in the NICS process, I want the infomation on me to be accurate and true. Any inaccuracties or untruths, I want that info out of their for sure and quick. "No user fee" allowed sounds good to me. GAO auditing NICS and reporting to Congress sounds good to me. Showing concern for past FBI actions sounds good to me.
Many of the problems encountered in recent legislative debates over gun control-especially the 1999 debate on gun show regulation-center on the inadequacy of NICS records. Inaccurate or incomplete records delay firearm purchases and result in wrongful denials of law-abiding buyers. If we can't, in the reasonable future, get rid of NICS, then at least let us not allow the anti-gunners to claim that it is so inaccurate that it cannot be used to buy guns at a gun show. Otherwise, it leaves the anti-gunners a reason to use as to why they want to shut down gun shows.
This bill would help fix those problems. It sets specific goals and timetables and details the records improvements that are required. Unfortunately, the language in the original Brady Act may have allowed the previous $200 million intended for this purpose to be spent on largely unrelated projects-an issue addressed by the GAO audit provision.
Importantly, H.R. 297 provides for the removal of disqualifying records on individuals who are no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm.] For instance, if a person was at one time committed to a mental institution, but was then found not to have any mental illness, that record should be removed from instant check databases. Additionally, in non-mental health areas, NRA is aware of a number of cases where arrest or conviction records have been left on file even after charges were dropped or rights were restored. How can anyone be against removing inaccurate records?
The core of the bill is a requirement that federal agencies and states provide all relevant records to the FBI for use in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would generally include records of convicted felons, fugitives from justice, persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and persons subject to domestic restraining orders, as well as federal records of illegal aliens. It also requires removal of records that are incorrect, or irrelevant to determining a person's eligibility to receive a firearm.federal and state agencies are already providing "relevant records to the FBI". Little harm to us by making those records consistant, complete, accurate and up to date. I don't agree with domestic violence losing your gun rights forever unless a gun was used.
The bill also requires transmittal of records of those people defined under federal law and regulations as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. Under current federal law, the requirement does not apply to records of voluntary commitments or commitments for observation, and the bill makes clear that all information is subject to applicable privacy rules. The Attorney General is directed to work with state agencies and the mental health community to develop additional protocols for privacy of records. If we argue for the right of adjudicated mentally defective people to own guns, we will lose the support of most everyone. I do have some concerns about records on voluntary commitments or observation. That might make everyone afraid to seek mental help.
If a state does not provide 60% of the required records within two years, the Attorney General may penalize the state by withholding up to 3% of the state's Byrne Grant funds. If a state does not provide 90% of required records within five years, the Attorney General shall withhold 5% of Byrne Grant funds. (A waiver is allowed based on "substantial evidence" of the state's "reasonable effort" to comply.)
As an incentive for compliance, three years after the enactment of the act, states may receive waivers (for up to 2 years) of the 10% matching requirements for Criminal History Improvement Grants, if they provide 90% of the required information.
$750 million is authorized over three years to assist states in improving their databases relevant to NICS, or developing their own instant check capabilities. Another grant program would authorize $375 million over three years to state courts to improve and transmit their disposition records to NICS.
Posted: 1/8/2007 12:00:00 AM
Related Articles
James Jay Baker Letter On Background Checks
The Truth About Gun Shows
Gun Shows Under Attack By David Kopel
MORE >>
Related Fact Sheets
H.R. 297, the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007"
S. 890: Much More Than Background Checks
GAO Finds Faults With FBI`s NICS Operation
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Guide To The National Instant Check System
MORE >>
Related News Stories
Gun Background Check System Crashes
11/29/2006
Court Says Lending Firearm Not Covered By Gun Law
7/28/2006
Bill Would Let FBI Perform Firearm Background Checks
3/15/2006
Nevada Wants To Preserve Gun Check Exemption
11/8/2005
President Commends House for Passing the "Protection of Lawful Comm...
10/20/2005
MORE>>
Copyright 2007, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy
Me in red above.
But even at that, I think the NRA should oppose this bill. This appears to be a case of me having to follow my own advice. Appreciate the NRA when it does good, but forgive the NRA when it makes a mistake. Keeping in mind that the NRA does not own the power to pass or defeat this, or any bill. So it is difficult to give complete credit for victories or complete blame for defeats.
I believe that I will copy that GOA suggested letter and not only send it to my legislators but also to several people/deparments at the NRA. I hope others will also.
I'm beginning to think my support of the NRA is going to end...and soon.
I can't fathom the possibility of the NRA getting in bed with the likes of Carolyn McCarthy and supporting H297. ANY legislation brought about by her and her like must be vehemently opposed. Any support of this legislation will force me to withdraw my support to the NRA immediately and I will propose on every firearm related website and forum that my fellow gunowners do the same. You saw this past weekend the effect this had on the career of Jim Zumbo. While I do not purport an equal degree of influence, I can start the ball rolling. I eagerly await your response.
Seems to me fox, that you are being a tad too apologetic about their support of this. If anything, the NRA should oppose ANY legislation brought by this bunch.
I'm beginning to think my support of the NRA is going to end...and soon.
I am starting to think you, and others, are right. At the very least I would think the NRA would be smart enough to have the self-interest to protect their public image by, if not "opposing any legislation brought by this bunch" then at least not supporting it either.
This whole thing is starting to appear to me to be kinda like a raped woman happily appearing in public with here rapist. I'm going to get an opinion from a key, local, person.
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
Seems to me fox, that you are being a tad too apologetic about their support of this. If anything, the NRA should oppose ANY legislation brought by this bunch.
I'm beginning to think my support of the NRA is going to end...and soon.
I am starting to think you, and others, are right. At the very least I would think the NRA would be smart enough to have the self-interest to protect their public image by, if not "opposing any legislation brought by this bunch" then at least not supporting it either.
This whole thing is starting to appear to me to be kinda like a raped woman happily appearing in public with here rapist. I'm going to get an opinion from a key, local, person.
TR, looks like your perception continues to improve. This improvement in our ranks here, especially among Fox and Wounded Wolf, not to mention the few new members that show up on this forum are cause for hope. Maybe not optomism at this point, but the more members we get here that steadily become more pro-gun by reading the arguments of Highball and gunphreak and the like are sure to boost our standing with Highball's talked about 3%.
OutdoorsBest Forums: AWB HR-1022 Revisited, Text of bill included:
A BILL To reauthorize the assault weapons ban,and for other purposes.
http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=589019&postid=7146338
H.R. 1022:
To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes:
110th U.S. Congress (2007-2008)
Status: Introduced
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise bills before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee.
Bill Overview:
Introduced: Feb 13, 2007
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY] (no cosponsors)
Last Action: Feb 13, 2007: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Full Text: View Full Text of Bill
Committee Assignments:
This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:
House Judiciary
(Because the government takes a day or two to post legislative information online, GovTrack is usually current as of the start of the previous day.)
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
I have been contributing to the NRA as well, thinking (possibly blindly) that they are the strongest tool to preserve our gun rights. But after reading posts here, and then reading what the NRA has to say about H.R. 297, and what they have supported in the past... I am now questioning who they are in bed with...
I have to say guys, I've never been politically active in the past, but the current trend in "our" government is scaring the crap out of me. I have realized it is time for me to do something... anything, and I am also realizing that the NRA isn't looking out for our rights.
I just hope we still have a chance to change what is happening.
Tim
First post here guys
I have been contributing to the NRA as well, thinking (possibly blindly) that they are the strongest tool to preserve our gun rights. But after reading posts here, and then reading what the NRA has to say about H.R. 297, and what they have supported in the past... I am now questioning who they are in bed with...
I have to say guys, I've never been politically active in the past, but the current trend in "our" government is scaring the crap out of me. I have realized it is time for me to do something... anything, and I am also realizing that the NRA isn't looking out for our rights.
I just hope we still have a chance to change what is happening.
Tim
I used to be the loudest cheerleader for the NRA on this forum. For various reasons (ask if interested) I will continue my membership for the forseeable future. In regards to you, or anyone joining the NRA, doing that is much better than doing nothing at all
Welcome to the forum. [:)]
Also, I find the questions being asked of the NRA by the JPFO quite intriguing. And the GOA has a no comprimise approach that rings true to me. I think its outrageous that the NRA seems to be rolling over on 297.
But no matter, I am of the mind that, NICS, CCW, gun registration in some states, weapons bans etc, is all contrary to the intention of the 2A. The constitution cleary says that I have no duty to obey such unconstitutional "laws", because they are not law. Its time we got some stones and start excercising our rights.
The NRA can play politics with the Washington elites if they want to. As for me, I know what my rights are, and I am done "working within the system", because the system is beyond corrupt. Its time to abolish the BATFE and rescind the Brady law and any and all others that are contrary to the spirit of the 2A. I will continue to work towards that end and support those groups that are like minded.
Starting Member;
Read your last post...and I wish to call you my brother, if you have no objections.
Americans are few and far between...in spite of the Shawn Hannety's of the world, re; "You are a Real American" that he uses. I want to gag every time he says it..."Real American" is code word for "Supportbushforever/whenever/whereve"..
May I uge you...PLEASE obey ALL laws..as of right now. You are a FAR better promoter of the Second Amendment walking the streets then sitting in jail...or dead.
Keep studying and learning..I guarantee you will be sickened as you learn more about how we 'free people' have been undercut and sold out by the political/commercial unholy alliances...
I've been mainly posting on the politics forum, but am growing tired of all the leftists claiming to be pro-gun. I may stay over here for a while.
Welcome aboard.
I love to discuss politics but I agree with you about the Politics Board. I can't even make myself go over there. (Deleted, deleted, deleted....) Better stop here...
Welcome to the forum too.
They are a great *extremely* pro-gun to replace the NRA.
GOA is currently the only group I belong to, but I plan on joining the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and possibly the JPFO.
I'm glad you decided to leave the NRA. Now get yourself into a real pro-gun group. [:D]