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.
Dang NRA!
Mr. Gunz
Member Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone
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
"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long
opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post,
June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past
couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a
"compromise" on gun control legislation.
The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong
signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written.
The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who
are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did
something about Virginia Tech.
So what's going on?
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see
http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA
leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the
McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been
introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been
posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative
particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as
reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves
legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government
would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send
more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the
background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds
could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence,
this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The
states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names,
many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and
perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.
Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with
minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have
their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000
military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a
chance to clean their records."
Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning
up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are
currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is
aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the
Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from
the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the
83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in
the NICS system.
After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs
are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for
cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there
is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the
NICS system.
Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which
prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are
barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed,
then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for
inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a
disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.
Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability
to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have
suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for
their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt,
have to
spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive
recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.
And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our
whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent
until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives
defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of
a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to
the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due
process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added
by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally,
added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now
the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that
backwards?
One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in
getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who
tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very
difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though
the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in
confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest
people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the
government, rather than vice-versa.
The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's
interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any
court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000
veterans.
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law.
GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an
amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the
FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton
administration was considering doing.
GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the
Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told
that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith
amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!
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 HR 2640! 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. You can call your Representative at
202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on
McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR
2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this
bill.
All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second
Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is
acceptable... period.
If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:
"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."
Sincerely,
****************************
New Shocking DVD!
"The Gang," subtitled How A Government Agency Uses The Law To
Destroy
Your Rights And Freedoms, is a DVD that details how the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has grown from a
tiny cell to a cancer that sucks a billion dollars a year from
taxpayers for the harassment of gun owners. BATFE -- The Gang -- has
no constitutional authority. It has no rules, and no congressional
oversight that holds it accountable.
A highly professional production from Jews for Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, the DVD has outraged viewers who were not
sympathetic to gun ownership and convinced them that BATFE has to go.
Finally, America can see what this increasingly rogue agency is
doing. "The Gang" could end the career of America's Gestapo
if enough
people see it. Now available through Gun Owners Foundation at just
$25.
Also produced by JPFO: Innocents Betrayed. This DVD was shown by a
Philadelphia social studies teacher to all of his classes. It turned
the students completely around, even though they were being taught
gun control in all their other classes. Extensively documents that
all 20th century genocides were preceded by firearms registration and
confiscation.
Please see http://www.gunowners.com/resource.htm to order either or
both of these DVDs (and check out our ongoing book sale at the same
time).
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to
gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=86427509&queueid=1245606266.
-- Your hard work in bottling up this bill is about to be undone
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
"[The] more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America,... has long
opposed McCarthy's background-check bill." -- The Washington Post,
June 9, 2007
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
While the entire nation was focused on the immigration bill the past
couple of weeks, the gremlins on Capitol Hill were finalizing a
"compromise" on gun control legislation.
The good news is that your tremendous outpouring of opposition to
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy's Brady enhancement (HR 297) has sent a strong
signal to Capitol Hill that this bill is unacceptable as written.
The bad news is that there are some seemingly pro-gun Congressmen who
are driven to get anything passed, just so they can say they did
something about Virginia Tech.
So what's going on?
On Saturday, The Washington Post reported [ see
http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn ] that both the Democrats and the NRA
leadership had reached a "deal" on legislation similar to the
McCarthy bill. This "deal" involves a new bill that has been
introduced by Rep. McCarthy (HR 2640) -- a bill that has not yet been
posted on the Thomas legislative service. While all the legislative
particulars are not yet available, one thing is clear: it is, as
reported by the Post, a deal with Democrats. And it involves
legislation introduced by the most anti-gun member of the House, Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).
The Post says that, under the new language, the federal government
would pay (that is, spend taxpayers' money) to help the states send
more names of individual Americans to the FBI for inclusion in the
background check system. If a state fails to do this, then the feds
could cut various law enforcement grants to that state. In essence,
this is a restatement of what the original McCarthy bill does. The
states will be bribed (again, with your money) to send more names,
many of them innocent gun owners, to the FBI in West Virginia -- and
perhaps lots of other personal information on you as well.
Under the terms of this compromise, the Post says, "individuals with
minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have
their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000
military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans
Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a
chance to clean their records."
Oh really? The Brady law already contains a procedure for cleaning
up records. But it hasn't worked for the 83,000 veterans that are
currently prohibited from buying guns. Gun Owners of America is
aware of many people who have tried to invoke this procedure in the
Brady Law, only to get the run around -- and a form letter -- from
the FBI. The simple truth is that the FBI and the BATFE think the
83,000 veterans, and many other law-abiding Americans, should be in
the NICS system.
After all, that's what federal regulations decree. Unless these regs
are changed, Congress can create as many redundant procedures for
cleaning up these records as it wants, but the bottom line is, there
is nothing that will force the FBI to scrub gun owners' name from the
NICS system.
Not only that, there is a Schumer amendment in federal law which
prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who are
barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not repealed,
then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your name for
inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to be a
disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.
Moreover, will gun owners who are currently being denied the ability
to purchase firearms -- such as the military veterans who have
suffered from post-traumatic stress -- be recompensed in any way for
their efforts to "clean their records"? They will, no doubt,
have to
spend thousands of dollars going to a shrink for a positive
recommendation, for hiring lawyers to take their case to court, etc.
And this is not to mention the fact that this procedure turns our
whole legal system on its head. Americans are presumed innocent
until PROVEN guilty. But these brave souls, who risked their lives
defending our country, were denied the right to bear arms because of
a mental illness "loophole" in the law. Their names were added to
the prohibited purchasers' list in West Virginia without any due
process, without any trial by jury... no, their names were just added
by executive fiat. They were unilaterally, and unconstitutionally,
added into the NICS system by the Clinton administration. And now
the burden of proof is ON THEM to prove their innocence. Isn't that
backwards?
One wonders if these military veterans will be any more successful in
getting back their gun rights than the gun owners in New Orleans who
tried to get back their firearms which were confiscated in the wake
of Hurricane Katrina. (Gun owners in the Big Easy have found it very
difficult to prove their case and get their guns back, even though
the courts have ruled that the police acted improperly in
confiscating their firearms.) But isn't that the problem when honest
people are thrust into the position of PROVING their innocence to the
government, rather than vice-versa.
The fact is, current federal law -- combined with BATFE's
interpretations of that law -- will make it very unlikely that any
court will restore the Second Amendment rights of those 83,000
veterans.
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law.
GOA had to overcome opposition from certain pro-gun groups to help
Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduce and push his language as an
amendment to an appropriations bill. The Smith amendment barred the
FBI from taxing gun buyers, something which the Clinton
administration was considering doing.
GOA won the vote in the Senate with a veto-proof majority and the
Smith amendment has been law ever since. But now we're being told
that we need to swallow McCarthy's poison pill so that the Smith
amendment -- which is currently law -- will stay on the books. Huh?!
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 HR 2640! 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. You can call your Representative at
202-225-3121, or you can call your Representative toll-free at
1-877-762-8762.
Pre-written letter
Dear Representative:
Gun Owners of America tells me there is a compromise brewing on
McCarthy's Brady expansion legislation -- the recently introduced HR
2640. I want you to know that grassroots gun owners OPPOSE this
bill.
All the compromises on the table continue to infringe upon the Second
Amendment. Please understand that no new gun control whatsoever is
acceptable... period.
If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:
"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."
Sincerely,
****************************
New Shocking DVD!
"The Gang," subtitled How A Government Agency Uses The Law To
Destroy
Your Rights And Freedoms, is a DVD that details how the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has grown from a
tiny cell to a cancer that sucks a billion dollars a year from
taxpayers for the harassment of gun owners. BATFE -- The Gang -- has
no constitutional authority. It has no rules, and no congressional
oversight that holds it accountable.
A highly professional production from Jews for Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, the DVD has outraged viewers who were not
sympathetic to gun ownership and convinced them that BATFE has to go.
Finally, America can see what this increasingly rogue agency is
doing. "The Gang" could end the career of America's Gestapo
if enough
people see it. Now available through Gun Owners Foundation at just
$25.
Also produced by JPFO: Innocents Betrayed. This DVD was shown by a
Philadelphia social studies teacher to all of his classes. It turned
the students completely around, even though they were being taught
gun control in all their other classes. Extensively documents that
all 20th century genocides were preceded by firearms registration and
confiscation.
Please see http://www.gunowners.com/resource.htm to order either or
both of these DVDs (and check out our ongoing book sale at the same
time).
****************************
Please do not reply directly to this message, as your reply will
bounce back as undeliverable.
To subscribe to free, low-volume GOA alerts, go to
http://www.gunowners.org/ean.htm on the web. Change of e-mail
address may also be made at that location.
To unsubscribe send a message to
gunowners_list@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in
the subject line or use the url below.
Problems, questions or comments? The main GOA e-mail address
goamail@gunowners.org is at your disposal. Please do not add that
address to distribution lists sending more than ten messages per
week or lists associated with issues other than gun rights.
---
If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please visit
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/lmx/u/?jobid=86427509&queueid=1245606266.
Comments
To permit is to control. To permit is to convert a fundamental right to a privilege
How one exercises a right becomes a legitimate concern to civil authority only when one's behavior regarding that right actually harms another. Neither civil authority, nor anyone else, has any legitimate basis to complain about the responsible, non-harmful exercise of any right. This includes otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely carry a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense without a CCW permit. The key is: what is the citizen's behavior, not whether he or she also carries a piece of government issued paper called a permit
Life is full of risks. Civil authority and citizens must be willing to take risks with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law. The alternative is Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law. The risks associated with Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law outweigh those associated with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law
Do you realize that when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it has the sole power to determine what is and is not Constitutional, and that it, and all government, is cloaked with immunity, that the Judiciary perverted Mankind's greatest achievement-the Bill of Rights-and made you an unwilling party to a one sided contract, a contract of adhesion
If you are inclined to support more victim disarmament laws, why? Why are you more comfortable with only criminals and cops having guns instead of law-abiding citizens also having guns? Why do you want to move the United States toward a police state? Do you realize that when citizens are disarmed and the streets are safe only for police and criminals, that is the classic definition of a police state? Where is the virtue in this: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a strangled, raped female and a long-gone rapist? Is this not more virtuous: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a criminal assailant prone, bleeding, with two bullet holes in his chest and a live, unharmed female
After September 11, are not all citizens now on the front lines? If so, why does civil authority inexplicably treat us as cattle or the enemy or suspects instead of as citizens?
Firearms are inanimate objects made of metal, wood and plastic. They are incapable of human thought or emotion. They cannot form the intent to commit an "assault". The only thing a loaded firearm can do without human intervention is . . . . What? Answer: Self-destruct via a mechanism called rust. Self-destruction is the opposite of commit an assault. Where is the hard, verifiable, objective proof that any firearm in the history of firearms has done any of the following: Formed the intent to commit an assault? Loaded itself? Selected a target? Aimed itself? Pulled its own trigger?
Burn this into your psyche: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject-and worse: a piss ant. Civil authority has to take a citizen seriously. Civil authority can ignore, flatten, incarcerate, and execute a piss ant. Which would you rather be: a citizen or a piss ant?
Burn this also into your psyche: A gun in the hand is better than a dispatcher on the phone or a cop in route.
Attorney at Law
Forgot to include the author.quote:Originally posted by IAMAHUSKER
A right is something one can exercise in private, without having to get anyone's permission first, and without even having to disclose to anyone that one is, or is not, exercising the right. A right, and what one does, or does not do with it, is one's business and no one else's business. A right is also 100% immune from all forms of prior restraint and infringement. Civil authority can legitimately, and Constitutionally, punish, after the fact, behavior that is an abuse of the right. Civil authority cannot, however, legitimately, and Constitutionally, impose prior restraints on the exercise of the right. Such prior restraints reduce a fundamental right to a privilege.
To permit is to control. To permit is to convert a fundamental right to a privilege
How one exercises a right becomes a legitimate concern to civil authority only when one's behavior regarding that right actually harms another. Neither civil authority, nor anyone else, has any legitimate basis to complain about the responsible, non-harmful exercise of any right. This includes otherwise law-abiding citizens who merely carry a weapon in a public place for lawful self-defense without a CCW permit. The key is: what is the citizen's behavior, not whether he or she also carries a piece of government issued paper called a permit
Life is full of risks. Civil authority and citizens must be willing to take risks with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law. The alternative is Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law. The risks associated with Oppression, Tyranny, and Any Rule of Law outweigh those associated with Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitutional Rule of Law
Do you realize that when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it has the sole power to determine what is and is not Constitutional, and that it, and all government, is cloaked with immunity, that the Judiciary perverted Mankind's greatest achievement-the Bill of Rights-and made you an unwilling party to a one sided contract, a contract of adhesion
If you are inclined to support more victim disarmament laws, why? Why are you more comfortable with only criminals and cops having guns instead of law-abiding citizens also having guns? Why do you want to move the United States toward a police state? Do you realize that when citizens are disarmed and the streets are safe only for police and criminals, that is the classic definition of a police state? Where is the virtue in this: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a strangled, raped female and a long-gone rapist? Is this not more virtuous: the police arrive at a crime scene and find a criminal assailant prone, bleeding, with two bullet holes in his chest and a live, unharmed female
After September 11, are not all citizens now on the front lines? If so, why does civil authority inexplicably treat us as cattle or the enemy or suspects instead of as citizens?
Firearms are inanimate objects made of metal, wood and plastic. They are incapable of human thought or emotion. They cannot form the intent to commit an "assault". The only thing a loaded firearm can do without human intervention is . . . . What? Answer: Self-destruct via a mechanism called rust. Self-destruction is the opposite of commit an assault. Where is the hard, verifiable, objective proof that any firearm in the history of firearms has done any of the following: Formed the intent to commit an assault? Loaded itself? Selected a target? Aimed itself? Pulled its own trigger?
Burn this into your psyche: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject-and worse: a piss ant. Civil authority has to take a citizen seriously. Civil authority can ignore, flatten, incarcerate, and execute a piss ant. Which would you rather be: a citizen or a piss ant?
Burn this also into your psyche: A gun in the hand is better than a dispatcher on the phone or a cop in route.
Sad days indeed.[V]
Anyone ready to revive the petition yet????? It is obvious to me the NRA leadership has a reading comprehension problem!!!! (Dyslexia from hellO)
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark
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/ordergoamem.htm
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.
At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).
Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.
Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."
Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?
The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.
After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.
Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.
The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.
But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?
For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.
Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."
The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.
This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.
Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).
Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.
We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.
Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.
This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.
But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.
The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.
Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.
Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.
Stay tuned. There is more to come.
permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for
their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already
won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith
amendment into law."
Boy am I glad I don't have to pay the $35 to get my NICS checks done, thanks, GOA!
"Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table."
Former Board members aren't part of the NRA leadership, no matter what Gottlieb tries to imply.
"But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat."
Probably due to the 3.5 million NRA members who actually got off their butts and contacted their reps., instead of the what, 30,000 or so GOA members who revel in bashing other gun groups, yet rarely do anything to save their beloved guns.
This situation will remain with us until and if one side or the other feels confident enough to force the issue to the US Supreme Court.
Again, blame the framers of the US Constitution for this state of affairs. Don't blame the NRA.
We gun people have a weakness problem with our "rights". Blame the framers of the bill of rights and their apparently inability to cleary express our gun rights in the 2A. Because of that mistake, we cannot insist, without opposition that at leaset appears to have some basis in fact, that our 2A is a clear and inviolate right as many of you claim. Because of this we pro-gun people have no choice but to try and find some middle ground between us and the anti-gun people. Finding "middle ground" sometimes means and/or looks like a compromise.
This situation will remain with us until and if one side or the other feels confident enough to force the issue to the US Supreme Court.
Again, blame the framers of the US Constitution for this state of affairs. Don't blame the NRA.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms......What part of that says compromise to you ?
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
We gun people have a weakness problem with our "rights". Blame the framers of the bill of rights and their apparently inability to cleary express our gun rights in the 2A. Because of that mistake, we cannot insist, without opposition that at leaset appears to have some basis in fact, that our 2A is a clear and inviolate right as many of you claim. Because of this we pro-gun people have no choice but to try and find some middle ground between us and the anti-gun people. Finding "middle ground" sometimes means and/or looks like a compromise.
This situation will remain with us until and if one side or the other feels confident enough to force the issue to the US Supreme Court.
Again, blame the framers of the US Constitution for this state of affairs. Don't blame the NRA.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms......What part of that says compromise to you ?
Actually, nowhere in the 2A does it mention "compromise". However, if you will look out your front door, you will notice that compromise in a democracy or a republic is the only way to make things work. Compromise happens all the time in government, business, interpersonal relations and even in your own personal life. You are lying if you claim that you never compromise. So it is with our imperfect rights.
The only way to not compromise on many issues is if we could somehow bring the framers of our US Constitution back from the dead. Have them make every decision for us in regards to making a new law or not. And have them base that decision upon EXACTLY what they meant when they wrote the constitution. Then we would not have to debate, argue and "compromise" on so much.
Totally and completely rejecting the idea of "compromise" only means you have divorced yourself from reality. Much as if you refuse to go see a professional football or basketball game unless you can be assured that there will be no mistakes, errors or bad umpire calls. Everyone, even professional sports teams have to sometimes live with "compromises." That is just how it is.
Fox, are you off your rocker?!?!? WTH? I have listened to to you now for what? 4 years? You have evolved from a mostly ardent backer of 2A to a hair splitter that really only cares about defending the worthless NRA!! I can't stomach it anymore, what did you do with the REAL tr fox?http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=89898 http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=77655
Until the US Supreme Court makes the final decision, the imperfectly worded 2A cannot be perfectly defended. I want organizations fighting for gun rights to understand that.
If an when the Supremes decide that the 2A gives total and complete firearms rights, then I will insist on no compromise gun rights. In the meantime, I must work with what I have.
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
Fox, are you off your rocker?!?!? WTH? I have listened to to you now for what? 4 years? You have evolved from a mostly ardent backer of 2A to a hair splitter that really only cares about defending the worthless NRA!! I can't stomach it anymore, what did you do with the REAL tr fox?http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=89898 http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=77655
Until the US Supreme Court makes the final decision, the imperfectly worded 2A cannot be perfectly defended. I want organizations fighting for gun rights to understand that.
If an when the Supremes decide that the 2A gives total and complete firearms rights, then I will insist on no compromise gun rights. In the meantime, I must work with what I have.
What do they say it means now???
Actually, it would seem like a better use of our time, rather than so many getting mad at me, or criticizing the NRA for being imperfect, or us all arguing among ourselves, it would seem better if we would mount a campaign and when the time is right, try to force a Supreme Court Decision on the matter.
Of course we risk losing all our gun rights by a decision that goes against us and in a case like that we will all look back fondly on the days when we still had guns rights with which to do the occassional "compromise."
However, as I mentioned, if such a decision went in our favor and it was decided that the framers of the US Constitution meant uncompromised firearm ownership for the citizens, then I will join those who are advocating that now.
To sum up. If you only have one leg to stand on, it is usually foolish to try and act like you have two. Oh, I guess in some situations (not gun rights) a bluff might win the fight for you, but it can also cause you to ignore other ways of trying to help yourself that in the short run might save you to fight another day. I.E., as long as we citizens still have gun ownership rights, even somewhat restricted, it will be easier in the future to demand total and complete gun rights.
But if we lose all gun rights, it will be extremely difficult to in the future demand a RETURN of gun rights. In fact, if we lose all gun rights, and citizen gun rights are a relic of the past, that might even destroy our hopes of obtaining ANY gun rights in the future. Let alone total and unrestricted gun rights.
Bottomline that I think everyone willl agree with. It is much, much easier to get one of your existing rights expanded than it is to demand and receive a right you don't (or no longer) have. Does anyone here, using their life experiences, disagree with that?
I don't see the scenario, of an attempt at a ruling from the SCOTUS, as being dangerous to our existing rights.
Lets think about this logically,.......even if they did not rule the way that I would like, I believe they would leave things the way they are,......in a kind of "limbo". There is not the will, nor the manpower, to round up every gun, that is legally owned, much less the refusal that would be encountered to do the job in the first place. ( No need for that question again ).
IF it did ever happen because of a SCOTUS ruling, or any other cause, it will be the start of the next "Civil War", or at least that is my opinion. I don't wish to see that, but I believe it would happen, and that is also why I say, it will NOT happen.
If it did,.........I will die. Not another speech about machismo, but in addition to the loss of what I believe is a guaranteed right,.......I also lose the ability to protect myself, and family, from the scums of the world, and the even bigger picture! If they ever even ATTEMPTED that in this country, it would be for a larger, and evil purpose, such as turning this great nation into a socialist state,..........I no longer would want to live anyway, under those circumstances.
End of story for me![;)]
I do not disagree that a lost right is harder to recover.
I don't see the scenario, of an attempt at a ruling from the SCOTUS, as being dangerous to our existing rights.
Lets think about this logically,.......even if they did not rule the way that I would like, I believe they would leave things the way they are,......in a kind of "limbo". There is not the will, nor the manpower, to round up every gun, that is legally owned, much less the refusal that would be encountered to do the job in the first place. ( No need for that question again ).
IF it did ever happen because of a SCOTUS ruling, or any other cause, it will be the start of the next "Civil War", or at least that is my opinion. I don't wish to see that, but I believe it would happen, and that is also why I say, it will NOT happen.
If it did,.........I will die. Not another speech about machismo, but in addition to the loss of what I believe is a guaranteed right,.......I also lose the ability to protect myself, and family, from the scums of the world, and the even bigger picture! If they ever even ATTEMPTED that in this country, it would be for a larger, and evil purpose, such as turning this great nation into a socialist state,..........I no longer would want to live anyway, under those circumstances.
End of story for me![;)]
If, in my place on this earth, I was a lone indivdual without family blood ties, I probably long ago would have risked death to fight for my rights. However, if I die or am in prison, I cannot watch out for and try and protect my loved ones. Nor can I give them the benefit of hard, hard life lessons I have learned, in an effort to help them avoid their own serious mistakes.
In regards to you wanting to be around to protect your family from the scum of the earth (an admirable quality BTW)your family would be better off, if you lost your gun rights, for you to STILL be around and protect them from the scum using your knives, bow & arrow, baseball bats, etc., than for you to not be around at all.
When some members here voice their opinion that they want uncompromised rights or they will fight to the death to get those rights, they are leaving one most important element out of the equation; once that fighting member is gone, their loved ones are on their own. NOBODY WILL LOOK OUT FOR YOUR FAMILY BETTER THAN YOU.
The signature line of a GB.com member CODENAMEPAUL says it for me. "Let them come and take my guns. With sticks and stones I willl get them back and more for my friends." For those here who think I will not fight for my rights, when we are reduced to having nothing but sticks and stones to fight with, then I will fight. Until them I will use any method (reluctant compromises, etc) I can find to hang onto as many gun rights as possible. I do this with the hope that public opinion will turn in our favor (because of the increase in worldwide terrorism and racial violence for no good reason this is happening) and we will at that point gain our uncompromised gun rights.
Or, that the right time will happen and we pro-gun people will find it is now time to get the US Supreme Court to decide this situation for us. If they decide in our favor I will start demanding uncompromised gun rights just as many of you do now.
I should have limited my response above, to the fact, that I really don't feel a SCOTUS ruling is imminent, at any time in the near future. IF there were one,.......I stand by what I said above.
I just don't think the government has reached the level of insanity,......yet, that it would take to call for a total gun ban. I know that many don't like the limbo that we have been in for years, but I DO feel it will remain that way, for quite some time, like it, or not.
My other main point, was in the context of,........IF the time ever comes for the Gov. to attempt a total ban, it will be for far more nefarious reasons, than to simply "make the country safer", or to cater to the "anti's".......it will be for the purpose of a political takeover, or "coup", with the intent of changing our entire form of existing government.
That is where my comment about not even wishing to be here anymore came from,.........not to be one of the "patriots" that gets shot alone, on my doorstep. That accomplishes nothing IMHO.
I wish the NRA would change, or could be changed, and maybe in the future, it will. At that point, I will suport them again! I did join GOA,......but I am not a nitwit that believes that they are capable of accomplishing much, at this point. That will get me jumped on, I am sure, but is my feeling right now.
But, there WAS a time, when the NRA was the same size, and even smaller, so I still feel it is worthwhile to support them for the time being. I am still an NRA member until November of 2008, like it or not,..........and I am not losing sleep over it![;)]
Taking a hard, UNWAVERING stance is the ONLY way to SAVE our rights. Some of us understand this. The changes required to save our rights starts by changing the justice system, not letting freaks out on the street. Remove the gun laws and remove criminals from society. NOT the other way around.
The Federal governments role is to protect the integrity of the states from foreign invasion, and a certain amount of infrastructure, required to do the above. The rest is left to the states.
Can't have it both ways man,...........and don't respond that I am "picking" on you again,......please.
You spoiled yourself to me, when I saw that post in the political forum bud.
Everyone has a right to a different take on things, but you want to attack, when it is something that YOU stand for,........when the venue is switched, you don't care for it much.
If you would have read MY post higher up, you would see that I said, again,....NOBODY will take my guns. I simply said I could not see it happening anytime soon, and if it did, that it would be for a far worse purpose than simply taking guns, to make people feel safer. It would be for the purpose of taking over, and changing, our nation!
Take Care, as I have no hard feelings for you, but you obviously do for me,........and that is fine![;)]
The elites want us to come together as does the "left". They require that we do so either willingly or begrudgeingly. So long as we come together and allow their poope .. They WILL try to sugar coat, and reason why their way is the only way. Until recently this is the way things have gone. People stood firm on "NO AMNESTY". This will eventually fade and one way or the other it WILL be passed. You two (marc and TR) are going to allow the removal of guns. I care not if it is incremental or total, it is STILL removal. If it takes 50 years or 2 months, what is the diffrence? You still lose. Your family STILL loses.
Taking a hard, UNWAVERING stance is the ONLY way to SAVE our rights. Some of us understand this. The changes required to save our rights starts by changing the justice system, not letting freaks out on the street. Remove the gun laws and remove criminals from society. NOT the other way around.
If we have an anti-gun congress and an anti-gun president (or even a city or state legislators) then regardless of your "unwavering stance" against gun control, you are going to get more gun control. Just as happened with Clinton's 1994 "assault weapons ban". To any thoughtful, rational person, that ban was totally worthless and did NOTHING to make citizens safer. All it did was to impose even more restrictions on the already lawful and peaceful gun owners. YET THE BAN WAS PASSED.
However, when some pro-gunners say that there was not way the ban could be stopped, they slipped in one of the compromises that you and others here hate and, ten years later, that COMPROMISE saved us from that ban. How, you ask?
A ten year sunset clause was added to the ban. Surely you don't think for one minute that the gun banners just up and decided to be generous and helpful to gun people and so they added the sunset clause? Do you?
So ten years later the ban automatically expired. If you paid attention to congress and to President Bush at the time the ban expired, you will know that we could never, EVER, have gotten rid of the ban anyother way. Without that sunset clause, we would STILL have Clinton's "assault weapons" ban.
Proof of my claim is that Pres. Bush stated numerous times that if he was presented with an extension of the ban, he would sign that extension. And many, many members of congress agreed with that. In addition, some members of congress offered up a bill that would have extended that ban. But due to pressure from the pro-gun side, plus having a president that was at least on the surface as being "pro-gun" and a congress that was heavily pro-gun, no extension of the gun ban ever made it out of congress.
So, if some pro-gunners had not COMPROMISED in 1994, and got the anti-gun side to COMPROMISE by allowing the addition of the automatic sunset clause, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE BAN.
So much for your argument of never compromising.
You can reply until you are blue in the face, you will never convice me the NRA is looking out for me, the 2nd, or it's members. You however, are fooled into thinking they are. Even after the evidence was presented by IT496, Highball, and others,you refuse to see the piano falling on your head. Ok, don't then. You are a somewhat freeman to make your own decisions, even if they are wrong.
1. Enforcing unconstitutional laws is wrong.
2. Gun kontrol is counterproductive, not ineffective.
3. Those who want gun kontrol are not well-intentioned; they are diabolical.
4. The FOPA'86 is the foothole for all gun bans, not the 1994 Klinton ban.
5. How the NFA is the most evil gun law on the books, simply because it is the foundation for the rest of the big federal laws.
6. That Law Enforcement Officers are not superior to peace officers.
7. That background checks are a way to infringe on the 2A.
8. That background checks also infringe on 4A and 5A.
9. that the $200.00 tax stamp for certain politically incorrect firearms and accessories is bribery.
10. That the 2nd Amendment does not protect a collective or individual right, it is a command to the gov't that it is to leave its hands totally out of it, meaning the people can exercise the right however they choose; either individually or collectively.
They best shape up, or I will rescind my membership....
I applaudyour firm stance. I feel you are on the right side of the constitution.
However given the NRA's track record, I belive nothing will get better. They have a long history of being anti- to the second.
I could hope for the best, BUT I know better.
This is true except States like New York (Thanks Governor Pataki) signed that 1994 Clinton bill into state law. I am very PEED OFF that I can not put a collapsible stock on an AR-15 made after 1994. Also, any magazine holding more than 10 rounds has to be made before the 1994 ban. (What is the difference between a 30 round magazine made the day before that ban and one made a day after the ban ? ) This was a diabolical plan played out by the government to eventually get all the guns out of civilian hands. This plan is far from being over. You see, the government wanted the people to get a taste of what a true blue gun ban really is. There was no rebellion or government overthrow. That ban was not restrictive enough so they let it pass and will write a new more restrictive one that will handcuff the law abiding gun public. There is nothing any of us can do about it but voice our opinions very loudly in public. That might get you shot or thrown in the slammer.
The politicians are right now sitting in their comfortable offices weaving webs of Gun Control and we can do little or nothing to defend it. Gun Rights organizations keep compromising our rights away and again, we can do little or nothing to defend it. I fear it is just a matter of time before the MAN comes knocking on my door with a warrant to take the guns. It might be 1 year, it might be 10 years. I dread the day when blood will be spilled on my front porch.
I wish I had the answers, but unfortunately do not. Someone needs to "rally the troops" and group together because it will be the voice of many that will be heard by Washington. We need to scare the crap out of them and show them we mean business. A few hear and there will be ignored and buried under the carpet. We need some big players to step up.
If we want to keep our rights and be a free society, we have to act now ! I can't imagine the chaos that will develop after the criminals are the only ones carrying concealed.
These Sugar coated S==t filled pills you keep dispensing are making me puke. They are completely and utterly indigestible!! You sound like a company man who would defend until death (or almost anyway) the men upstairs that oppresses the workingmen at the bottom.
How do you justify NRA leadership stooping to the level of backroom, closed deals with the anti-gun crowd to ram H.R. 2640 down our throats??? This wasn't a compromise to salvage anything. It was outright support, without membership support I might add, to promote another infringement on gun owner's rights. And how anyone could believe the "Company Line" that this is not a gun control bill just baffles me!!!!
When the NRA pulls the same deal with H.R. 1022, will you and your NRA supporting ILK consider that a "JUSTIFIABLE COMPROMISE" as well????
Wake up man!!! Had the people stood by silently and accepted the backroom dealing and compromising BS of the Immigration Bill, as NRA membership seems to be prone to do with gun control legislation, that Bill would have passed. And yes, it was full of 1st and 2nd Amendment restrictions on American Citizens.
The question is when will gun owners ban together to send the same type of message to the NRA and Congress; "That this slow bleed of our rights is UNACCEPTABLE"!!!
" company man who would defend until death (or almost anyway) the men upstairs that oppresses the workingmen at the bottom."
Where does this socialistic BS come from? In a free open market society nobody oppresses anyone. It's all a fair game, if you don't like your job, employer or workplace -- nobody is holding you there against your will.
Didn't you know that Wal-Mart employees have chips implanted in them that will send a shock to their heart if they don't continue to come to work?
I actually did know that. As a matter of fact, I used to work for Wal-Mart.com which was full of Wal-Mart-bots which would break out in a cheer on managers command. Funny that you mentioned Wal-Mart, I am just reading "Sam Walton: Made in America" -- very interesting story, I think biographies of men like Sam Walton should be taught in schools along with presidents and other historical figures. Of course, public schools would probably put a commie twist on it...
quote:Where does this socialistic BS come from? In a free open market society nobody oppresses anyone. It's all a fair game, if you don't like your job, employer or workplace -- nobody is holding you there against your will.
That should be true but, it has been done, right here in the good ol' USA. Your probably just to young and haven't heard of, or known, people trapped in a life style/job by debt to the "Company Stores". Know anything of the old coal mining operations and their practices in places like Wva?? And I'm not talking Ancient History here!!
thesneakyrussian:
quote:Where does this socialistic BS come from? In a free open market society nobody oppresses anyone. It's all a fair game, if you don't like your job, employer or workplace -- nobody is holding you there against your will.
That should be true but, it has been done, right here in the good ol' USA. Your probably just to young and haven't heard of, or known, people trapped in a life style/job by debt to the "Company Stores". Know anything of the old coal mining operations and their practices in places like Wva?? And I'm not talking Ancient History here!!
Yes, I am young but I do know history and know of these or similar cases. Once again, I am leaning towards personal choices. The easiest thing there is to put blame on someone else. I am not going to go into the whole thing that in order to accomplish something one has to make some sacrifices, I am sure you know it all.
Anyways, not to hijack the subject of this thread, I am on the same page with most in this forum. I'd add that in order for people to appreciate their rights, people have to fight for them. Things acquired easily and taken for granted lose their value.
I don't believe that type of "servitude" exists to anywhere near that degree anymore. I think that is what started the UMW union,......that, and the Pinkerton incidents.