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.
Options
Email from NRA. RE: NICS Improvement
tr fox
Member Posts: 13,856
got this email from the NRA explaining their stand on the proposed NICS improvement bill. For those interested, please read:
H.R. 2640, THE "NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT,"
PASSES HOUSE BY VOICE VOTE
On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.
Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.
The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:
* Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
* Excluding federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
* Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
* Ensuring-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
* Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.
Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:
* Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to any mental institution." Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
* Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a "commitment." Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose "unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct."
* In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.
This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.
If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!
End
H.R. 2640, THE "NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT,"
PASSES HOUSE BY VOICE VOTE
On June 13, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act," by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is consistent with NRA's decades-long support for measures to prohibit firearm purchases by those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally defective or as a danger to themselves or others. Additionally, H.R. 2640 makes needed, and long overdue, improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
While the media continues to characterize this bill as a "gun-control" measure, nothing could be further from the truth. The national media either have not bothered to read and accurately assess the text of the bill, or are deliberately manipulating and "spinning" the facts in order to stir up controversy and forward their agendas.
Here are the facts: H.R. 2640 would provide financial incentives to states to make records of prohibited individuals available for use in the NICS, and would also require federal agencies to provide such records. Those blocked from buying a gun due to these newly provided and updated records in the NICS are already prohibited under current law from owning firearms.
The basic goal of the bill is to make NICS as instant, fair, and accurate as possible. While no piece of legislation will stop a madman bent on committing horrific crimes, those who have been found mentally incompetent by a court should be included in the NICS as they are already prohibited under federal law from owning firearms. H.R. 2640 is sound legislation that makes numerous improvements over existing federal law, including:
* Certain types of mental health orders will no longer prohibit a person from possessing or receiving firearms. Adjudications that have expired or been removed, or commitments from which a person has been completely released with no further supervision required, will no longer prohibit the legal purchase of a firearm.
* Excluding federal decisions about a person's mental health that consist only of a medical diagnosis, without a specific finding that the person is dangerous or mentally incompetent. This provision addresses concerns about disability decisions by the Veterans Administration concerning our brave men and women in uniform. (In 2000, as a parting shot at our service members, the Clinton Administration forced the names of almost 90,000 veterans and veterans' family members to be added to a "prohibited" list; H.R. 2640 would help many of these people get their rights restored.)
* Requiring all participating federal or state agencies to establish "relief from disability" programs that would allow a person to get the mental health prohibition removed, either administratively or in court. This type of relief has not been available at the federal level for the past 15 years.
* Ensuring-as a permanent part of federal law-that no fee or tax is associated with a NICS check, an NRA priority for nearly a decade. While NRA has supported annual appropriations amendments with the same effect, those amendments must be renewed every year. This provision would not expire.
* Requiring an audit of past spending on NICS projects to find out if funds appropriated for NICS were misused for unrelated purposes.
Neither current federal law, nor H.R. 2640, would prohibit gun possession by people who have voluntarily sought psychological counseling or checked themselves into a hospital:
* Current law only prohibits gun possession by people who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "committed to any mental institution." Current BATFE regulations specifically exclude commitments for observation and voluntary commitments. Records of voluntary treatment also would not be available under federal and state health privacy laws.
* Similarly, voluntary drug or alcohol treatment would not be reported to NICS. First, voluntary treatment is not a "commitment." Second, current federal law on gun possession by drug users, as applied in BATFE regulations, only prohibits gun ownership by those whose "unlawful [drug] use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct."
* In short, neither current law nor this legislation would affect those who voluntarily get psychological help. No person who needs help for a mental health or substance abuse problem should be deterred from seeking that help due to fear of losing Second Amendment rights.
This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. NRA will continue to work throughout this Congressional process and vigilantly monitor this legislation to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers, while ensuring that those presently adjudicated by the courts as mentally defective are included in the system.
If anti-gun Members of Congress succeed in attaching any anti-gun amendments to this bill, we will withdraw support and strongly oppose it!
End
Comments
Notice the way the NRA poses this as a good thing and how the GOA identifies it (correctly IMHO) as another "Gun Control" bill.
Wonder why the difference in viewing this INFRINGEMENT???
My support and allegiance are with the group that understands what Amendment II is all about, not the "compromise masters" at the NRA.
You decide what direction you want to go, based on fact, not talk or "superfluous rhetoric" from a group claiming to be something other than what they really are...
Lt the rebel.[;)][:o)]
________________________________________
McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years
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
ACTION:
1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!
2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written
letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding
victims defenseless.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
control law in over a decade."
It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.
This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
"No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."
But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).
Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control]."
Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.
The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)
So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.
In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.
For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.
Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
-- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.
The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)
How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?
And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the 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.
So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
"generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!
But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.
Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
"diagnosis."
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn't)?
Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!
Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.
Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
"adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.
Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
especially when it comes to banning guns?
After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)
So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.
Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.
You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.
But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!
So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
"substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.
Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
LIFETIME gun ban.
This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
list" (S. 1237).
While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
right now.
NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.
Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY"
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
have to
be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
"any danger" at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?
FOOTNOTES:
(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).
(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).
(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).
CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
the pre-written e-mail message below.
Pre-written letter
Dear Senator:
As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
through the House last week.
This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on
the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).
You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
website of Gun Owners of America at
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.
Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and
object
to any Unanimous Consent agreement.
Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
in England!
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,
Like it or not, the NRA is the largest, best funded, best known, oldest, most powerful and known all around the world, of all the few progun rights organizations we have.
Throwing out the current NRA leadership and "getting the NRA back on track" should greatly please the GB.com NRA haters. Please them much more than just standing outside the NRA and throwing rocks at the windows.
The NRA, whether it operates for good or for evil in gun rights, is not some foreign country in which you have no standing, control, influence or way to make huge changes. It operates much like a democracy and/or a republic. It is a non-profit organiztion owned and supposed to be operated by its members.
That means it is just sitting there waiting for you NRA haters to rush in and take over and run it the way you and yours think it should be running.
It is s-o-o-o much easier to tear down a house than to build a house. Build, for example, by voting in the numerous NRA board members that agree with your idea of how the NRA should behave and the direction it should take. If you can't find such board members, then run for election yourself and encourage the countless NRA haters on GB.com to do the same.
Like it or not, the NRA is the largest, best funded, best known, oldest, most powerful and known all around the world, of all the few progun rights organizations we have.
Throwing out the current NRA leadership and "getting the NRA back on track" should greatly please the GB.com NRA haters. Please them much more than just standing outside the NRA and throwing rocks at the windows.
The NRA, whether it operates for good or for evil in gun rights, is not some foreign country in which you have no standing, control, influence or way to make huge changes. It operates much like a democracy and/or a republic. It is a non-profit organiztion owned and supposed to be operated by its members.
That means it is just sitting there waiting for you NRA haters to rush in and take over and run it the way you and yours think it should be running.
Good Lord! If you don't get the picture by now, that most of those who you describe as "just standing outside the NRA and throwing rocks at the windows", are actually attempting to do something, you are just plain ignorant.
Most of us "rock throwers" and "NRA haters" ARE NRA members and mostly also belong to other, real, gun-rights organizations.
Pretty easy to bluster about changing the organization. The organization's governing cadre is locked up pretty tight and it is indeed, as you describe, run much like a democracy and/or a republic". It actually looks a whole lot like our own government, in that the rich and powerful, e.g. the "connected", get and remain elected. It is near impossible to move into leadership, unless you are "one of the gang" and see eye to eye with the power brokers.
There was actually a coup of sorts in the late 70's over the "compromise" issue. The liberal/compromise wing took back over after a short time.
In addition the NRA leadership is also on a mission to restrict individual rights (2A), much like our own government. They seem to do whatever they want and are clearly able to fool the majority of the membership (actually most of the membership is ignorant and apathetic, much like American Citizens).
An extremely striking parallel actually.
As I have mentioned numerous times, like it or not, the NRA is the biggest game in town. It is also a game that if enough of you anti-NRA people cared to do something about your criticism of the NRA, other than complain, you could pool your efforts and actually gain control of the NRA and run it to suit you.
That is, if there is anything that will suit you.
But of course it is easier to just complain.
For all you NRA critics, let me mention that the NRA was around long before any of you. And it will be around long after you. In addition, over 4 million of your fellow gun owners pay their hard earned money to belong to the NRA. So as smart as you think you are, over 4 million gun owners are willing to give up some cash to vote against you.
As I have mentioned numerous times, like it or not, the NRA is the biggest game in town. It is also a game that if enough of you anti-NRA people cared to do something about your criticism of the NRA, other than complain, you could pool your efforts and actually gain control of the NRA and run it to suit you.
That is, if there is anything that will suit you.
But of course it is easier to just complain.
Using logic of the argument that NRA is the biggest and the oldest, one can similarly claim that everything big, established and bloated is the right way to go no matter what their policy is, for instance, humongous federal government.
Not to mention that criticizing anything or anyone is part of free, open society. If you don't like it, maybe you find yourself happier in a society like chinese or russian. [:)]
Action such as joining up with Pickenup's suggestion, at
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=247347
and trying to get answers and/or get the NRA to act like you want them to act.
Some of you NRA critics are dedicated gun owners who advocate generous gun rights for the average citizen such as myself. To a degree you have my support.
Some of you NRA critics will critize the NRA, give reasons why, and suggest a constructive alternative. Such people have a lot of support from me.
Some of you gun owners will criticize the NRA and not offer any constructive alternatives. You do not have my support.
Some of you gun owners criticize the NRA, yet offer no constructive alternative way for us to fight for our rights. I have a suspicion that many such people are either well to do, have connections, plan on their law enforcement career/connections to always give them superior gun rights, etc. I believe these people believe in gun rights for the "elite" but not for the common citizen. Such people have absolutely no support from me. In fact I consider you my enemy.
I suspect one or two of you NRA critics are not even gun owners. But instead are here on GB.com only as stealth anti-gun people. Here with the agenda that you want to defeat the gun rights crowd and by finding ways to weaken us, or to cause to us to fight among ourselves, then it will be easier for you and your anti-gun crowd to defeat us.
If this is the case, then you know who you are.
Some of you gun owners will criticize the NRA and not offer any constructive alternatives. You do not have my support.
Well, here is my constructive alternative to being an NRA member-Quit the NRA. That alternative would do more for gun rights than being an NRA member. As long asthe NRA has so many members, and as long as the NRA has members like TRFOX who preach the NRA propaganda about "the biggest game in town", they might not be perfect", blah, blah, blah, blah-they will continue to contribute to the demise of the second amendment and gun rights.
ya know the one that goes "with friends like these...."
If theNRA and their agenda is considered friendly to gun owners-man we ARE in big trouble.
I am done.
lt496:
I probably need not ask, but did you see the GOA Alerts From the 12th and 14th as well??? For those who did not it's a shame but I have included a excepts below.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House:
Why All The Secrecy???
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.
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.
To Bad H.R. 1096 Didn't Get The Same Consideration From Congress And SUPPORT From The NRA!!!
Like salzo said..... "with friends like these....."
Immigration Bill Dead For Now:
Gun owners unheralded in media, but played a huge role in the defeat of bill.
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
Friday, July 29, 2007
Well, the American public has spoken.
If you ever wondered whether your activism pays off, then look no further than the immigration debate. The bill went down in flames yesterday by a vote of 53-46.
And good thing too, because this bill was packing more than just immigration stuff -- it also contained anti-gun language as well.
But what else would you expect from a Ted Kennedy bill?
In addition to denying many law-abiding gun owners their right to find a job or buy a gun, the bill could have put every major gun shop out of business, something which the anti-gun left has been trying to do for years.
GOA wants to thank all of you who took action on our immigration alerts recently. You probably don't realize how important YOUR INVOLVEMENT was in killing this bill. Obviously, no one group can take all the credit, because there was pressure coming from all over America. Even so, most of the media has credited conservative talk shows as the 800 pound gorilla -- and yes, the talk shows were extremely important.
But remember the Baucus amendment that we asked you to lobby on? The Senate voted on whether to table (or kill) that amendment on Wednesday, but it failed to do so. That one amendment is being credited by insiders as being THE BIGGEST reason the bill could not get enough votes for cloture (that is, to end debate and vote up or down on the bill).
Consider what Congressional Quarterly had to say about that amendment on Wednesday: "The process [to get a Unanimous Consent agreement] came to a halt when the chamber refused to table an amendment by Max Baucus, D-Mont.... When the chamber voted against tabling the Baucus amendment, the process stopped. Without a unanimous consent agreement to adopt the amendment or move on, the next step was the cloture vote [which failed]."
This complies with what one highly placed Senate staffer told GOA yesterday when he said that the failed attempt to kill the Baucus amendment was "probably the reason we killed the bill."
The Baucus amendment would have protected the jobs and gun rights of Americans who live in states that are blocking the enforcement of the REAL ID Act. Without the promise of a National ID in every state, the Baucus amendment effectively became the ultimate poison pill in this bill.
So kudos to all of you for all of your hard work!
Now, our attention reverts back to the McCarthy Brady expansion bill (HR 2640) -- which could come up any time after the July 4th holiday.
Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hanging their hat on language which purports to help disqualified people get their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on its website that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun owners of the dangers in HR 2640.
Please go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of the bill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made by proponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of being disqualified for buying a gun, and more.
Enjoy the holidays!
I've been preoccupied fighting the Immigration Bill and this never got posted. Now that tr is back defending the NRA he needs to read this as well. And BTW, tr maybe you should review pickenups' thread as well. Start with the last two posts. AFTER YOU READ THIS ONE.
lt496:
I probably need not ask, but did you see the GOA Alerts From the 12th and 14th as well??? For those who did not it's a shame but I have included a excepts below.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Compromisers On Capitol Hill Reviving Brady Expansion Again
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House:
Why All The Secrecy???
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.
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.
To Bad H.R. 1096 Didn't Get The Same Consideration From Congress And SUPPORT From The NRA!!!
Like salzo said..... "with friends like these....."
Yes, I saw them Wagon Wheel and thanks for posting the excerpts.
It may reach a few people and start them thinking for themselves. It certainly will not do so for the Neville Chamberlain Wing (read TR Fox & Co.) of The NRA.
I see he is resorting to attacks on individual's motives again. Sad, but when the facts are not with you...... One tries to cast doubt on the message by casting suspicions and ulterior motives on the messenger.
TR, for you Sir. This is a short, simple concept:
NRA is flawed and acts in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Withdrawing from NRA and throwing support behind a group like GOA, would remove the support from these compromisers and instead, place it with those who understand the Bill of Rights and who are committed to fight for the restoration of Amendment II, as it was written. This Sir, is a simple and effective way to begin regaining our lost freedoms. The NRA will not be an ally in this battle, period. Nor would they be "the biggest game in town" any longer.
Like Salzo stated earlier:
"Well, here is my constructive alternative to being an NRA member-Quit the NRA. That alternative would do more for gun rights than being an NRA member. As long asthe NRA has so many members, and as long as the NRA has members like TRFOX who preach the NRA propaganda about "the biggest game in town", they might not be perfect", blah, blah, blah, blah-they will continue to contribute to the demise of the second amendment and gun rights.
ya know the one that goes "with friends like these...."
Lt the problem solver....[;)]
quote:For all you NRA critics, let me mention that the NRA was around long before any of you. And it will be around long after you. In addition, over 4 million of your fellow gun owners pay their hard earned money to belong to the NRA.
Gee that means only 86 million gunowners have chosen NOT to send their hard earned money to government "yes men" at the NRA. Go figure.
From TR
quote:I suspect one or two of you NRA critics are not even gun owners. But instead are here on GB.com only as stealth anti-gun people. Here with the agenda that you want to defeat the gun rights crowd and by finding ways to weaken us, or to cause to us to fight among ourselves, then it will be easier for you and your anti-gun crowd to defeat us.
If this is the case, then you know who you are.
Please! I could say the same about people who SUPPORT the NRA. They are actually supporting or have been duped into supporting, the only organization that says it is here to defend, when it is only actually here to "sell the bill of goods". The NRA is the wolf in sheeps clothing. 20,000 plus gun laws???? Deals with lefty liberal gun banners in congress???? Support for expanding the utterly failed NICS instead of repealing it??? I can do this all night....WAKE UP!!