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
nra ila spokesman lied to me
br549
Member Posts: 1,024 ✭
i called the ila division of the nra and asked if they still backed hr2640. the answer was yes it is a good thing.(no suprize there) what suprized me was when i asked if it was so good, why did the American Leigon,and MOPH opose it. i was told the A.L. had changed positions and now suported this veteran disarmment gun control bill.
I called the American Legion Headquarters in Washington to ask why they had changed positions. I was told they DO NOT support this bill have not changed in their oposition to this bill, and would contact the Nra and tell them to stop lieing about their stance of this bill.
I called the American Legion Headquarters in Washington to ask why they had changed positions. I was told they DO NOT support this bill have not changed in their oposition to this bill, and would contact the Nra and tell them to stop lieing about their stance of this bill.
Comments
We should all know that you can NOT trust someone who has no integrity, even if that "someone" is an organization.
Personal and/or organizational integrity is an amazing litmus test or "gauge" for predicting future actions and for establishing trust.
Simple as that, no surprises here.
Actions of the NRA.
Actions of the politicians in the US government.
How do you tell the difference?
You can't.
By Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law
Introduction by the Board of Directors, September 30, 2007: While the policy of Pro-Gun New Hampshire is to focus on state legislation, we have received enough inquiries about a controversial federal bill, HR 2640, to warrant a response. Attorney Evan Nappen, the Executive Vice President of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, has studied this federal bill and researched it at length. His analysis, which follows, is the official position of Pro-Gun New Hampshire.
Misguided NRA bashers are doing a better job of helping the anti-gun movement than the anti-gunners could do themselves. You may have heard or read things like "NRA pushing gun control" or "NRA supporting bill to disarm veterans" or "NRA in bed with Schumer and Kennedy," etc. A number of gun rights organizations have generated a wave of criticism over HR 2640 and its supposedly terrible effect on gun ownership. They make the NRA sound so bad that Sarah Brady might even become a Life Member. The misinformed pro-gunners who spew this venom are shooting our gun rights in the foot and potentially stopping thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens from regaining their gun rights.
NRA deserves PRAISE for HR 2640. In the aftermath of the atrocity at Virginia Tech, the NRA was able to turn a renewed anti-gun hysteria into a pro-gun gain. HR 2640 is a shrewdly devised bill that creates no new prohibited persons, limits records, helps veterans, and mandates a system of relief so that disqualified persons can legally own guns again. But hey, don't just take my word for it. This is why Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), OPPOSES HR 2640. He states in his blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html ) the following:
LaPierre's palpable frustration is understandable, because a closer look at the NRA-added sections raises strong concerns. So strong, that yesterday three national gun violence prevention organizations -- the Violence Policy Center (which I head), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence -- issued a press release voicing them. In the release, the three groups state that while they "strongly support the bill's goal of improving the mechanism by which mental health and other records are added to the NICS, they are concerned that components of the bill would create new loopholes for potentially dangerous individuals to possess firearms." In the release, the groups cite three key changes made to the original McCarthy bill:
The compromise bill creates a bifurcated system for submitting mental health records to the background check system-depending on whether the disability finding is made by the federal government or a state agency. As a result of these changes, fewer records would be eligible for inclusion in the system and many currently in the system would be removed.
The compromise bill revives a program that allows those prohibited from owning guns to apply to the federal government to once again possess firearms. In 1993, Congress de-funded the four-million-dollar-a-year, taxpayer-funded federal "relief from disability" program, which allowed those prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to possess a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program was shut down, and remains de-funded, after studies done by my organization revealed that among the tens of thousands it had re-armed were drug dealers, gun criminals, sex offenders, and at least one terrorist. Some of those granted "relief" went on to commit new crimes. The bill would re-establish a federal "relief" mechanism for persons prohibited from possessing guns because of a mental health disability and would also require states to establish similar state-based "relief from disability" systems in order to be eligible for the grants the bill makes available to improve mental health records.
The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems.
Now, to address a specific objection: Much of "the sky is falling" alarmist warnings have been over the definition of the term "adjudicated as a mental defective"; they claim that with the bill allowing "adjudication" by not only a court, but by a "board, commission, or other lawful authority," a person could be prohibited from possessing guns by the declaration of a "board" of, say, any two anti-gun psychiatrists. What HR 2640 actually says is as follows (go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look up bill number HR 2640):
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
That's right: HR 2640 merely adopts the well settled federal regulation that has ALREADY defined the term for years. Here is what that regulation, 27CFR478.11, ALREADY says under the Code of Federal Regulations (See: click here for link ):
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result
of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency,
condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to article
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
If this regulation is so rotten, horrible and treacherous to gun rights in America, then where were all the NRA bashers' voices when this regulation was proposed? Even if HR 2640 is defeated, this regulation is not going away. HOWEVER, if HR 2640 is passed, then for the first time, folks who have lost their gun rights due to being "adjudicated as a mental defective" may get RELIEF, regardless of how the "adjudicated" term is defined! (See HR 2640 sections 105 - state relief - and 101(b)(c)(2) - federal relief.) That's one BIG reason why the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence oppose HR 2640.
Unlike the so-called "pro-gun" hit pieces put out against HR 2640, this article includes the relevant citations and web links so you can see HR 2640 and the Federal Regulations for yourself. The choice is yours: continue bashing the NRA and aiding the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence, or support the NRA and the protection of your gun rights!
For more details on the issue, here are two NRA documents further explaining HR 2640:
Clearing the Air on the Instant Check Bill (H.R. 2640)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018
H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" FACT SHEET
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018
UPDATE: Senator Coburn of Oklahoma is attempting to BLOCK THE PROGRESS of this pro-gun measure.
Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to make this bill law without delay so that thousands of folks denied their gun rights can get their rights restored, including 80,000 veterans disarmed by former President Clinton.
CALL your Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC TOLL FREE at 800-828-0498.
Edited ONLY to shorten link.
Enough NRA Bashing!
By Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law
Introduction by the Board of Directors, September 30, 2007: While the policy of Pro-Gun New Hampshire is to focus on state legislation, we have received enough inquiries about a controversial federal bill, HR 2640, to warrant a response. Attorney Evan Nappen, the Executive Vice President of Pro-Gun New Hampshire, has studied this federal bill and researched it at length. His analysis, which follows, is the official position of Pro-Gun New Hampshire.
Misguided NRA bashers are doing a better job of helping the anti-gun movement than the anti-gunners could do themselves. You may have heard or read things like "NRA pushing gun control" or "NRA supporting bill to disarm veterans" or "NRA in bed with Schumer and Kennedy," etc. A number of gun rights organizations have generated a wave of criticism over HR 2640 and its supposedly terrible effect on gun ownership. They make the NRA sound so bad that Sarah Brady might even become a Life Member. The misinformed pro-gunners who spew this venom are shooting our gun rights in the foot and potentially stopping thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens from regaining their gun rights.
NRA deserves PRAISE for HR 2640. In the aftermath of the atrocity at Virginia Tech, the NRA was able to turn a renewed anti-gun hysteria into a pro-gun gain. HR 2640 is a shrewdly devised bill that creates no new prohibited persons, limits records, helps veterans, and mandates a system of relief so that disqualified persons can legally own guns again. But hey, don't just take my word for it. This is why Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC), OPPOSES HR 2640. He states in his blog (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/mental-health-gun-bill-ha_b_57950.html ) the following:
LaPierre's palpable frustration is understandable, because a closer look at the NRA-added sections raises strong concerns. So strong, that yesterday three national gun violence prevention organizations -- the Violence Policy Center (which I head), the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence -- issued a press release voicing them. In the release, the three groups state that while they "strongly support the bill's goal of improving the mechanism by which mental health and other records are added to the NICS, they are concerned that components of the bill would create new loopholes for potentially dangerous individuals to possess firearms." In the release, the groups cite three key changes made to the original McCarthy bill:
The compromise bill creates a bifurcated system for submitting mental health records to the background check system-depending on whether the disability finding is made by the federal government or a state agency. As a result of these changes, fewer records would be eligible for inclusion in the system and many currently in the system would be removed.
The compromise bill revives a program that allows those prohibited from owning guns to apply to the federal government to once again possess firearms. In 1993, Congress de-funded the four-million-dollar-a-year, taxpayer-funded federal "relief from disability" program, which allowed those prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for "relief" from the "disability" of not being able to possess a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program was shut down, and remains de-funded, after studies done by my organization revealed that among the tens of thousands it had re-armed were drug dealers, gun criminals, sex offenders, and at least one terrorist. Some of those granted "relief" went on to commit new crimes. The bill would re-establish a federal "relief" mechanism for persons prohibited from possessing guns because of a mental health disability and would also require states to establish similar state-based "relief from disability" systems in order to be eligible for the grants the bill makes available to improve mental health records.
The compromise bill would make veterans currently prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons eligible to once again possess guns. Under current law, an estimated 80,000 veterans are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons. This change to the original bill comes in the wake of recent government and private studies revealing that the number of veterans dealing with mental illness is at an all-time high, with many receiving inadequate care. A recent Department of Defense task force study found that the military mental health system lacks providers and is "woefully inadequate" to deal with conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, a new study reports that male U.S. veterans are not only twice as likely to commit suicide as men with no military service, but are also 58 percent more likely to kill themselves with a gun than others who commit suicide. A 2000 analysis by the New York Times of 100 "rampage killers" found that the majority (52 percent) had a military background and 47 percent of the killers had a history of mental health problems.
Now, to address a specific objection: Much of "the sky is falling" alarmist warnings have been over the definition of the term "adjudicated as a mental defective"; they claim that with the bill allowing "adjudication" by not only a court, but by a "board, commission, or other lawful authority," a person could be prohibited from possessing guns by the declaration of a "board" of, say, any two anti-gun psychiatrists. What HR 2640 actually says is as follows (go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and look up bill number HR 2640):
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective', `committed to a mental institution', and related terms have the meanings given those terms in regulations implementing section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
That's right: HR 2640 merely adopts the well settled federal regulation that has ALREADY defined the term for years. Here is what that regulation, 27CFR478.11, ALREADY says under the Code of Federal Regulations (See: click here for link ):
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result
of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency,
condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to article
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
If this regulation is so rotten, horrible and treacherous to gun rights in America, then where were all the NRA bashers' voices when this regulation was proposed? Even if HR 2640 is defeated, this regulation is not going away. HOWEVER, if HR 2640 is passed, then for the first time, folks who have lost their gun rights due to being "adjudicated as a mental defective" may get RELIEF, regardless of how the "adjudicated" term is defined! (See HR 2640 sections 105 - state relief - and 101(b)(c)(2) - federal relief.) That's one BIG reason why the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence oppose HR 2640.
Unlike the so-called "pro-gun" hit pieces put out against HR 2640, this article includes the relevant citations and web links so you can see HR 2640 and the Federal Regulations for yourself. The choice is yours: continue bashing the NRA and aiding the Violence Policy Center, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence, or support the NRA and the protection of your gun rights!
For more details on the issue, here are two NRA documents further explaining HR 2640:
Clearing the Air on the Instant Check Bill (H.R. 2640)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=246&issue=018
H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" FACT SHEET
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018
UPDATE: Senator Coburn of Oklahoma is attempting to BLOCK THE PROGRESS of this pro-gun measure.
Please contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to make this bill law without delay so that thousands of folks denied their gun rights can get their rights restored, including 80,000 veterans disarmed by former President Clinton.
CALL your Senators and Representatives in Washington, DC TOLL FREE at 800-828-0498.
So what?
We have all seen various interpretations of this gun-control bill from laymen, attorneys, spokesmen for various organizations etc...These interpretations vary from outright support of the bill, to outright opposition.
Bottom line, the bill is designed to strengthen a law that selects which citizens are to be restricted and/or prevented from exercising their RTKBA.
For those who choose to put their faith in the Fed, reference the definition of "adjudication", "lawful authority" and such, as it relates to this new gun-control bill, when Amendment II of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights already sets the standard of "shall not be infringed", seems to me to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Brady should be repealed, not strengthened IMO.
This once again shows the clear divide between those who demand following the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights and those who have accepted the authority and right of the Fed to abridge your God given rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, many see this bill as a good thing and a necessary step "forward". Those of us who adhere to constitutional principals see it as another infringement, or a tightening of the noose around freedoms neck, held by a predatory government.
This divergent view is the reason for the polarization and rancor that consistently crops up on this board and also in society in general on these RTKBA issues. It is as simple as that.
From where I stand, you can dress up a pig (read this gun-control bill) in a skirt, fancy shoes, some perfume, lipstick and rouge and call her your sweetie, but when all is said and done, it is still a pig.[;)]
Edited ONLY to shorten link.
Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law
A Professional Corporation practices in the following areas of law:
Firearms, Firearms Licensing, Gun Permits, Weapons, Gun Law, Guns, Knives, Knife Law, Fish and Game, Expungements, Domestic Violence, Forfeiture Law, Search and Seizure, Criminal Law, Criminal Defense and Appeals
Admitted to bar, 1988, New Jersey and U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey; 1990, Pennsylvania and U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; 1993, U.S. Supreme Court; 2006, New Hampshire and U.S. District Court, District of New Hampshire. Education: Monmouth College (B.S., 1984; M.B.A., 1986); New York Law School (J.D., 1988). Certified NRA Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun and Firearm Home Safety Instructor. Member, Outdoor Writers Association. Faculty, National Firearms Law Seminar, 2005- (Participant, 1998-). Assistant Deputy Public Defender, Newark, New Jersey, 1989-1990. Adjunct Professor, Monmouth University, Political Science, 1990-. Faculty Speaker, Pennsylvania Bar Institute, "The Laws of Guns in Pennsylvania". Publications: Books; Nappen II: New Jersey Gun, Knife and Weapon Law, The Declaration, Nappen on New Jersey Gun Law. Graduate, Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute on Judicious Use of Deadly Force. Mr. Nappen is also a frequent contributor to Blade Magazine and Knives Annual. Member: New Hampshire Bar Association; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Practice Areas: Criminal Law; Criminal Defense; Firearms Litigation; Weapons Charges; Search and Seizure; Criminal Forfeiture; Expungements; Domestic Violence; Fish and Game; Appellate Practice; Education Law; Knife Law. Email: Evan F. Nappen
A link to the original version of;
Enough NRA Bashing! | Pro-Gun New Hampshire
http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing
Pro-Gun New Hampshire (Interesting)
http://www.pgnh.org/
GUN CONTROL - OUT OF CONTROL!
FREE VIDEO TRAILER OF THE NEW CONTROVERSIAL DVD AT:
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/evan/index.jsp
Oops: Can't find it! The file for the url you entered does not exist on this server.
Can be viewed here:
Gun Rights and the FSP [ Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime ]
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/evan/
Toward his credibility:
Letter of May 9, 2003
http://www.fast-us.org/test1/pressroomdocs/Legal Memo 5 12 2003.pdf
And he's an Author: (Of two books - one fiction and this one)
Customer Review:
Nappen II: New Jersey Gun, Knife & Weapon Law
Evan Nappen translates the dense and mysterious legalese of the NJ code into understandable terms for the layman.
The book is setup more as a topic indexed reference guide than as prose, and therefore is somewhat repetitive.
Anyone who lives in NJ and owns or wants a gun, and is interested in staying out of jail should have this book on their shelf.
My, my, my...such an incredible list of accolades.
Means jack squat...just precisely nothing.
The one thing missing in that litany is the ONE CRUCIAL FACT;
Does he believe that the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to make and enforce gun laws.
All he is is nothing...if he believes so..and EVERY WORD he speaks...every word he writes...is colored thru the lenses of a misinterpretation of that document.
That, folks, is the plain brutal truth.
The Founders did NOT bleed and die merely to allow the government to once again exert total control of the means to keep that government in line with the Constitution.
Think differently..? You are a victim of propaganda.
quote:To Quote WW:
For those of us not familiar with the source, he seems to have some credibility. However, I am still of the mindset that that any gun control bill/measure/act whatever label they want to put on it, is UnConstitutional, Filled with loopholes and caveats for further infringement. The feds need to be put out of the business and let the States make their own rules. JMHO. I have No intention of killing the messenger here, he sounds very sincere and passionate. I'll let them decide, for themselves. He may get some more calls or e-mails.quote:To Quote HB:
The one thing missing in that litany is the ONE CRUCIAL FACT;
Does he believe that the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to make and enforce gun laws.
My first question was who's this yahoo? So I looked him up. By Posting the info I may have saved someone else some time or made there search easier. I prefaced with my thought but leave you and others to make up your own minds. It's not my fault you still have dial-up. Take it up with the Feds. If you can load the pfd letter of May 9th it may answer your question. The http://www.pgnh.org/ is the Pro-Gun NH homepage with some interesting articles including one on Ron Paul. http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing is the link and page gunnut505 C&P'ed the article from. The movie trailer is so short you may not want to bother, You've probably seen it before anyway. I have. And the book review is all there. No link to access and only one review. I would C&P that pfd for you but I can't seem to copy it. Load it before you go to bed and read it in the morning. Unless someone else can c&p, then post it for you. Or you can contact him personally.
Letter of May 9, 2003
http://www.fast-us.org/test1/pressroomdocs/Legal Memo 5 12 2003.pdf
Amendment II provides no exceptions. It does not exclude lunatics, criminals, wife beaters, ex-servicement with dishonorable discharges, or non-citizens.
However...
the federal government has passed and continues to pass laws that infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
It is a fact. They are doing it.
HR 2640 is another gun control law. However, it provides a net benefit to the gun owner.
Opposing it is the same as leaving the field of battle before the battle is over. It means conceding the outcome to the enemy.
Wars are not won with a single battle. They are built on victory after victory, interspersed with the occasional defeat.
HR2640 will be a victory if it's passed, admittedly it won't win the war, but it will still be a victory.
The federal government has no power to create gun laws or control guns. Amendment II is very specific: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Amendment II provides no exceptions. It does not exclude lunatics, criminals, wife beaters, ex-servicement with dishonorable discharges, or non-citizens.
However...
the federal government has passed and continues to pass laws that infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
It is a fact. They are doing it.
HR 2640 is another gun control law. However, it provides a net benefit to the gun owner.
Opposing it is the same as leaving the field of battle before the battle is over. It means conceding the outcome to the enemy.
Wars are not won with a single battle. They are built on victory after victory, interspersed with the occasional defeat.
HR2640 will be a victory if it's passed, admittedly it won't win the war, but it will still be a victory.
We can agree to disagree.
In my eyes, there is no victory in a further concession that the Fed has the authority to decide which American Citizen shall be debarred the legal ability to possess, use, or carry arms in violation of Amendment II. Neither does this fact characterize a battle won, or a net gain.
If you are referring to the provisions of the gun-control bill that purportedly allow a citizen the means to possibly "regain his/her lost RTKBA, this provision already exists elsewhere and/or could be developed separate from a bill that further restricts the RTKBA. All it would take is the will to do so. Of course, we all know that the will is absent from the hallowed halls of the Congress.
This business of `winning victory after victory' would make some sense.PROVIDED that the only battle we fight is gun control.
The problem is that it is not as simple as all that.sadly so. We are losing ground all across the spectrum of human Rights and freedoms. ALL the Rights of American citizens are under attack.or gone.
While you `Win'..at great cost and valuable human time..What many of us consider to be
one further act of bowing futher the knee to big government.THEY have advanced on your flanks by huge strides.
Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic may well seem to be productive to many of you.
Many of us see it as it is. Admitting to the world that there indeed is no basic right to own and carry firearms.
EVERY message from the NRA to members.EVERY message from a Constitutional Second Amendment supporter OUGHT to begin .AND END.with the statement;
"Government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO LEGISLATE FIREARMS..they have taken it by FORCE".
The situation must get much worse before it can get better. Those of you content to swallow the laws in place today will get ZERO support for your attempt to re-arrange them a bit..(sort of like shifting the chains to a more comfortable area of your neck)...from those of us smart enough to read the Bill of Rights.