Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill


PDA






orygunmike
June 10, 2007, 01:01 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19146984/

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill
Measure stiffening background checks would be 1st major reform since '94


By Jonathan Weisman

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Carrot -and-stick proposal
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. 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. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

A marriage of convenience
"The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a . . . system that's better for gun owners and better for law enforcement," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), a former NRA board member, who led the talks.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) had been pushing similar legislation for years. But her reputation as a staunch opponent of the gun lobby -- she came to Congress to promote gun control after her husband was gunned down in a massacre on the Long Island Rail Road -- ruined any chance of a deal with the NRA.

By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill.

Fight has left many lawmakers gun-shy
The NRA reacted furiously to the last major federal gun-control legislation, a 1994 ban on assault weapons, and that reaction helped sweep Democrats from control of Congress later that year. Vice President Al Gore's embrace of gun-control proposals helped secure his defeat in the presidential election of 2000, and Democratic leaders have been leery of touching the issue ever since.

This time, Democratic leaders dispatched Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a pro-gun Democrat who represents Virginia Tech's home town, Blacksburg, to reach a deal. But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system.

On Friday afternoon, the NRA finally signed off.

"I've been involved with this legislative effort for years, working to address the shortcomings of NICS. I'm confident that this legislation will do it," Dingell said. "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon."

States would be paid to comply
Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system. The federal government would then pick up 90 percent of the cost for the states to get up to date within 180 days of the audit.

Once the attorney general determines that a state has cleared its backlog, the federal government would begin financing all the costs of keeping the system current. If a state's compliance lapses, the attorney general would be authorized to cut federal law enforcement grants, with more draconian aid cuts mandated if noncompliance stretches longer than a year.

The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010, when the program would have to be reassessed and reauthorized by Congress.

Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.

"I can't imagine a scenario where a state would drop out, and say what? 'If you're adjudicated schizophrenic, you can buy your guns here'?" asked a Democratic aide involved directly in the negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not cleared to speak to reporters.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Autolycus
June 10, 2007, 02:20 AM
From Article posted above...

"I've been involved with this legislative effort for years, working to address the shortcomings of NICS. I'm confident that this legislation will do it," Dingell said. "No law will prevent evildoers from doing evil acts, but this law will help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon."

Yes because all of the other gun laws stopped evildoers from doing evil acts. :rolleyes: I am sorry but what will this new gunlaw do?

I would like to think that with all the changes in the current NCIS being done according to the article that this is just another little inconvenience that solved a lot of problems some gunowners and potential gunowners had.

Either way I am still in support of the no comrpomise approach. I know it does not get us very far but the compromise thing has only set us further back. It is time that we took back our rights from the government. I dont want to have to go through more checks and investigations to be able to exercise my rights.

MrRezister
June 10, 2007, 02:29 AM
I didn't see anything in there that would have changed the VTech situation at all. Are the dems just in a hurry to push out a bill or did I miss something important?

Frog48
June 10, 2007, 02:30 AM
But talks dragged on over issues of constitutionality and questions over how to institute a means to clear names from the system.


Did anybody bother to ask where in the Constitution that it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...unless the people fail to submit to background checks, apply for licenses, and pay related fees." ??????

Oh yeah, thats right, it doesnt say that. I guess the nobody bothered to actually read the Constitution when discussing these "issues of constitutionality".

The NRA sold out, again.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 02:32 AM
Has anyone seen the bill? I just want to know if there has been changes compared to the old bill.

Any time they screw with the 'mental health' part of NICS it worries me, I have a minor history with that. (I have been prescribed anti-depressants, years ago)
Always worries me that the law that is supposed to "help ensure that those deemed dangerous by the courts will not be able to purchase a weapon" will be expanded to include people with minor histories of mental health problems.

Still, the one very good aspect of this is the 'appeal' process to get your name removed might finally happen. It was supposed to always be there but it was never funded. We all hate NICS but we know it isnt going anywhere, may as well get an avenue to allow people to get their rights back. Maybe the poor guys with 25 year old domestic violence convictions can protect their families again.

Jadecristal
June 10, 2007, 03:02 AM
It's been a while since I joined the NRA; I'm only 25, and I must admit that I wondered exactly what all the griping about how they'd behaved in the past was for. Now I see it *real* clearly - they hold talks behind closed doors, working in secret to further entrench the unconstitutional use of taxpayer money to fund unconstitutional programs in the same way everyone else does - dangle a carrot in front of the individual states, telling them, "just do it like we want, and we'll give you the money we took from your citizens." Since the states only complain about an increase in the scope of government when it's mandated and not funded, they'll be all too happy to comply. It's getting to the point that I don't even know what to do, since threatening our elected officials with removal from office when they continue to violate their oath doesn't seem to concern them.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 03:07 AM
I still dont see this bill going anywhere like its earlier cousin, the Lady of Peace Act.

The mental health community I suspect is the real reason behind this and every other version's death.

illspirit
June 10, 2007, 03:14 AM
Without taking the Constitutionality of the bill into consideration, it's still insane.

The bill would authorize payments to the states of $250 million a year between 2008 and 2010

Whether that's $250M per State or nationally, that's a lot of money to throw at, what, maybe one or two Cho-types a year? Even if this bill had been in place before, does anyone honestly believe someone as intent as Cho would have been stopped by a single NICS rejection? With as much time and premeditation he put into it, he could have went out and stolen another Glock from a police cruiser, bought one from some drug dealer, or just built a bomb.

Statistically speaking, they'd probably get better results if they spent the money to randomly mail greeting cards with pictures of adorable kittens to college and high school students asking them nicely to please not shoot up the place. that is, assuming their goal really is less deaths..

billwiese
June 10, 2007, 03:56 AM
The politically naive here are missing something.

This bill may well have gone thru - why not get favorable publicity and ensure it does no harm? No rational politically-wise organization can say they support crazy people getting guns.

Also, whether this bill fails or flies is likely gonna hinge on HIPPA medical records privacy matters.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

stevelyn
June 10, 2007, 05:00 AM
Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

BOHICA :(

publius
June 10, 2007, 07:27 AM
Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system

Good for Vermont.

A quarter billion here, a quarter billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

JohnBT
June 10, 2007, 08:01 AM
"Also, whether this bill fails or flies is likely gonna hinge on HIPPA medical records privacy matters."

I don't think so. The law still requires the reporting of "adjudications", that is court records relating to involuntary committments. NICS doesn't need to know why the court involuntarily committed someone - the specific diagnosis, etc. - only that they were committed.

With only 20 states currently reporting involuntary committment info, the bill will allow the feds to pay the states to update their records. Half of the mental health info in NICS is from Virginia, so if Cho slipped through here what's going on in those other 30 states?

This bill, like current law, still doesn't cover voluntary mental health treatment like going to your doctor for meds for depression or anxiety, or going to a psychologist or therapist for counseling.

John

stellarpod
June 10, 2007, 08:09 AM
Ditto what JohnBT just said.

I'll wait to see how this works out before I start flaming the NRA. They have stated unequivocally that they will pull their support and actively campaign AGAINST the bill if it becomes "a gun control wish list" as it moves through Congress.

stellarpod

camacho
June 10, 2007, 08:52 AM
I didn't see anything in there that would have changed the VTech situation at all.

Well, possibly it would. According to the write up above: Under the bill, states voluntarily participating in the system would have to file an audit with the U.S. attorney general of all the criminal cases, mental health adjudications and court-ordered drug treatments that had not been filed with the instant-check system.

I am not saying that Cho would not have chosen other method of killing people but he might not have been able to legally purchase gun.

wdlsguy
June 10, 2007, 08:53 AM
The Brady Campaign and the National Rifle Association are both gun control organizations.

Mongo the Mutterer
June 10, 2007, 09:27 AM
The politically naive here are missing something.


Bingo.. They left themselves a big, huge door to walk out of, and the NRA looks to be a "sane" organization by promoting "common sense" reporting.

Eyewash for the sheeple, folks. Wise up.

And as far as HR1022, Mary McCarthy brings out her husband and son's bloody shirts every year with this bill, which will go nowhere.

As far as the Democrats, many were bluedogs elected with Pro 2A support (the useless McCaskill from my state is one of them.) They are not going to go down the road their liberal leaders want to go down. They want to be re-elected.

Politics needs to be looked at with a skeptical eye at all times. Ask yourself "Why would the NRA do that?" before throwing them under the bus.

Neo-Luddite
June 10, 2007, 10:59 AM
Watch out Illinois, our state is pushing legislation that will allow ANY health care professional to report even OUTPATIENT visits for depression as a risk to the state and thus, the Fed database.

It includes absolution for liability. It has passed the senate in IL.
So go to the doc, say you're feeling a bit down and might need anti-depressant meds, and bingo-bango---the doc's office can call you in.

Watch--they will worry about liability for NOT reporting and it will become routine. The receptionist will just send your data off to Springfield after billing your ins company.

And the ISRA isn't watching it that I've noted.

RealGun
June 10, 2007, 12:56 PM
The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill gunman killed 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System (NICS), and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.

Here we go again with the VT analysis. Technically, Cho maintained his eligibility to buy a gun, because of the way the court handled his case. He was not disqualified and would not have been reported. Using the case as an excuse to make more people ineligible or caught up in bureaucracy is lame. It actually attempts to redefine the threshold of ineligibility or would have to in order to have made a difference in hindsight.

This law will not be a reflection of any wisdom at all unless one takes on a temporary suspension of rights while being treated for mental problems. Such suspension should be imposed by or lifted only by those best qualified to judge ones mental capacity. That should be more than one person, and preferably not a Democrat or bureaucrat. :evil:

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 01:12 PM
Here we go again with the VT analysis. Technically, Cho maintained his eligibility to buy a gun, because of the way the court handled his case. He was not disqualified and would not have been reported. Using the case as an excuse to make more people ineligible or caught up in bureaucracy is lame. It actually attempts to redefine the threshold of ineligibility or would have to in order to have made a difference in hindsight.

True. It was a 'loophoole' none of us knew existed. I had no idea a judge could de-facto commit someone, without actually committing him, and it would not put him on the list.

By the way, I keep on hearing that 'only 4 states regularly report mental health disqualifications to NICS'. Does anyone know what states they are? I was able to find a list of states that 'report mental health disqualifications semi-regularly' - but not which 4 are keeping theirs updated.

pcosmar
June 10, 2007, 01:36 PM
No surprise
The headline I would really like to see, I large friendly letters.

NRA tells Democrats to SUCK EGGS.

jfh
June 10, 2007, 01:43 PM
and in light of that admonition, billweise hit a big one: At this stage of the bill-creation process (sausage-making), the NRA has done a big, and very good, PR move. Their involvement and agreement (again, to this stage), makes them / us to be a bit more sane to liberals and sheeples.

And THAT is a tiny bit of win in the cultures, with potential favorable long-term benefits.

At the next stage, the gun-grabbers get to appear to be the irrational ones and the obstructionists. And that's a good thing--again, with long-term benefits.

Finally, the NRA impact on legislation is well-known and revered among the poligentsia--remember their shut-down of the liability bill after poison-pill amendments were added, just two years ago.

The above is just political-speak; it does not address the common-sense values we all share regarding 'crazies'--I think.

Jim H.

Taurus 617 CCW
June 10, 2007, 02:01 PM
Just a bunch of morons without a cause and too much time/$ on their hands. :banghead:

Silver Bullet
June 10, 2007, 02:12 PM
From the Washington Post:


... To sign on the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks.

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.

The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicate names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

The full story can be found here, but you have to acquire a login:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=democrats%20nra&

damien
June 10, 2007, 02:18 PM
I am seriously considering rescinding my NRA membership.

"Significant concessions " my ass.

If these guys want to deal, that's fine. Dealing behind closed doors helps in this case because they can float ideas to the other side. But if they want to support this bill, they need to get something in return of equal value. I would deal this for any of the following:

1. Nationwide reciprocity.
2. Open up the NFA register again and start registering MGs.
3. Unambiguous pledges on paper and on FOX by McCarthy, Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, Pelosi, and Schumer not to support any future AWB, magazine ban, .50 cal ban, or any other gun ban at the federal level.

But to deal this away for nothing is just plain stupid.

Neo-Luddite
June 10, 2007, 02:19 PM
Hate the NFA? Say 'Thanks, NRA!'

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 02:38 PM
Hate the NFA? Say 'Thanks, NRA!'

Flat out myth created by GOA.

JohnBT
June 10, 2007, 02:40 PM
"In the 1930s, the United States faced a run of much-publicized gangster violence, led by such well-known criminals as John Dillinger, AL CAPONE, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde. The sensationalistic aspect of their crimes convinced the administration of President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT that something needed to be done to control the spread of weapons into the general population. U.S. Attorney General HOMER CUMMINGS and his staff began the process of drafting recommended legislation that would achieve this goal." - West's Encyclopedia of American Law

THANK YOU Attorney General Homer Cummings.

Aren't facts interesting. The government decided to tax machine guns. Gee, the NRA put in it's 2-cents worth. Surprise. You think the NRA should have stayed on the sideline while the feds plowed ahead with it?

John

makarova
June 10, 2007, 02:46 PM
As someone who has been concerned about Mental Health issues and gun rights. There may still be a good deal to be concerned about. I have filed several FOIAs with the Veterans Admin. about submitting lists of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the prohibited list. This based on information from the Neal Knox website. According to the late Neal Knox, the Clinton Admin was having problems showing the Brady Act was working because privacy laws were preventing the States from submitting most mental health records. So Clinton ordered the Veterans Admin to set up a beauracratic system which would bypass the law requiring appearing before a judge(adjudicated) to be included in the prohibited list. My conversations with the relevant office in the VA have confirmed this process continues. I will be filing a another FOIA monday to get a current copy of that policy. So lets be clear: Since 1999, the VA has been violating the law as a matter of policy. Most veterans included in the FBI/BATFE prohibited list were never adjudicated incompetent but were submitted by a VA medical review board, a violation of the law. Hence the reason for my concern. I will be posting a copy of the FOIA as soon as I receive it.

SoCalShooter
June 10, 2007, 02:48 PM
I understand the PR move and I understand the compromise I still do not like it though it ticks me the hell off, the question is what will they tag on to it as a rider (AWB)?

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 02:53 PM
As someone who has been concerned about Mental Health issues and gun rights. There may still be a good deal to be concerned about. I have filed several FOIAs with the Veterans Admin. about submitting lists of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the prohibited list. This based on information from the Neal Knox website. According to the late Neal Knox, the Clinton Admin was having problems showing the Brady Act was working because privacy laws were preventing the States from submitting most mental health records. So Clinton ordered the Veterans Admin to set up a beauracratic system which would bypass the law requiring appearing before a judge(adjudicated) to be included in the prohibited list. My conversations with the relevant office in the VA have confirmed this process continues. I will be filing a another FOIA monday to get a current copy of that policy. So lets be clear: Since 1999, the VA has been violating the law as a matter of policy. Most veterans included in the FBI/BATFE prohibited list were never adjudicated incompetent but were submitted by a VA medical review board, a violation of the law. Hence the reason for my concern. I will be posting a copy of the FOIA as soon as I receive it.

Wasnt it guys who had post-traumatic stress disorder? I cant remember the details of who they were adding.

RealGun
June 10, 2007, 03:13 PM
Hate the NFA? Say 'Thanks, NRA!'

Flat out myth created by GOA.

Please explain, cite supporting material, whatever. Maybe you're both wrong.

Neo-Luddite
June 10, 2007, 03:46 PM
The NRA-ILA needs the anti's to keep the money flowing.

Sure, I'm a member. Life is a compromise, ain't it. Doesn't mean I can't gripe about it also.

ryan in maine
June 10, 2007, 04:39 PM
two questions...

1). is the "appeal process" free?
2). would the appeal apply to the ownership of firearms only, or also CCW?

Neo-Luddite
June 10, 2007, 06:16 PM
The real reason I'm currently ticked about the present compromise--my state (IL) is going to start sending data on people as being prohibited for psych reasons---allowing any med professional to 'turn a patient in' for any reason of un-fitness wihtout further liability or explanation. A state bill is going to feed right into this. This will (my bet) happen in the more progressive states. The Fed list isn't just going to be the seriously mentally Ill, but an increasingly capricious list of citizens who sought help for minor psych issues who were added to the list by the actions of the front office clerk who also handles the billing at the local clinic. And once you're on that list for psych reasons--good luck getting off.

We got nothing for it--it wasn't compromise. Compromise would have been, say, carry reciprocity nationwide. This is a potential black hole for a lot of good people with minor psych problems--MANY vets in that number.

LAR-15
June 10, 2007, 06:34 PM
The liberals/antis have always wanted to impose a burdesome fee for each NICS background check.

stellarpod
June 10, 2007, 06:43 PM
Neo-Luddite:

I understand your frustration. But, it would appear that perhaps the bulk of your wrath should be focused on your tainted state government. The anti's appear to be in complete control there - to the extent that they are ready, willing and able to completely disregard the HIPPA legal concerns. The only hope then would be that the legal ramifications of ignoring doctor/patient privilege would ultimately prove fatal to the practice of wholesale divulging of medical records. Of course, how many lives will be unduly soiled before this obscene practice is stopped?

I really do have respect for those of you who somehow maintain an existance in the more "enlightened" states. I'm afraid I would have to cut and run.

stellarpod

TrybalRage
June 10, 2007, 06:51 PM
Thanks, NRA. Now I'm glad I didn't renew.

Compromise always means we lose a little more. You want to solve problems with NICS? Fine. Get rid of it.

Zundfolge
June 10, 2007, 07:36 PM
The headline I would really like to see, I large friendly letters.

NRA tells Democrats to SUCK EGGS.
Yeah, then they can relegate themselves to useless obscurity like the GOA.

Compromise always means we lose a little more. You want to solve problems with NICS? Fine. Get rid of it.
Ok, lets come back to reality. Democrats (and a lot of Republicans) are not going to just "get rid of it [NICS]".

The Dems started this ... they started to write a NICS overhaul that would have been very bad for us so the NRA gets in there, gets some compromises, gives some compromises and we end up with a bill that doesn't become a back door ban (which it would have become if the NRA would have just told the dems to "SUCK EGGS").

I too would love for Democrats to be told to "SUCK EGGS", but while they're in power all that does is lock us OUT of power and turns them loose to run roughshod over our rights.


So for all of you "NO COMPROMISE" folks, be glad the NRA doesn't think like the GOA or we'd probably have lost our gun rights long ago. (oh and the pathetic attempts to blame the NRA for the NFA are ridiculous ... the NRA isn't even remotely the same organization today as it was back then, keep in mind that the political lobbying wing (The NRA-ILA) didn't even EXIST until AFTER the '68 GCA.


Remember, if you're going to be all "ALL OR NOTHING" that means sometimes you get NOTHING. So unless you're ready to take up arms against the government [non high road comment removed].

Neo-Luddite
June 10, 2007, 07:49 PM
Personally, I am pro- NRA for what it is and should be--a sanctioning body for shooting competitions, safety standards and a promotor of the shooting sports. It seems like GOA (and others) are forcing it to be more mainstream centrist in it's politics by nature of it's very existance. Maybe good in some ways, not in others. They scored alsmost a zero for this, and the thing may be torpedoed because someone will pull a stunt and the NRA will pull support. That would be A-OK---and maybe that's the actual agenda and I'm just a schmuck for going on about the thing. Yeh, Illinois is a rotten deal--and the bill I'm speaking of is a 'technical' bill--it has gone under everyone's radar.

Silver Bullet
June 10, 2007, 08:08 PM
So for all of you "NO COMPROMISE" folks, be glad the NRA doesn't think like the GOA or we'd probably have lost our gun rights long ago.
My point exactly.

On another thread, I invited anyone to tell me what the GOA or JPFO has done for us that compared with recent NRA triumphs of 1) keeping the AWB from being renewed in the first Senate bill that protected the gun industry and 2) getting the courts to slap down New Orleans for gun confiscations.

I don’t see where the “No Compromise” folks are getting anything useful done. So far, no one has responded to my invitation.

oldfart
June 10, 2007, 08:19 PM
stellarpod, from here on in the Dems will shout about how the NRA backed this bill and no amount of denial from Cox or LaPierre will even be heard over the noise. The damage is done and we - that's you, me and the other 3.5million NRA members, now support this piece of garbage.
Worse yet, there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even fire those who sold us out. They've managed, over the years, to change the by-laws so they're completely insulated form any heat we might generate. Sure, some of us may quit sending our money to the NRA but most are all too happy to have their names mentioned as participating in some sanctioned match as if that sanctioning somehow makes them even better than the guy down the road who shoots better but isn't a member.
I called twice to voice my displeasure regarding their "helping" with this bill. It didn't make any difference in the end. I see little reason to support an organization that doesn't support me or my views. I quit!

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 08:22 PM
stellarpod, from here on in the Dems will shout about how the NRA backed this bill and no amount of denial from Cox or LaPierre will even be heard over the noise. The damage is done and we - that's you, me and the other 3.5million NRA members, now support this piece of garbage.
Worse yet, there's nothing we can do about it. We can't even fire those who sold us out. They've managed, over the years, to change the by-laws so they're completely insulated form any heat we might generate. Sure, some of us may quit sending our money to the NRA but most are all too happy to have their names mentioned as participating in some sanctioned match as if that sanctioning somehow makes them even better than the guy down the road who shoots better but isn't a member.
I called twice to voice my displeasure regarding their "helping" with this bill. It didn't make any difference in the end. I see little reason to support an organization that doesn't support me or my views. I quit!

oldfart, I wouldnt go too far. The NRA is only supporting the bill if it remains the same...IE the law is the same, but now it is funded to keep it updated. I dont know about you, but I like, and I think we need the appeal process to get names removed. Dont you want the vets to be able to get their names removed? Glad I never had PTS when I was in the service...or I would be screwed too.

jselvy
June 10, 2007, 08:27 PM
I'm so glad that the NRA is helping to bleed the Constitution white one drop at a time.
If the antis made an all-out grab all at once I think more people would react against it. How many more "Reasonable Restrictions" can there be before it is a ban?
Only white, middle class, republican, non-smoking, protestants, that have never taken a sick day can own a .22 bolt action rimfire but only after a Military T.S. type clearance check for which he will pay the "reasonable" tax of $500.00?
No Compromise. Not One More Step Back.

Jefferson

TrybalRage
June 10, 2007, 08:28 PM
My point exactly.

On another thread, I invited anyone to tell me what the GOA or JPFO has done for us that compared with recent NRA triumphs of 1) keeping the AWB from being renewed in the first Senate bill that protected the gun industry and 2) getting the courts to slap down New Orleans for gun confiscations.

I don’t see where the “No Compromise” folks are getting anything useful done. So far, no one has responded to my invitation.

NRA triumphs? That's funny, I thought it was the voters who stood up and were heard. I must have been mistaken.

Your (and the NRA's) ideas of 'compromise' have led us further and further along, incrementally, losing our right as we go. Enough. This whole concept of being on the defense for our rights stinks, and we keep losing. Perhaps the GOA does not have the clout that the NRA does, but now they have a little more and the NRA a little less by 1 member.

Compromise is the ideal of people already defeated in their minds.

Fburgtx
June 10, 2007, 08:54 PM
So now we can petition to have inaccurate info taken off our record AND the Fed. gov is permanently banned from charging a fee for background check??? That sounds like some pretty good concessions to me. I don't see any new "thresholds" for what constitutes mental defective here. It sounds like a funding bill to get states to report what they should have been reporting anyway. That's not to say that the Dems won't try to tack something on, but as it stands, how (or why) would the NRA oppose this?? Do you think the NRA would gain any ground by supporting the rights of delusional psychotics to keep and bear arms??????
The NRA (and many state assosciations) have done a pretty ok job the last few years with gun rights. A little over ten years ago, a normal citizen couldn't carry here in Texas. Now, over 250,000 do. They managed to help keep the AWB from getting renewed. I realize that there's been some bad laws made on the state level (Cali, Illinois, NJ, etc.) over the past few years, but name ONE significant piece of NATIONAL gun ban legislation that has been passed in the last ten years.
Join the NRA! Join your state association! Join other groups, too (SAF, GOA). Write letters to your local newspaper, congressman, state reps, etc. Most of all, STOP IT with the "screw it all" attitude!! If our forefathers could sacrifice their lives for freedom, the least we can do is sacrifice $50-$100/year and 5-10 minutes/week on letters (NOT letters to internet gun boards, but to newspapers and elected officials). The NRA can be "reasonable" as an organization, while we all can be more radical as individuals.

Rant off :)

Zundfolge
June 10, 2007, 08:59 PM
Compromise is the ideal of people already defeated in their minds.
Oh, so you're saying we can turn back every gun control law passed during the 20th century whenever we want but our self defeat causes us to compromise with the gun grabbers?


The GOA are a great bunch of guys and I strongly agree with their positions on the 2A, but they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting ANYTHING done.

The options are:
Work within the system (which will involve compromise sometimes)
Work outside the system (which will involve killing a lot of people and blowing a lot of stuff up, and for many of us, dying before there are any positive changes).

I prefer the first one as I really don't want my country to look like the Balkans, but I'm sure I'm already defeated in my mind here :rolleyes:

No Compromise is the ideal of dreamers, angry teenagers and people willing to kill everyone that gets in their way.

Zedicus
June 10, 2007, 09:46 PM
NRA + Compromises = Normal

But if you think of things this way..
If the USA or UK had Compromised in WWII, all of Europe would bean extension of Germany including part of the UK, and at least part of the USA would be under Japanese rule.

As long as the NRA contenue's thier practice of Compromising, they won't get one cent out of me.

IMHO the NRA seriously needs to grow some Teeth.

HiroProX
June 10, 2007, 10:14 PM
No Compromise is the ideal of dreamers, angry teenagers and people willing to kill everyone that gets in their way.

Nope, I'd say it's the position of people who are rightfully angry at something the state has no right to vote on, being voted on.

HiroProX
June 10, 2007, 10:21 PM
Bud, and all the demonchimps will need to do is defund the division of whatever agency there is that handles restoration of rights. It's what they've already done.

Autolycus
June 10, 2007, 10:21 PM
Zedicus: While I agree with you about the NRA compromise I do not think comparing this compromise to World War II is in any way logical.

I really disagree with the NRA. How many compromises must we make and what compromises have the antigunners made? I know that the ability to have NCIS records expunged was a concession. However that battle was won prior to this and there should have been funding. However this compromise is not worth the paper it is written on.

I am sorry but the more I learn about this the more I see it as a victory for antigunners and a false victory for us progunners. I would suggest that we start to push something good for us such as national reciprocity, NFA registry, or other compromise that was made.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 10:21 PM
However I have never heard of the "committed for drug treatment" thing and wonder if thats a new clause

Been the law here in Ohio for some time. I think it is on the federal level, but worded differently.

Ratzinger_p38
June 10, 2007, 10:22 PM
I really disagree with the NRA. How many compromises must we make and what compromises have the antigunners made? I know that the ability to have NCIS records expunged was a concession. However that battle was won prior to this and there should have been funding. However this compromise is not worth the paper it is written on.

I am sorry but the more I learn about this the more I see it as a victory for antigunners and a false victory for us progunners. I would suggest that we start to push something good for us such as national reciprocity, NFA registry, or other compromise that was made.

I am not sure where there is a compromise, except in our favor. Appeals? Didnt have those before.

romma
June 10, 2007, 10:23 PM
The people that cut this deal for the NRA should be the first ones under the new law that should lose their RTKBA because they gotta be CrAzY...

Autolycus
June 10, 2007, 10:37 PM
Ratzinger P38: I may have misread something earlier in the thread that stated the ability to have NCIS records "cleaned" was already in place but not being funded. I may not have read that correctly but I still feel that this was not a worthwhile compromise.

JohnBT
June 10, 2007, 10:41 PM
"Nope, I'd say it's the position of people who are rightfully angry at something the state has no right to vote on, being voted on."

Fine, I'm angry too, but we can't let Congress pass laws without our input. And they won't listen to shouts of "OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." They will just go about their business and stick us with whatever law they dream up.

The NRA is at least able to get time with them to talk a little sense and modify some of the proposals. For this they get blasted instead of thanked.
_______________

"Thanks, NRA. Now I'm glad I didn't renew.

Compromise always means we lose a little more. You want to solve problems with NICS? Fine. Get rid of it."

How? How can the NRA "get rid" of a law? They don't vote on laws, they can only lobby and arm twist. IOW, you're not making any sense.
_______________

"We can't even fire those who sold us out."

How have they sold us out? It's already against the law for anyone who has been involuntarily committed to own guns. Already against the law. Read it again, it's nothing new. Without the input of the NRA the gun grabbers would have made it worse, much worse. Like nationwide mandatory licensing if some of them had their way.
_____________

"The Fed list isn't just going to be the seriously mentally Ill, but an increasingly capricious list of citizens who sought help for minor psych issues who were added to the list by the actions of the front office clerk who also handles the billing at the local clinic."

You are making this stuff up out of nothing. The federal law prohibits individuals ADJUDICATED mentallly ill. Not diagnosed by the doctor, legally adjudicated. It takes a court order, not some doctor's note or a code form from a billing clerk.
___________

"my state (IL) is going to start sending data on people as being prohibited for psych reasons"

The question is, will the federal system accept bogus information submitted by some clerk? The law says adjudicated, so 1) the feds shouldn't take it unless it's due to a legal proceeding, and 2) if they do accept the names it looks like a very nice case for a federal court, not your state court. It could work out for the best actually.

I give up for the evening. It isn't that complicated folks.

JohnBT
June 10, 2007, 10:45 PM
THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING

I just wanted to try and fit in for a moment. That was fun, but pointless. Hysteria usually is.

:)

John

Silver Bullet
June 10, 2007, 10:50 PM
IMHO the NRA seriously needs to grow some Teeth.

There are instances where the NRA helped write legislation that would have been much worse if left to politicians. So, while the legislation was a step back for RKBA, it would have been several steps back if they had not stopped in. The NRA was not our enemy.


NRA triumphs? That's funny, I thought it was the voters who stood up and were heard. I must have been mistaken.

Yes, you are mistaken. The NRA was instrumental a few years ago in keeping the AWB from being renewed when Dems slipped it into the bill that would provide lawsuit protection for the firearms industry.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/siliconvalley/1805Results.html

Note in particular this quote from Feinstein (speaking of the NRA):

"I'm a bit numb ... They had the power to turn around at least 60 votes in the Senate. That's amazing to me."
- Senator Feinstein as quoted in the NY Times 3/3/04

Instead of belittling the NRA, you should be sending them extra donations.

Meanwhile, could someone give me an example where the GOA or JPFO have done anything anywhere near this magnitude ? Wait, let's make it easier. Give me an example where they've done anything ... period. I want to compare their accomplishments with the NRA's.

I have money to spend here, folks. I've already spent money on my annual NRA renewal, but I've still got some money left over. I could spend it on a GOA membership, or I could send it as additional donations to the NRA. What should I do ? Which organization is actually getting things done ? Which organization understands that "No Compromise" (ooh, aah) actually means "Not a player" ? Decisions, decisions.

jnojr
June 10, 2007, 10:59 PM
What is the "deal"? Did the Dems agree to not seek any more gun control, ever again?

No?!?!?! Then what's the point?

fast eddie
June 10, 2007, 11:53 PM
Fburgtx,
Keep ranting, you're spot on.

HiroProX
June 11, 2007, 12:13 AM
JohnBT, compromise got us into the present unacceptable state of affairs. Pardon me if I don't see how it can improve things one bit.

Zedicus
June 11, 2007, 12:40 AM
Tecumseh: While I agree with you about the NRA compromise I do not think comparing this compromise to World War II is in any way logical.
I Disagree, the two are quite similar in more ways than most would realize.

WWII was in many places a war for the freedom of numerous Occupied nations(France, Polland, etc etc), and in the USA's case it was us defending ourselves from a foreign Agressor.

Fighting the Gun control Crowd is a War for the freedoms of the citizens of the USA, Guns are the last line of defense of those freedoms which so many take for granted/ignore.

We are Fighting an Aggressor that's Ideas are Foreign to the ways of our country and who's Goals appear to be the same/similar as that of Foreign Aggressors such as Hitler/Stalin/Mao/the last Japanese Emperor (who's name escapes me).

WWII & Gun Control compare quite well.

stevelyn
June 11, 2007, 12:51 AM
Compromise means that both sides have to give something up. The antis don't have anything to give up. So everytime the NRA compromises with them, they gain something.

Each and everytime the NRA has jumped into bed with the antis to appear "reasonable", the resulting love child has been hiddeous.

Caimlas
June 11, 2007, 01:08 AM
How frustrating. This is all a bunch of nonsense.

If a person is too dangerous to own a firearm, then they are too dangerous to drive, own cutlery, possess or consume alcohol, and be out in public. Firearms do not make a person inherently more deadly or dangerous. So why aren't they locked up?

OHHHH that's right! This is about pre-crime not about crime; there's nothing about this law which prevents anyone from doing anything they couldn't before, and does little but pave the road for labeling anyone with the slightest mental "irregularity" as unfit for firearm ownership.


Each and everytime the NRA has jumped into bed with the antis to appear "reasonable", the resulting love child has been hiddeous.

Exactly. And there is no indication that this will be any different, either.

Compromise is asking your rapist to cuddle afterwards.


There are instances where the NRA helped write legislation that would have been much worse if left to politicians. So, while the legislation was a step back for RKBA, it would have been several steps back if they had not stopped in. The NRA was not our enemy.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that the NRA is a bit like the guy standing on top of an ocean wall with a bucket, saying, "don't worry guys, I'm taking care of it". Sure, he might be able to make the leaking seem mostly un-noticeable, but in the long run, a torrent of water comes through. Same thing here: if the NRA hadn't been getting in the way of encroachment, the creeping incrimentalism would be a torrent and we would all know we need to act immediately, or else.

That's why I'm kind of against political action groups like the NRA - at least in principle. It would be better to have just the Constitution sitting there for the corrupt politicians to look at instead of an immense, officiating policy group like the NRA, with known stances on certain items which will compromise to a certain degree. If we could keep the politicians constantly guessing and not have a unified and identifiable front, things would, I think, be much better for liberty.

Fburgtx
June 11, 2007, 01:10 AM
Compromise happens on the legislative level. It just does. We need to accept that to some extent and start learning some lessons from the liberal playbook. Look at what they've done on the issues of immigration/freedom of speech/gay marriage/etc. We need to be using the legal system more to our advantage. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why states should be able to get away with charging a fee for a background check. We have 2nd amendment rights just like we have the right to vote. This "fee" should be just as illegal as "poll taxes" were when it came to voting. THIS is where the NRA should be radical!!! The same goes for the "one gun a month" law. THIS is restricting interstate commerce. Take 'em to court!!!
We need to spend more time defeating these bad laws on the legal level, while making friends on the legislative level.
On another note, I get angry every time I go to a gun show. Why???? Because there is NEVER anyone there trying to register voters!!!! You have a huge amount of folks who would likely support pro-2nd amendment candidates, and NO ONE is there getting them registered!!!!
These would be my main gripes with the NRA. They need to do more on the legal/grassroots level (beyond instruction/matches). When the anti-gun legislators start to see that all their legislation is getting shot down quicker than they can pass it, they'll hopefully start backing off (like the realistic Republicans have on anti-gay/anti-abortion bills to some extent).

Lifetime NRA member
TSRA member

oldfart
June 11, 2007, 01:22 AM
fburgtx said: "A little over ten years ago, a normal citizen couldn't carry here in Texas. Now, over 250,000 do."

Yeah, and the state knows where every one of them is. People who apply for and get CCL are just swapping one boogyman (the occasional gangster) for another (the perpetual state.) :cuss:

illspirit
June 11, 2007, 01:38 AM
Regarding concerns from a number of posters that Illinois wants to allow doctors to arbitrarily add people to the prohibited persons list.

Couldn't they do that now anyway, with or without the bill being discussed? If I'm not mistaken, the mechanism for doing so is already in place, it's just that most States don't use it, no?

Ratzinger_p38
June 11, 2007, 07:03 AM
Ratzinger P38: I may have misread something earlier in the thread that stated the ability to have NCIS records "cleaned" was already in place but not being funded. I may not have read that correctly but I still feel that this was not a worthwhile compromise.

Yes, but once again I dont see what it is we are compromising on, at this moment. Sure with the socialists in power that could change, but as of now it is just funding what was already the law. Right now, it swings in our favor. Being able to remove your name from the list is a big victory. So far it sounds like they get nothing.

RealGun
June 11, 2007, 08:51 AM
Yeah, then they can relegate themselves to useless obscurity like the GOA. - Zundfolge

I am about to write a check to that useless obscurity's political action fund. What do I know?:rolleyes:

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 08:55 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1912986.ece

The talks were led by John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who once served on the NRA board. The NRA said that it had always supported keeping guns out of the hands of mentally incompetent people. But the organisation warned that it would withdraw its support for the legislation if other measures were tacked on in Congress.

Ah, yes, I can see it all now --bill gains traction, snowballs, other measures
get tacked on and the NRA throws up its hands saying "That's not what we
talked about!" :rolleyes:

Will be a good test of your so-called reps both on the Hill and in the NRA.
Who really is your friend? Maybe it'll come down to two votes and a filibuster
that could have killed the whole thing like back in 94. What a geat time
for "let's make a deal"!!!

JohnBT
June 11, 2007, 09:28 AM
"Compromise happens on the legislative level. It just does."

Exactly, even though some folks refuse to believe it. Or maybe they're just stubborn. Or maybe they just don't know.

So what's the point? That was a question asked. The point is that without somebody - the NRA - sitting down with the members of Congress who were working on this bill we'd likely be stuck with a worse bill containing more restrictions. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

To me it looks like Congress compromised with the NRA, not the other way around. Congress didn't have to give up anything - they write the bills and pass the laws, not the NRA. I know, many of you think the NRA team members should have packed their briefcases and boycotted the talks, but that would have left Congress operating with input from only the other side - Brady etc. Is that what you really wanted to happen?

John

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 10:06 AM
John,

Some of us have just really long memories such as when the NRA supported
Instant Check which under a previous president turned into Instant Registration
until it was "discovered", back-pedaled, policy supposedly changed and records
supposedly destroyed.

You'll have to pardon my lack of trust in backroom deal-making when so many
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents
and the membership. Normally we would use the word lie in situations like that,
but such direct language is not considered PC in America.

Art Eatman
June 11, 2007, 10:30 AM
When an anti-gun political party has the majority of votes in Congress, lobbying for compromise is the ONLY thing any group can do: GOA, 2AF, CCRKBA, JPFO--and the NRA.

Anybody here who voted in the last elections in a manner to "teach the Republicans a lesson" contributed to the Democratic takeover of the House and Senate.

We're fortunate that the pro-gun efforts at the state level for CHL laws have made a change in the political parties' perception of the political power of gun owners. That enabled the NRA to obviate various "bad stuff" amendments to the Bill.

Digressing to the off-topic issue of the NFA: At that time, there had been little or no prior reason for the NRA to be involved in any great amount of effort to lobby against gun control laws. This was a new phenomenon. And, like many, it was believed that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA. The NRA was not to blame for the death of the plaintiff in the appeals process; his absence meant the court decision followed the fed's wishes.

Art

Zundfolge
June 11, 2007, 11:19 AM
I guess I'd just like these "All or nothing" folk to give me a reasonable, likely "non-compromise" scenario that doesn't involve the pro-2A movement just packing their stuff and leaving Washington, or at the least excusing themselves from the table and waiting in the parking lot, and one that doesn't involve bloodshead.

We see these people in this forum all the time bashing the NRA for any compromise, yet none of you have the balls to take a rifle, head to DC and start cleaning house because dammit compromise is how a democratic political system works, the only alternative is war (especially when the anti gun folk have their people in charge).

Now I can understand criticizing the NRA if they make a stupid compromise (for example, agreeing to an AWB or handgun ban) but in this case, the NRA did well and got us some concessions from the antis that we'll benefit more from than had they taken the GOA/No Compromise approach and shouted obscenities from outside the building.

JohnBT
June 11, 2007, 11:39 AM
"You'll have to pardon my lack of trust in backroom deal-making when so many
times it has turned out different than what was presented to the constituents and the membership."

Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't, I like having them in on the dealmaking. It appears the NRA introduced a little bit of reasonableness into the process. I can only imagine what the Democrats and the Bradys would have come up with in the way of a bill if left on their own.

John

Silver Bullet
June 11, 2007, 11:43 AM
The situation we have now is there are about four million NRA members contributing time and money to try and improve things for RKBA.

There are another 76 million gun owners who are doing nothing but letting the other 4 million do the heavy lifting; in fact, all of the lifting. Worse, some of the 76 million are sitting around on a couch and criticizing the 4 million for not getting things done faster, instantly, Right Now !

I'll make an extra contribution this month to pay the way for a couple of you. Maybe some day you can do something for me. I hope not; it would be hard on my self-esteem.

Mike128
June 11, 2007, 02:47 PM
It would be nice to have the NRA go on the offensive for a change. Get some of our bills in and have the anti's do some comprimising and backpedaling. How about attaching some of our poison pills to the anti's bill? The NRA does seem to temper bills but we are still loosing ground one baby step at a time.
How about finding out what goals the NRA is setting to ADVANCE firearms owners rights? National CCW, no ammo restriction, fifty caliber freedom, ect.

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 04:25 PM
Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't...

Again, John, the NRA backed instant check last time around and it turned
into instant registration. I fail to see how the NRA helped.

JohnBT
June 11, 2007, 04:46 PM
Where is the instant registration? I must have missed it in the law. Can you give me link to it?

Meanwhile, the instant check/NICS system is an improvement over the Brady's 5-day waiting period.

John

alan
June 11, 2007, 05:19 PM
If this thing passes, and we might well be quite some distance from that, the following comes to my mind.

Beware of the "little noticed clauses" those inserted by unnamed person or persons, spelled congressional staffers, little noticed clauses that might well impact with hellish force on the heads and backs of the law abiding. I submit that the record of The Congress re this sort of thing is less than encouraging. I submit that this is something that a whole lot of people need to be careful with and attentive to, before ink is applied to paper.

Art Eatman
June 11, 2007, 06:55 PM
Okay, alan, but what the NRA has been doing is working to obviate those "little noticed clauses".

The next phase is the Conference Committee. There, the NRA (or anybody else) can do little or nothing. Conference Committee is where the anti-full-auto stuff snuck in. And, for that matter, many of the bad things of the Brady Bill.

For all that the "hard core" 2A folks rail against the NRA, I'd like to know what legislative effect at the national level has been accomplished by GOA, CCRKBA, 2AF or JFPO? SFAIK, the NRA and only the NRA has ever had any effect on Congress.

I'm not saying these other groups have not had any effect, but in the last forty years I've not heard of nor read of any. And I've been a supporting member of CCRKBA and 2AF for a couple of dozen years or so...

Art

TrybalRage
June 11, 2007, 08:46 PM
Yes, you are mistaken. The NRA was instrumental a few years ago in keeping the AWB from being renewed when Dems slipped it into the bill that would provide lawsuit protection for the firearms industry.

You see, now you are starting to give the NRA the same sort of characteristics that the antis do. The NRA has no power. All they do is tell us when something happens, and ask us, the voters, to complain to the right people. It is not a faceless thing that should be making deals. If the NRA had so much power, where the heck were they over the last 7 years?

Now with the far reaches of the internet, I usually hear about anti-gun legislation days or even weeks before the NRA says a word. By this time I have already done my part.

If the NRA ceased to exist tomorrow, we would still be heard just as loudly.

When an anti-gun political party has the majority of votes in Congress, lobbying for compromise is the ONLY thing any group can do: GOA, 2AF, CCRKBA, JPFO--and the NRA.

Sorry, Art, but from where I'm sitting it looks like they need us to pass anything, not the other way around. Otherwise they would just pass their little bill without asking. This is just trying to get the votes to pass their mental health bill, and the NRA is offering to tell all us lemmings to support it if they give us a teensy bit in return.

How about no? How about the rules are already too restrictive as it is now? How about we not give the Fed. Government one more blackmailing dollar to cut off from states if they don't toe the line?

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 09:22 PM
Where is the instant registration? I must have missed it in the law. Can you give me link to it?


After NICS went online during the Clinton era (the first one ;) ), the electronic
records were not being destroyed. When this came to public attention, the
records were then destroyed. At least that's what we've been told. We might
as well put as much trust in that as believing that Social Security and Medicare
are going to be fully-funded for our grandkids, too.

Silver Bullet
June 11, 2007, 09:57 PM
You see, now you are starting to give the NRA the same sort of characteristics that the antis do.
I guess you forgot to read the link I provided.

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 04:53 AM
"Compromise happens on the legislative level. It just does."

Exactly, even though some folks refuse to believe it. Or maybe they're just stubborn. Or maybe they just don't know.


I believe in AIDs, clap, and various other VD. Should I just accept it, and sleep with a woman who I know has one of them? It has nothing to do with believe; it has everything in the world to do with principle and not putting up with corruption and the forceful debauchery of our country's founding principles.

Or are you telling me that you're fine with compromise - with the steady and intentional (you can't be a lawyer and not know this stuff) erosion of our civil liberties as acknowledged in the Constitution?

Thin Black Line
June 12, 2007, 07:47 AM
I believe in AIDs, clap, and various other VD. Should I just accept it, and sleep with a woman who I know has one of them? It has nothing to do with believe; it has everything in the world to do with principle and not putting up with corruption and the forceful debauchery of our country's founding principles.

+1. But the business in DC is sleeping with every woman who comes along
and the founding principles have been traded for the principle of fondling.

stellarpod
June 12, 2007, 10:18 AM
From JohnBT:
The point is that without somebody - the NRA - sitting down with the members of Congress who were working on this bill we'd likely be stuck with a worse bill containing more restrictions. I don't see how anyone can come to any other conclusion.

To me it looks like Congress compromised with the NRA, not the other way around. Congress didn't have to give up anything - they write the bills and pass the laws, not the NRA. I know, many of you think the NRA team members should have packed their briefcases and boycotted the talks, but that would have left Congress operating with input from only the other side - Brady etc. Is that what you really wanted to happen?

From Zundfolge:
We see these people in this forum all the time bashing the NRA for any compromise, yet none of you have the balls to take a rifle, head to DC and start cleaning house because dammit compromise is how a democratic political system works, the only alternative is war (especially when the anti gun folk have their people in charge).

Now I can understand criticizing the NRA if they make a stupid compromise (for example, agreeing to an AWB or handgun ban) but in this case, the NRA did well and got us some concessions from the antis that we'll benefit more from than had they taken the GOA/No Compromise approach and shouted obscenities from outside the building.

Again from JohnBT:
Would you feel better if the NRA had stayed home and left the backroom deal-making to everybody else? I wouldn't, I like having them in on the dealmaking. It appears the NRA introduced a little bit of reasonableness into the process. I can only imagine what the Democrats and the Bradys would have come up with in the way of a bill if left on their own.

And some sage words of wisdom from Silver Bullet:
There are another 76 million gun owners who are doing nothing but letting the other 4 million do the heavy lifting; in fact, all of the lifting. Worse, some of the 76 million are sitting around on a couch and criticizing the 4 million for not getting things done faster, instantly, Right Now !

There will always be those who take charge, get involved and work. And there will always be those who sit on the sideline, pissing and moaning about the work that's being done. I don't see this changing anytime soon.


JohnBT, Zunfoldge and Silver Bullet: Your comments could not be more true and they bear restating over and over.

stellarpod

stellarpod
June 12, 2007, 10:30 AM
And another thing... :D

As I sit here in Calgary, Alberta (I'm visiting from Oklahoma) it occurs to me how tragic it would be if the U.S. gun laws were to go the way of my brethren's laws in Canada. I believe the NRA is doing what they can to keep this from happening.

The NRA backed the effort last year regarding legislation to keep cities/states/et al from suing gun manufacturers only to pull their support when the antis tried to attach new assault weapon ban language. Those legislators who were concerned about losing favor with the NRA - or more accurately the voters who the NRA represents - promptly dropped their support as well. This would suggest to me that the NRA does enjoy a fair amount of legislative power - albeit indirectly.

And thank God they do.

stellarpod

LAR-15
June 12, 2007, 10:57 AM
but as of now it is just funding what was already the law.

Now don't bring the truth into this thread!

That's not allowed

xd9fan
June 12, 2007, 11:22 AM
Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system
Good for Vermont.

A quarter billion here, a quarter billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

yep I really do hope states start leaving the Federal Govt behind.
And go on their own like the paperless system. They need to leave the Federal Govt behind on other issues as well. They are just a drain on liberty and money. The more states that get this the better.

TrybalRage
June 12, 2007, 12:36 PM
I guess you forgot to read the link I provided.

Read it, and I'm missing your point.

The anti's seem to think that the NRA is some mighty sentient entity, and if it were gone, so would their troubles. I'm telling you they are wrong. WE would still be here.

alan
June 12, 2007, 12:54 PM
Art Eatman:

The points you make about effectiveness of the NRA might be correct, and you are certainly correct re your references to those "conference committees", who is it that determines their make-up?

Having said that, how many phone calls has NRA received from members, I spoke with them yesterday, who are less than pleased with it's actions? Additionally, how many e-mails, phone calls, smoke signals are directed toward members of congress from, what is it, 80,000,000 plus gun owning Americans?

Seems to me that re people who refuse to act in defense of what one would presume to be their own interests, we are looking at losers, whose rights will not long survive. It is, I suspect, these same loosers from whom the following is heard, Vote, I don't bother with that, besides, my vote doesn't count. Contact my congressperson and or senators, I don't have time, I don't know who they are, I cannot write, I guess they cannot use a telephone either, I don't know their address, it goes on and on.

So in the end, if gun rights, among other rights disappear, will it be that the anti rights cabal that has won, or will it be that the "owners" of the rights had lost, having essentially pissed their rights away, via lack of attention to them?

End of comment or "rant".

Dave Workman
June 12, 2007, 02:36 PM
Art Eatman wrote:

I'm not saying these other groups have not had any effect, but in the last forty years I've not heard of nor read of any. And I've been a supporting member of CCRKBA and 2AF for a couple of dozen years or so...

Hi, Art. Perhaps I can answer that. Much of the reason you don't hear about the activities of these two groups is that the press systematically neglects to mention their involvement.

For example: did you know that SAF is a full participant in the New Orleans lawsuit? Or that SAF actually initiated the groundwork for the current San Francisco lawsuit, based on SAF's earlier successful defeat of a 1982 S-Fran gun ban?

Did you know that SAF is currently involved in federal gun rights lawsuits in Texas and Ohio, and what amounts to a First Amendment lawsuit in Washington state?

Whenever the press reports that "gun rights organizations" are involved in some action, but then subsequently refers only to the NRA, they're frequently talking about "more" than the NRA, they're just too damned lazy to report it.

CCRKBA is more involved in grassroots activities, coordinating with state and local groups. SAF doesn't lobby at all because it is prohibited from that kind of direct political activity by law. But SAF goes to court.

Over the past couple of years, whenever SAF has issued a press release about its involvement in joint lawsuits, it has not failed to mention its partners, be they the NRA or whomever.

gc70
June 12, 2007, 10:41 PM
Here is the new bill, HR 2640 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2640ih.txt.pdf).

Ratzinger_p38
June 12, 2007, 10:53 PM
Here is the new bill, HR 2640.

Oh thank god. That added in the bit about what 'mental defective' means by US law, and not some ambigous statement like it was before.

And now it gets rid of the formally 'permenant' disability...this is a real god send to my fellow vets to get their rights back.

So far so good. I am relieved somewhat.

Now this means perhaps that some people with years old Domestic violence records can get their rights back too. Definately a plus.

TheOld Man
June 12, 2007, 11:16 PM
What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do they not understand?

Caimlas
June 12, 2007, 11:29 PM
Hmm. I don't know, TheOld Man.

It would seem to me that with those additions, that it's acceptable and within the guidelines of the 2A as expanded by the Militia Act.

Fletchette
June 13, 2007, 03:05 PM
By contrast, this agreement is a marriage of convenience for both sides. Democratic leaders are eager to show that they can respond legislatively to the Virginia Tech rampage, a feat that GOP leaders would not muster after the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado. Meanwhile, the NRA was motivated to show it would not stand in the way of a bill that would not harm law-abiding gun buyers. Even so, it drove a hard bargain to quiet its smaller but more vociferous rival, Gun Owners of America, which has long opposed McCarthy's background-check bill.

...and the media wonders why people call them biased. It never dawned on this "reporter" that perhaps Congress should not pass a new law after every crime. Perhaps they should repeal laws to allow teachers to effectivel defend themselves.

Geister
June 13, 2007, 03:40 PM
I will NOT support the NRA after this. I don't care if this only affects the mentally ill, the NRA has no business working with gun grabbers. It's pretty pointless that the organization claims "from my cold, dead hands" when they are willing to give the government power to regulate firearms.

Geister
June 13, 2007, 03:43 PM
So for all of you "NO COMPROMISE" folks, be glad the NRA doesn't think like the GOA or we'd probably have lost our gun rights long ago.

And if people like you were in the majority during the American Revolution or World War II, this nation would have ceased to exist long ago.

jselvy
June 13, 2007, 04:21 PM
I still say
NO COMPROMISE

I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals.
The NRA is aiding and abetting those that would strip us all of one of our most basic liberties. Collaborators are treasonous scum.


Jefferson

pablo45
June 13, 2007, 04:59 PM
Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"

JohnBT
June 13, 2007, 07:59 PM
Because the NRA does not introduce bills and pass laws. They lobby for us, members and other gun owners alike.

"I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals."

I suppose it's a good thing you aren't in charge or we'd be up a creek.

John

TrybalRage
June 13, 2007, 08:35 PM
Sure, because the NRA has done such a bang-up job over the years.

I'll just be going down to buy the MP5 I've been saving for... oh.

Compromise stinks. I don't care what 'concessions' we got. How about no?

The problem isn't the one crazy guy, it's the 25,000 sane sheep there.

What ever did we do as a nation before Sarah Brady and NICS?

publius
June 13, 2007, 08:41 PM
I'd like to know what legislative effect at the national level has been accomplished by GOA

According to their alert regarding this compromise, part of the "victory" in the compromise is merely a promise that the Smith amendment, which is already law, will remain the law. They claim credit for that amendment.

Link (http://www.gunowners.org/a061207.htm)
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.

Silver Bullet
June 14, 2007, 12:04 AM
I still say
NO COMPROMISE

I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals.
What's stopping you ?

alan
June 14, 2007, 12:18 AM
TheOld Man asks:

What part of "...shall not be infringed..." do they not understand?

---------------------

The whole damned thing, I would say.

Michael Thomson
June 14, 2007, 12:27 AM
Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"

It seems some folks slept through the November elections last fall. In case you missed it, the Democrats won and they control both houses of Congress, all the House and Senate committees and debate on the floor, not the NRA.

Whether you believe it or not, Congress was going to "do something" after VA Tech. I suppose the question is just how far they felt they could go. It doesn't make it right, but that's how Congress works.

That being said, I still don't see how this impacts law-abiding gun owners. The only people effected by this legislation are those people who are already prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. The legislation doesn't expand the prohibited categories and simply requires the states to supply updated information on prohibited individuals and dispositions of arrests to NICS. It also will permit individuals to have their rights restored which they cannot do now. Finally, it bans the implementation of a NICS background check fee. My understanding is that the amdt which prohibits a NICS fee must be reauthorized yearly which is why NRA is fighting for a permanent prohibition.

eric_t12
June 14, 2007, 03:53 AM
Digressing to the off-topic issue of the NFA: At that time, there had been little or no prior reason for the NRA to be involved in any great amount of effort to lobby against gun control laws. This was a new phenomenon. And, like many, it was believed that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA. The NRA was not to blame for the death of the plaintiff in the appeals process; his absence meant the court decision followed the fed's wishes.

+1 for the courts being the real do or die faction. depending on how they view legislation, they could do away with a NEED for the NRA, ACLU, and any other organization other than congress... however they would have to declare laws both permissible and unconstitutional (to appease the pro's and the anti's, which is impossible).

If they read the Constitution directly with no 'reasonable restrictions' involved, the NRA would be pointless, except maybe to help in state hunting cases or violations at the state level... which would be fine with me, because i feel the RKBA has only minimal basis from hunting, and a MAXIMUM basis on personal defense.

my .02

publius
June 14, 2007, 06:47 AM
Finally, it bans the implementation of a NICS background check fee. My understanding is that the amdt which prohibits a NICS fee must be reauthorized yearly which is why NRA is fighting for a permanent prohibition.
I don't see any expiration or need for reauthorization of the law.

SMITH AMENDMENT NO. 3234 (Senate - July 21, 1998)

[Page: S8680] GPO's PDF

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire proposed an amendment to amendment No. 3233 proposed by him to the bill, S. 2260, supra; as follows:

In the pending amendment, strike all after the word `Sec.' and insert in lieu thereof the following:

None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for (1) any system to implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever, submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); provided, that any person aggrieved by a violation of this provision may bring an action in the federal district court for the district in which the person resides; provided, further, that any person who is successful with respect to any such action shall receive damages, punitive damages, and such other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The provisions of this section shall become effective one day after enactment.'

Michael Thomson
June 14, 2007, 11:21 AM
The Smith Amendment was an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. Since it was an amendment to an appropriations bill for a particular fiscal year, unless it specifies otherwise, it expired at the end of the fiscal year. The presumption on any funding limitation is it only applies to the same fiscal year unless Congress expresses a clear intent to make it permanent (such as "none of the funds appropriated by this or any other act for any fiscal year").

sigman4rt
June 14, 2007, 07:29 PM
And if the minutemen standing on Concord bridge in April of '75 had compromised.......... "ok you can take the powder but not the musket balls." Where would we be today?

jselvy
June 14, 2007, 07:52 PM
And if the minutemen standing on Concord bridge in April of '75 had compromised.......... "ok you can take the powder but not the musket balls." Where would we be today?
I think they did give them the Musket balls very quickly one at a time, in volleys.:evil:

As to what's stopping me. I alone have no hope of defeating these tyrants, but if we all stood together as one and shouted

NO COMPROMISE!!!!

We might have a chance to make our voices heard. Or at least have one last "remembered fight" before our liberties go down the drain.:cuss::banghead:

Jefferson

gego
June 14, 2007, 07:59 PM
.... The only vocal opposition in the House came from Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican. Mr. Paul, who is seeking his party's 2008 presidential nomination, described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment."

My Representative, JoAnn Emerson responded to my request for her to oppose the bill with a letter claiming she supported gun rights; I am sure she voted for the bill, although who would know with a voice vote.

This bill is just another step down the path of government control and plunder.

TrybalRage
June 14, 2007, 08:27 PM
Yeah, I love that voice vote only. No one to get angry at.

Rebeldon
June 14, 2007, 08:42 PM
Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"

I've got news for you. The Democrats wanted to overhaul the NICS, with or without the NRA's cooperation. Wouldn't you rather have the NRA be part of the dialogue than have the Democrats do it all by themselves?

jselvy
June 14, 2007, 08:46 PM
So the NRA whoring itself out is better than it maintaining a vestige of principle?

Jefferson

.cheese.
June 14, 2007, 08:50 PM
I can't believe the NRA participated in this.

Now I'm starting to see why some people dislike the NRA and support GOA and JPFO instead.

Now, I need to read this in its whole... but I'm wondering... what about people who see psychologists and psychiatrists regularly... but are not insane or anything? Are they all of a sudden barred from owning guns? Is this basically, "See a shrink, never plink." ?

TrybalRage
June 14, 2007, 09:29 PM
I've got news for you. The Democrats wanted to overhaul the NICS, with or without the NRA's cooperation. Wouldn't you rather have the NRA be part of the dialogue than have the Democrats do it all by themselves?

If they could have, they would have.

So instead, lets promise the NRA something that already exists (petition for removal from NICS), promise never to charge for the check (except for the $250 million a year paid in taxes, but what the hey, that's not really money), and place the power of deciding mental fitness in the hands of a judge instead of a doctor (because we all know how incorruptible and correct they always are), and in the meantime give us more blackmailing power over the states to get, as an example, that stupid Vermont to bend to our will.

Then we can get their support and have a vote where no one is recorded to protect ourselves from backlash after surprising them with it out of nowhere.

gego
June 14, 2007, 10:18 PM
My email to "my" Representative:

"I requested you vote against HR1022, the McCarthy anti gun rights bill. Since this was a voice vote, I do not know how you voted. Did you vote in favor of this bill or against it?"

Do you think I will get a response? Fat chance, in my view.

Michael Thomson
June 14, 2007, 10:43 PM
My email to "my" Representative:

"I requested you vote against HR1022, the McCarthy anti gun rights bill. Since this was a voice vote, I do not know how you voted. Did you vote in favor of this bill or against it?"

Wrong bill. HR 1022 is about reauthorizing the AW ban and is languishing in committee. This is about HR 2640 which would only require states turn over information on PROHIBITED individuals. Apparently many of the folks here who oppose the bill support allowing convicted murders, child rapist and adjudicated mental incompetents to own guns.

I can't believe the NRA participated in this.

Now I'm starting to see why some people dislike the NRA and support GOA and JPFO instead.

JPFO doesn't lobby and GOA is clearly is so out of its depth on Capitol Hill that they didn't even know that a bill was going to be brought up. If they are as capable as they claim you'd think they would have known about this bill. Clearly they have no one other than Ron Paul to go to bat for them and they couldn't even get Ron Paul to request a roll call vote.

Now, I need to read this in its whole... but I'm wondering... what about people who see psychologists and psychiatrists regularly... but are not insane or anything? Are they all of a sudden barred from owning guns? Is this basically, "See a shrink, never plink." ?

You would have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed. Seeing a shrink, taking antidepressants or voluntarily checking yourself into an institution would not prevent you from owning a firearm.

No compromiseThis bill does not expand the prohibited categories under federal law. It simply requires the states to turn over information on those who are already prohibited individuals.

We might have a chance to make our voices heard. Or at least have one last "remembered fight" before our liberties go down the drain.

Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.

Ratzinger_p38
June 14, 2007, 11:52 PM
Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.

Yeah I am a little confused by this opposition also. As it is now, it is quite worth it for the appeals process. That could change though in Senate committees. Thats where trouble may happen.

(On the to-do list for NICS - an appeals process for Domestic violence offenders, as well as for non-violent felonies)

alan
June 15, 2007, 12:54 AM
Michael Thomson:

Re H.R. 2640, that is the legislation passed by The House, might not be as bad as some would have it, it might be worse. What strikes me as UNACCEPTABLE, especially regarding important legislation, which this is, was the way it was done, congress hiding behind the skirts of an unrecorded voice vote and a suspension of the rules. I'm kind of annoyed with the NRA too.

Re congressional voting, the following comes to mind. When our elected things are unwilling to have their names placed next to their recorded votes, I can only assume that they are less than proud of the vote in question, and or that what we herein see is an example of despicable cowardice. It also strikes me that for what we pay these people, by they Republican or Democrat, that we the people are entitled to a hell of a lot more than a display of cowardice, such as was here seen.

By the way, if I read correctly, you indicated that you had contacted your congressional representative, seeking to know how they voted. If you get an answer to what was a legitimate question, do let us know.

JohnBT
June 15, 2007, 10:15 AM
"Now, I need to read this in its whole... but I'm wondering... what about people who see psychologists and psychiatrists regularly... but are not insane or anything?"

Doesn't count. That is voluntary treatment. Checking yourself into a facility for treatment for a mental health problem is voluntary.

The law prohibits persons who have been involuntarily committed - a judge has to declare you are a threat to yourself or others and then commit you for treatment. The law, and it's been the law for years, requires a legal decision, not just a psychologist or psychiatrist giving you a diagnosis.

John

Rob G
June 15, 2007, 12:58 PM
Looks folks, stop being sheeple under control of the media and read the bill. It requires the governments to simply keep better track of people already banned from possessing firearms. It doesn't add anyone to the ban list that isn't already there.
It does however prevent the government from ever charging gun owners a fee for NICS checks, something Bill Clinton almost passed twice.
It also creates for the first time a system whereby people on the list can appeal to be removed from it, a right they have never had before.
It sounds bad because the media want you to believe it's a gun control bill so that they can prove that gun control can be passed and does work. The reality is though that it doesn't actually restrict anything new, just reclarifies the state's reporting requirements.
Look, I'm not an NRA member or supporter, but I did read the bill and they didn't sell us out. The media just wants you to think they did. Divide and conquer and it worked with some of you.

munangokeewati
June 15, 2007, 01:41 PM
The level of distrust and misunderstanding here is very disheartening. Much of this reflects the same mindset that gave us a Democratic congress that would love to pass national registration, a new AWB, etc. Better to support a candidate (or organization) you agree with 80% of the time than empower those you disagree with almost all of the time.

denny
June 15, 2007, 02:53 PM
Michael Thomson Replied and Said:


Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.

Michael,

I have a question to ask- do you work for the NRA or NRA/ILA as a paid employee?

My reason for asking is I came here to read more about HR2640 and after reading many, your posts caught my eye and every time I read one of your posts, I noticed that the replies and arguments sounded real familiar, so I looked at, and read all of your posts and responses.

This morning I called the NRA/ILA and I wound up being connected to a Deborah who asked for my number so a Scott could return my call and speak with me directly. Scott did so and your answers and arguments are EXACTLY and nearly verbatim the same as his replies. What is even curiouser is that your join date is 04/27/07 but your very first post here is on 04/26/07 and you ended that post with the EXACT & VERBATIM statement that Scott gave me this morning.

You see Michael, I stated to Deborah & Scott both that I think the NRA sold us out by doing a very quiet back-door deal that even went so far as to have the House of Representatives pass this by voice vote and that the only member to vote no was Rep. Ron Paul and Scott instantly jumped on me by saying Dr. Paul COULD have asked for a ROLL-CALL Vote.

I told him that I do tend to pay very close attention to upcoming 2nd Amendment issues and proposed bills, but the first time I had heard anything about HR2640 was Sunday morning when a friend sent me the MSNBC article about it. Yes, I do work and cannot always keep up (and in fact I rarely even post here) and Scott said the NRA/ILA had first posted about it on April 27th, 2007 and I told him I would check and I did today, but the date is for 06/13/07 (the NRA stopped the WayBack machine from archiving the site on 04/26/06 so I cannot check there) so I am working on the premise that Scott is correct and the first mention on the NRA/ILA's site is in fact 04/27/07.

Scott and I talked for over an hour before the call ended and we argued and debated at length about this and other things I think the NRA & NRA/ILA is wrong about and not fighting hard enough for and everything he said, is again, nearly every argument and rebuttal that you have made.

Now, I do not have a problem with a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA being a member here, in fact I think that would be a good thing, but what I do have a problem with is if a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA signing up here and NOT stipulating his bonfides.

Again, I ask you Michael, do you work for the NRA or NRA/ILA as a paid employee.

Denny

Chad
June 15, 2007, 03:18 PM
The level of distrust and misunderstanding here is very disheartening.
That is sadly true.
H.R.297&2640 have badly divided some groups.
Too many think winning arguments on a forum is actually worth something.
The spiteful tone of some posts are far below what could be called "High Road".

JohnBT
June 15, 2007, 04:13 PM
"nearly every argument and rebuttal that you have made"

So when I use the same facts, logic and arguments are you going to accuse me a being an NRA employee too? The facts are the facts, so they're going to sound pretty much the same no matter who states them.

And anyway, so what if there's an NRA employee or three posting here. Or GOA for that matter.

John

rugerman07
June 15, 2007, 04:21 PM
It's GUN CONTROL, it's a violation of the SECOND AMENDMENT:cuss:

denny
June 15, 2007, 05:19 PM
JohnBT said and asked:

So when I use the same facts, logic and arguments are you going to accuse me a being an NRA employee too? The facts are the facts, so they're going to sound pretty much the same no matter who states them.

And anyway, so what if there's an NRA employee or three posting here. Or GOA for that matter.

John

John,

No I am not going to accuse you nor did I accuse Michael, I asked him.

And as for a member of the NRA being a member here, I stated right up front I think it would be a good thing, so long as it is done in an open and honest fashion. If however, a member here is a paid employee of the NRA or NRA/ILA and does not say so, and then argues for legislation or a stance the NRA or NRA/ILA proposes and wants, it is subterfuge.

I stand by my open question to Michael.

Denny

stellarpod
June 15, 2007, 06:59 PM
Denny:

FYI - The following is text taken directly from the email I received from NRA-ILA on 4/28/07:

NRA STATEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS ON CAPITOL HILL

Recent reports in the Washington Post, Newsweek and other media outlets are fanning Internet rumors regarding the NRA's position concerning legislation currently being discussed in Congress in the aftermath of the horrific crimes that occurred at Virginia Tech.

The NRA has a long history of supporting measures to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and those who have been adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent, and we will continue to do so. We will also continue our efforts to make sure that the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is accurate, fair, and instant by seeking changes to permanently ensure that no fee is associated with the check, that system outages are minimized, and that our men and women in uniform who have served our country honorably are not unjustly denied their constitutional rights. As always, the NRA is committed to ensuring that any proposal does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

It is impossible to predict right now what any final bill will look like; therefore, we will withhold judgment until we see a final product. However, the NRA will continue to work with Members of Congress throughout the process to ensure that any changes to the NICS benefit lawful gun purchasers while ensuring that those adjudicated by the courts as mentally incompetent are included in the system.

Including necessary records on prohibited persons into the NICS is a position we have long supported. However, history has shown that no law will stop a madman intent on doing evil.

The NRA believes that our schools are not adequately protected. Therefore, we believe a national conversation on school security is necessary, and we look forward to those discussions and finding meaningful solutions to keep America's children safe.

For more information, visit www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=217&issue=018

I just wanted to validate what Scott (from the NRA) told you, as they did announce their efforts on that date. There seemed to be some skepticism in your tone.

stellarpod

csmkersh
June 15, 2007, 08:11 PM
I don't know if Michael is a paid employee of the NRA or not. I do know that every post he's made is straight from their play book. Mike Haas, OTOH, has been in Kayne Robinson's pocket for years. Haas was the cameraman for the infamous video where Kayne said the NRA would be running things from the Oval Office. Ain't that a laugh.

The NRA's interest in gun control isn't to protect our rights, but to use conflict to generate donations from the members. If you push for an response, they'll admit they think the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and the FOPA of 1986 are sterling pieces of crime fighting legislation. The FOPA, with the NRA's approval, had the Hughes Amendment which banned to possession or a fully automatic firearm made after September 1, 1986. The NRA took the position that not having to sign for .22 ammunition more than made up for it.

Now the NRA worked with the Ds in the dark of night to pass HB 2640 by voice vote so those involved in the skullduggery had deniability. Only Nay vote was Rep Ron Paul while most of the Rs missed the shindig altogether since the NRA thought it would be better not to alert them.

Do I oppose the bill? Damned right. I oppose any federal gun control bill. Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

"Gun control" laws only inhibit law abiding people, not criminals and the NRA know this.

Silver Bullet
June 15, 2007, 10:22 PM
Are some of you dudes in the same home room ?

Just askin'.

JohnBT
June 15, 2007, 11:17 PM
"Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment."

I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

denny
June 16, 2007, 07:53 AM
stellarpod told me:

I just wanted to validate that what Scott (from the NRA) told you, as they did announce their efforts on that date. There seemed to be some skepticism in your tone.

stellarpod

Thank you.

Silver Bullet queried:

Are some of you dudes in the same home room ?

Just askin'.


Nope.

JohnBT stated:
I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

JohnBT,

Why such a specious argument?

Denny

csmkersh
June 16, 2007, 09:45 AM
*

Any legislation that infringes on a citizen's rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment."

I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

John, you are under the standard anti-gunner misconception that the Second Amendment conveys rights to citizens. It DOESN'T. The Second amendment places a restriction on the feral* government. A restriction Congress understood when they cobbled together the NFA of 1934 and called it a "tax bill" rather than gun control.

Sam

*Not a mis-spelling; a statement of opinion.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 16, 2007, 10:10 AM
I'm curious, do you believe the 2nd Amendment originally applied to women, indentured servants and slaves? The point being that the 2nd Amendment never applied to everyone - not then, not now. Be nice if it did, but it doesn't.

All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

John

It isn't about "Who" in the Second Amendment has the right protected, it's about what the government may not do to the right. The Second Amendment simply describes which specific right it is that the government may not infringe: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. There is no distinction as to which or to any specific segment of the people the right belongs to. It belongs to each and every one who is one of the people. The Union isn't one of the People. A state isn't one of the people. The right belongs to the people and the government is not supposed to touch it. Ever.

As for the Four-year old kid, (s)he is under the full time guardianship of parents(or the state if orphaned), and violent criminals and those mentally incapable of keeping and bearing arms belong in custody and denied access to their arms until they can be trusted. The rest of us should not be burdened any further than that.

Woody

FeebMaster
June 16, 2007, 10:40 AM
All in favor of 4-year-old citizens buying guns without adult supervision please raise a hand.

*raises hand*

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 11:50 AM
*raises hand and extends middle finger*

stellarpod
June 16, 2007, 12:13 PM
jselvy writes

*raises hand and extends middle finger*

That's about the level of class I expected. Be proud. You're doing our cause a heck of a lot of good. :rolleyes:

I suspect that it's probably time that this HIGH ROAD thread gets terminated.

stellarpod

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 12:26 PM
What cause?
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless they are not our kind of people on our handy dandy pre-approved list?
Do NOT ascribe your cause to me if it is not all of "The People" and a return to constitutional government. I will continue to deride those who have no grasp of the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Jefferson

Chad
June 16, 2007, 12:34 PM
I suspect that it's probably time that this HIGH ROAD thread gets terminated.
I think that should have happened a few pages ago.

As I said a few posts back...
Too many think winning arguments on a forum is actually worth something.
The spiteful tone of some posts are far below what could be called "High Road".

Art Eatman
June 17, 2007, 07:48 AM
Middle fingers and Low Roads and thread closings...

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!