NRA letter - Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007


PDA






.cheese.
June 14, 2007, 08:22 PM
Just got the letter. What is everybody doing about this?

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA letter - Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jpk1md
June 14, 2007, 08:23 PM
Didn't get a copy yet...whats it say?

The Bill is here thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.984:

Not sure why I should care too much

.cheese.
June 14, 2007, 09:47 PM
I have to read the bill myself, but the NRA is claiming that it will mean that should we send in letters to congress members voicing our opinions regarding 2A/RKBA (or for that matter anything I think)... we will be listed on a website with our name and address for all to see.

Couple that with various places listing 2A supporters as domestic terrorists and... well.... I don't like it one bit.

breakerilya
June 15, 2007, 04:20 PM
this must not pass!

Rumble
June 15, 2007, 04:31 PM
What the bill seems to say is that any significant contact between a private party and an official in the Executive branch must be recorded, including: names, subject matter, date, and whether the contact was on behalf of a client of the private party.

Significant contact is defined as any communication in which the private party seeks to influence official action by any official in the executive branch. Significant contacts do not include communication that is an exception to the definition of "lobbying contact," as defined in some other law i didn't look up.

Private party is defined as anyone except someone in Federal/state/local employ.


The last action on this bill was apparently in mid-February.

ArmedBear
June 15, 2007, 04:38 PM
Private party is defined as anyone except someone in Federal/state/local employ.

I have a problem with that.

EDIT: What I mean is I have a problem with only recording contacts with "private" persons, not between government officials/employees who don't normally work together.

Any such contact by government officials, especially any that are not PART of the Executive Branch, should be recorded in exactly the same way.

Especially given Federalism, how is such a contact between Joe Schmo, Honorable Mayor of Hookahville, and the President, really any different from a contact between Mary Schmo, CEO of the Hookahville Motor Car Corp., and the President?

The town of Hookahville is looking after its own independent interests, which might or might not conflict with those of the USA as a whole (and which might flow money into the town coffers or the Mayor's wallet). What's the difference between that and a similar contact with the Hookahville Motor Car Corp.?

This bill seems to be all about increasing and consolidating government power and secrecy across the board, while diminishing the influence of any private party on the Executive Branch. That doesn't sound too democratic, but it's pretty typical of "liberal" ideas to improve things.

Rumble
June 15, 2007, 04:46 PM
I only need a tinfoil visor to assume that having to record any significant contact between government types would just be a major buzzkill on any back-room wheeling and dealing they were hoping to do.

RealGun
June 15, 2007, 05:13 PM
Does it say anywhere why anyone would need to know? I will wait for Jeff Sessions to explain it, but I guarantee he won't defend it. I want to know who thinks up this stuff, really...not the sponsor but who came up with the concept.

Chad
June 15, 2007, 05:42 PM
What the bill seems to say is that any significant contact between a private party and an official in the Executive branch must be recorded, including: names, subject matter, date, and whether the contact was on behalf of a client of the private party.
It would be ironic if this passed by a voice vote.

Kali Endgame
June 15, 2007, 07:01 PM
The Executive and Legislative branch should have an accurate record of their contacts, so we can see what special interest groups are screwing the rest of the country. We need more accountability of our elected officials.

Waitone
June 16, 2007, 07:47 AM
Peasants are getting a might too uppity. Gotta slap 'em down. Can't have the dolts think they have the right to redress of grievences before congress. Too much talk radio goin' on out there. Too many people emailin', faxin', and phonein' to congress. Too much time being spent dealing with the flood of communication. Gotta stop it for the sake of the congr. . . er, people.

jselvy
June 16, 2007, 10:38 AM
This seems to me to be an assault on the first amendment.
It would seem to try to control those who contact their elected representatives about those issues important to them by treating them like Sex Offenders.
But it is no more an infringement of rights than any of the NCIS laws so I guess its OK.

Jefferson

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA letter - Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!