NRA Members and HR 297 NICS Improvement Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not quite two weeks ago a mentally deranged student murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech and wounded more than 20 others. Two years earlier a court had found him to be a danger to himself and others, but that information was not revealed by NICS.

Almost everyone in the world who knows about that well-publicized incident finds it scandalous that the NICS background check did not prevent the murderer from buying two handguns legally.

Will everybody who thinks that the NRA could possibly oppose NICS and demand its repeal at this time please raise your hand?
 
Will everybody who thinks that the NRA could possibly oppose NICS and demand its repeal at this time please raise your hand?
Its outright repeal, no. But I think the NRA can and should propose a bill that "supports" NICS the same way that John Kerry "supports" the Second Amendment.
 
Do you mean that the NRA should pretend to be working in good faith with the Congress on the bill while it's really sabotaging it?

That could work once, if the Congress was composed entirely of feebleminded people who couldn't figure out what was happening until after it had happened. But if their moms and dads were reasonably intelligent one of them might say so and the truth would come out. Even more likely, some of the politically sophisticated people on Internet gun forums might post messages revealing what was happening--while swearing everyone to secrecy of course.

And then the NRA would never get consulted again.

Did you vote for John Kerry in the last presidential election and would you vote for him in the next one? Or did you see through his pretense at being a hunter? If you saw through that pretense, why would you think that no one in the Congress would see through what was happening if the NRA did as you suggest?
 
Do you mean that the NRA should pretend to be working in good faith with the Congress on the bill while it's really sabotaging it?
Not really. What I had in mind was a bill that would allow politicians to save face, by including provisions that strengthen NICS a little bit, but also including provisions that greatly reduce the damage that NICS does to lawful gun-owners.
 
I won't mind this law too much IF they changed it to "involuntarily commited" instead of just "commited." Or better yet, if a JUDGE did the commiting or whatnot.

If you read 27 CFR 178.11, it makes clear that you do have to be involuntarily committed. Voluntary commitments do not count and temporary commitment for observation does not count (unless a court had to find you a "danger to yourself or others" to temporarily commit you). There are also several cases where people accepted voluntary commitment after they realized they were about to lose their case and they did not have it added to their record.
 
:fire: :banghead:
I got the alert from GOA last night and was livid. I paid GOA $20 and they stand up. I paid NRA $35 and and get my kids memberships and then they SELL OUT! Now I understand why GOA split off from them. When business hours open, I'll be making a call :cuss:

How many of us are threatening to cancel our memberships over this?
 
I oppose HR 297. No MISDEMEANOR should prevent anyone from purchasing firearms. The misdemeanor offense of domestic violence is nothing more than a stepping stone to add more misdemeanor convictions to the BANNED BUYERS LIST!

well I believe that misdemeanors should not be included. Felonies yes midemeanors no. But that is if we keep the system and dont just scrap the whole thing.

Misdemeanors are already part of the Federal law, nothing new here; see below excerpt from United States Code, chapter 18.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [1] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
 
I got the alert from GOA last night and was livid. I paid GOA $20 and they stand up.

Do they?! It is a scare tactics trying to gain political clout and members at the expense of the NRA. The worrisome part, however, is that at the end of the day this whole thing will be at the expense of our gun rights if we follow the GOA strategy. We need the NRA on the table so that this thing is only about enforcement of current regulations (which at this time IT IS) not adding new ones. I totally disagree with what the GOA is doing in this case and not only I am not canceling my NRA membership but will send them more money.
 
"I got the alert from GOA last night and was livid."

I see they sucked you in with their spin. Too bad. The facts don't support their version of what's happening.

John
 
camacho said:
"We need the NRA on the table so that this thing is only about enforcement of current regulations (which at this time IT IS) not adding new ones."

Never, ever give the government any power it doesn't absolutely need. If you do you can bet that eventually you'll see that power misused in some way you didn't foresee.
Our government was instituted to protect us from foreign aggression and domestic banditry. It has insinuated itself into every fabric of our lives until we now expect it to protect us from. . . . ourselves! So what if a few madmen get their hands on guns and kill some 'defenseless' people? It is that same government that has - in one way or another - driven the man to madness and forced the people to be defenseless.
The very last thing we need is for the '800 pound gorilla' we're told the NRA is, to be helping to give the government more power to misuse against us.

Call the NRA at 1-800-392-8683 and hold out for a real person to talk to (I believe it's option #4.) Make sure you're understood - I ended up talking to a woman with a definite foreign accent.

Write to them at:

Wayne La Pierre
c/o National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Then e-mail the text of your letter to him at www.NRA.org

Don't be afraid to threaten to resign your membership. If you're not a member . . . Well, then tell him how much money you're going to send to GOA. He probably won't read many (if any) of these letters and e-mails but he'll hear about them


IF you write them. So write!
 
GOA has some valid points, though they do tend to be obscured in the hyperbole.

PROBLEMS WITH H.R. 297

1. The bill doesn't add any new restrictions; but it does redefine "misdemeanor domestic violence" in a particularly underhanded and sneaky way. It starts out by saying that "misdemeanor domestic violence" has the same meaning the current law (18 USC 921(a)(33)) uses and then in the next paragraph it writes a new and much broader definition. For example compare these two paragraphs:

H.R. 297 said:
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, local, or tribal law or, in a State that does not classify offenses as misdemeanors, is an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of 1 year or less or punishable only by a fine regardless of whether or not the State statute specifically defines the offense as a crime of domestic violence;

18 USC 921(a)(33) (current law) said:
(i) is a misdemeanor under Federal or State law; and

Because of the conjunctive nature of the other elements of the law, it doesn't look like it has a big effect on the law; but I doubt they just changed the definition on accident, so it must have an effect somewhere. Then again with McCarthy's bill drafting, you can't write off outright incompetence.

H.R. 297 said:
(A) IN GENERAL- From information collected by a State, the State shall make electronically available to the Attorney General records relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or applicable State law.

The bolded section seems a bit broad to me. The repeated reference to "all records relevant to determination" along with financial rewards and penalties for meeting or failing to meet the standards established by the Attorney General creates a big incentive for states to submit any record that MIGHT be relevant rather than make an effort to submit only the relevant records.

I think those two areas are definitely things we need to be concerned about and things I would bring up with the NRA if I was talking with them. I doubt I would ask NRA to publicly oppose the bill though. The bill has been dying in Congress just fine for five years without that step and taking that step right now would be political suicide for the NRA.
 
Mongo's E-mail

I am writing this to urge the NRA NOT to support HR 297 in its present form.

First, unless the Lautenberg “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” is totally removed from the law no NEGOTIATIONS should be considered.

What other rights are lost when someone commits a misdemeanor in this Nation? I believe the answer is none. Attorneys take advantage of TRO’s and other legal writs in divorce cases to ensure victimization of their clients. Accusations of abuse and talk should not be the basis of anyone losing their rights as a citizen.

Secondly, the massacre at Virginia Tech was caused by a madman who would have obtained a firearm or other weapon by any means available to him. Why do gun control advocates have to wave the bloody shirt to get their misguided agendas passed into law? The examples of Australia and England are plain to see.

Third, even the gun control advocates know that if the NRA opposes this law, they are finished. The blue dog Democrats elected in 06 will be thrown under the bus by the electorate when they run again if we oppose this law, and it does pass. We need to have the courage of our convictions.

Finally, now is the time for thoughtful contemplation, not a time to rush to judgment, and certainly not a time to make one more ineffective gun law.
 
This is what I sent as both an e-mail and conventional letter. Let's see yours.



Mr. Wayne La Pierre
c/o National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road,
Fairfax, VA 22030

Sir:
Tomorrow is my birthday. It is also the time for the monthly meeting of my gun club. Each year I renew my membership in the club by giving them some money and proving I am a member of the NRA. Thus my NRA membership fees are an extension of my club dues.
Now I find that the NRA is supporting S. 1001 and H.R. 297, one of which undermines the recent court ruling regarding gun ownership by citizens of the District of Columbia and the other which purports to "improve" NICS. The only way NICS can be improved is by its abolition.
I cannot find the words to describe my feelings on this matter. 'Disgust' and 'contempt' don't quite carry the tone I would like to relay to you over this. You tell us that you're a "Gun Rights Organization," yet in every case I've watched, you begin your campaign on a defensive note, showing your willingness to concede vital points even before the anti-gun groups fire their first salvo. Then you attempt to salve our injuries with words about how much worse it could have been if you hadn't been there.
How can we know that? You've never really fought any of the battles, settling for compromise before the first shot. You compromised us into GCA-68, the Brady Bill, the Laughtenburg Amendment and countless other smaller defeats.
Well, tomorrow I intend to speak to the membership at our meeting. I am going to ask them to permit me to resign my membership with the NRA but retain my membership with them. It's a good place to shoot, but not the only place. I am also going to speak about these issues I've mentioned here and suggest they - as a club - disavow their connection with the NRA.


Sorrowfully but Sincerely,

(OLDFART)
 
I left a message against the bill for 2 reasons...

more gov. power...

could prevent vets from getting a gun due to shell shock etc.

DB
 
"countless other smaller defeats"

Or you could look at them as countless other smaller victories, because without the weight of the NRA at the table those laws could have been, probably would have been, much worse for gun owners.

John
 
Anyone out there see any evidence of any rollback of any existing federal law pertaining to firearms?

Me neither.

I oppose the legislation as written on principal. I don't want more efficient law; I want bad law repealed not strengthened.
 
I dont get why you are all opposed to repealing NICS when it obviouosly doesnt work to prevent criminals from arming themselves and it is a major tool of the gun banners to shrink the pool of people allowed to own firearms.
 
States not properly informing the NICS system? Sounds like a state issue. New NICS statutes to say "please states, we really mean it" is not a solution. It's politicians, including the NRA, trying to look busy.
 
John, we've been told time after time how much worse some bill would have been if the NRA wasn't there to look out for us. Who tells us this? Why, the NRA, of course. The only time anyone else has given credit to the NRA for a political victory was when Bill Clinton blamed the NRA for the defeat of Al Gore.
I look at NFA-34, GCA-68, The Brady Bill, the Laughtenburg Amendment and a host of other smaller bills that have been 'compromised' by the NRA and I have to wonder just how much worse it could get. Just once I'd like to see the vaunted NRA bow its neck, plant its feet and refuse to compromise. Instead, some apologist for them tells us that 'they know how to play the game better than us poor serfs.' Well, I've been playing games for over seventy years and the one thing I've carried away from all those fields of battle is "the best defense is a great offense."
Originally, I tendered this idea as a sort of joke, but it's beginning to look a lot less funny: I'm beginning to think the NRA is deathly afraid of a SCOTUS ruling that would make nearly all gun laws unconstitutional. After all, just how many old targets can you store in the headquarters building?
No John, just because the NRA website has an ".org" at the end doesn't mean it isn't a business and those who profit from it damned well know that.
Another thing: We bitch about how the Feds blackmail the states into doing stuff by threatening to withhold some of the money they've already extorted from the citizens. When I go to my club meeting tomorrow night I'll run up against the same tactic: What'll the club do without some benefit the NRA gives them as partial repayment for membership dues? Maybe instead of an .org or .com suffix, they should have .gov! They work the same way.
 
We Need more real Statistics for the amount of people this stops... One guy got some guns and did horror with them... that don't mean it doesn't work in other cases.. there failures in everything, nothing will ever be 100%
 
"I'm beginning to think the NRA is deathly afraid of a SCOTUS ruling that would make nearly all gun laws unconstitutional."

And if the SCOTUS decision goes the other way? Then what are we going to do?

I'm not parroting the NRA, I'm trying to look at the facts objectively. I was 18 when GCA-68 was passed and it could have been much, much worse than what we ended up with. I'd already been shooting for 13 years or so and I followed debate in the Washington Post while living just outside the city. They'd been debating what to do about the gun problem during the years since Kennedy's death and it appeared to me that a ban of some sort was possible.

The NRA isn't perfect, but they're fighting the battle and making some headway. Do you really want to throw the dice one time for all or nothing winner take all?

John
 
All I can say is...

WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!

Therefore, I don't agree with what the NRA is doing, and that is negotiating with anti-gun politicians to support anti-gun policies.

For now, the NRA is not on my list of RKBA groups to join until they show me otherwise.
 
Like I said before folks, the thread is not for discussion of either side only to help bring light to the issue and encourage folks to call the NRA to voice their support/opposition to the bill.

Quit yappin' and start callin'

Please post Call/e-mail made and whether you are pro or con.
 
"Do you really want to throw the dice one time for all or nothing winner take all?"

I'm ready. This 'death of a thousand cuts' business is getting on my nerves.
 
Sorry to hear that. Seriously. Maybe the following will help a little.

It appears that maybe the NRA was waiting for the usual objectors to, well, object to the sweeping inclusion of folks "adjudicated as a mental defective."

"The NRA declined to comment, but a source close to the gun lobby said resistance to issues pertaining to mental health records has historically come from the medical community, not from the NRA."
______________________________________________

Legislative Push on Guns Raises Privacy Concerns

BY RUSSELL BERMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 24, 2007

www.nysun.com/article/53056

WASHINGTON — An effort in Congress to enhance federal gun background checks is raising concerns among leaders in the mental health community, who worry that a legislative push could unfairly target the mentally ill and deter troubled people from seeking treatment.

The officials also cited concerns about protecting the confidentiality of patient records and questioned the wording of the current federal law, which they said was outdated and even pejorative. "The focus on the mentally ill is a distraction from the issues surrounding gun control," a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, Paul Applebaum, said.

The unease within the mental health community comes as lawmakers in Washington are reacting to last week's massacre at Virginia Tech, in which a student with a history of mental illness gunned down 32 classmates and teachers before killing himself.

A judge in 2005 ruled that Cho Seung-Hui "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," a determination that should have barred him under federal law from buying the two handguns he used in the killings. Federal restrictions enacted in 1968 prohibit the purchase of guns by those who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "involuntarily committed to a mental institution."

Virginia officials have said the sale was legal under state law, but lawmakers including Senator Schumer and a New York congresswoman, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, have suggested that the deaths were preventable, citing loopholes in the federal background-check database. The database, known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, relies on the submission by state and local agencies of disqualifying information, including mental health records.

Mr. Schumer and Ms. McCarthy say the system is incomplete because state and local governments do not have enough money to submit records; they are reintroducing a bill that combines an infusion of $375 million in funding to help keep the database up to date along with penalties for states that do not comply. Twenty-two states submit mental health information to the database, according to the FBI, and in an ironic twist, Virginia is the leading state in reporting "mental defective" entries.

Leading mental health professionals are watching the debate closely, wary of legislative language and political rhetoric that is overly broad or exacerbates stigmas associated with mental illness. They are quick to note that only a small percentage of violent crimes are committed by people who are mentally ill.

"I think we all share the goal of ensuring that people who are potentially dangerous don't have guns," the legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Ronald Honberg, said. "But if you do this the wrong way, this could end up creating a major disincentive for people who need mental health treatment to seek that treatment. We already have a big problem with that."

Formed in 1979, the alliance represents about 200,000 Americans with mental illness and their families.

"If somebody thinks that by seeking treatment that they're potentially going to go in an FBI database, that could really be a powerful deterrent," Mr. Honberg said.

The alliance and leading psychiatrists also object to the use of the term "mental defective" in defining the type of person who cannot legally purchase a gun.

"I don't know what that means as a technical term," the president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, Carolyn Robinowitz, said. She said the phrase might date back several decades. "It's not a term with any diagnostic validity."

Dr. Applebaum, now the director of the division of psychiatry, law, and ethics at Columbia University, said: "Not only is it a pejorative term, but it is an ambiguous one."

Federal regulations define adjudication as a "mental defective" as a determination made by a "court, board, commission or other lawful authority" that a person is "a danger to himself or to others; or lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs." The prohibition on gun purchases also applies to those found to be insane in a criminal case, not competent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of insanity.

Mr. Honberg contends the language is overly broad and vague, saying it does not address the possibility that a person may be successfully treated for an illness. The alliance in past years has urged adding a provision that limits the number of years a person's mental health records could remain in the background check system.

He and other psychiatrists also expressed privacy concerns about the database and efforts to expand it. The American Civil Liberties Union, which often raises objections surrounding privacy issues, takes no position on gun control laws, a spokesman said.

Legislation aimed at barring the mentally ill from purchasing guns has drawn more criticism from health officials than the National Rifle Association, known for its steadfast opposition to laws restricting gun ownership. The group is negotiating with congressional leaders on the legislation, which is not expected to come for a vote before May. The NRA declined to comment, but a source close to the gun lobby said resistance to issues pertaining to mental health records has historically come from the medical community, not from the NRA.
______________________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top