Dem’s working with the NRA / Carolyn McCarthy admits no support for extra gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gixerman1000

Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
568
Location
Eastern USA
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html

House Democrats, NRA Seek to Strengthen Background Checks for Gun Purchasers
Saturday, April 21, 2007


WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.
Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.
The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a strong NRA ally who has been a leading opponent of most gun control legislation, is negotiating with the group on the background-check bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tapped Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. — a leading gun control supporter whose husband was fatally shot by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Railroad — to broker a swift compromise measure that could win passage in the House and Senate.
McCarthy said the measure was the best the Democratic-controlled Congress could do even in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage Monday in which a disturbed gunman killed 32 and then himself.
"We're not going to do anything more on guns — it's just not going to happen. This is a pro-gun Congress," said McCarthy.
Current law bars people judged by a court to be "mentally incompetent" from purchasing firearms, but the federal background check database is incomplete, with many states far behind in automating their records and sending them to the FBI.
Cho Seung-Hui, the 23-year-old gunman in the recent shootings, should have failed his background checks and been barred access to guns after a Virginia special justice found in 2005 that his mental illness made him a danger to himself, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said this week.
The measure being negotiated would subject states to possible penalties for failing to provide the information, and authorize new federal grants to help them do so.
"If we give the states what they need to enforce these limits, that's a big step," McCarthy said. "A computer is only as good as the information in it."
The measure has drawn bipartisan interest. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an NRA ally, is among the Republicans considering signing on.
Talks on the measure are extremely sensitive, given how little time has passed since Monday's shootings on the Blacksburg, Va., campus.
The legislation has spawned an unusual alliance between gun rights activists, who want background checks to be faster, and gun control advocates, who want them to be more accurate. Still, the NRA and some of its congressional allies are skittish about appearing to support any gun control measure in the wake of the Virginia Tech rampage.
"We have a potential opportunity to get something done that both sides have agreed (on) for a couple of years," said Peter Hamm, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "There's clearly a level of distrust that's as tall as Mount Everest between the two sides in this debate. We watch each other carefully."
Democratic Rep. Richard Boucher, who represents the southwestern Virginia district where the shootings unfolded, said he would not talk about gun policies until next week at the earliest, out of respect for the families of the victims. Like most lawmakers, Boucher wore a maroon and orange ribbon on his lapel Friday, set aside as a day of remembrance for the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Dingell would not comment on the talks Friday, nor would the NRA.
"This is not the time for political discussions, public policy debates or to advance a political agenda," the group said in a statement.
However, another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns.
"The thing that most concerns us about this is our friends at the NRA are supporting it, and that could give Democrats cover in the election," said Larry Pratt, a spokesman for the group. "The NRA is making a mistake on this. This is a bill that could pass."
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a strong gun rights supporter, said he hasn't opposed the background check measure in the past and wouldn't expect to do so now.
Gun measures have been known to spin out of control in the freewheeling Senate — where any senator can seek to amend a bill. Any measure there would be looked upon as an opportunity for both gun control advocates eager to enact stronger limits and their foes pushing to weaken existing gun laws.
For Dingell's effort to succeed, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol likely would have to agree to hold off on a broader gun debate and focus instead on the background-check measure.
"We need to be very careful that we don't intrude on the right of law-abiding and free citizens," Craig said. "We all search for the political screen of, 'Oh, we've got to do something and pass a law, and therefore the world will be a safer place.' Not necessarily."
 
It irks me that some "pro"-gun people have come out agains the NRA saying that they are appeasing the antis after the VT shooting with stuff like this when they've supported this before that happened. Now, I haven't bothered to go through the bill yet, so I don't know if the fears about it are justified.
 
Most of the NCIS disqualifiers are mala prohibida 'crimes' anyway, and a clear violation of the 2nd amendment. The dealer down the road from me had a potential customer, about 65 years old, who had a scuffle with his wife when he was 18. Nothing super violent, but the cops were called and he, the male, was carted off for some 'cool down' time. Nothing major came of that incident, and he's a pretty mellow guy now.
NCIS turned him down based on that long-ago incident, which was really none of their business in the first place.
How many folks are deemed unworthy to defend themselves due to any number of victimless 'crimes'? Maybe you got caught with a joint years ago?
Bill Clinton was bragging about all the folks to whom he denied access to the best tools for self defense, and many of them for probable the VERY SAME CRAP he himself pulled.
That's ok, though. Like Rosie O'Lardass, he has armed guards anyway.

When the NRA grows a spine and starts calling for elimination of current gun laws, rather than the stricter enforcement of them, I'll re-up my old membership.
 
McCarthy is not the first person (second or third, even) that I'd pick to work on a "compromise". Not only is she an extremist, but she's ignorant in almost every meaningful way of almost every issue.

I am glad that she is saying, "We're not going to do anything more on guns — it's just not going to happen."

That aside, I am glad that the politicians have conceded that they need to work with a large citizen's rights advocacy group to come up with practical and functional changes to existing laws. What bothers me is that there's no public health basis for have any of these laws since states with universal non-regulated handgun carry do not have any more gun violence (see CDC and DOJ studies discussed here before) than those with very restrictive carry regulations so there's no basis for establishing controls in the first place.
 
I am glad that she is saying, "We're not going to do anything more on guns — it's just not going to happen."
hso... how can you tell when a politician is lying? ;)
Sorta reminds me of the Wizard of OZ telling Dorothy to ignore the man behind the curtain...
But I just become more cynical as I get older... for some reason.
 
who had a scuffle with his wife when he was 18. Nothing super violent, but the cops were called and he, the male, was carted off for some 'cool down' time. Nothing major came of that incident, and he's a pretty mellow guy now.
NCIS turned him down based on that long-ago incident, which was really none of their business in the first place.

I am sorry, but this case sounds like domestic violence no matter when it happened. This is not the place to argue this specific case, but DV IS a disqualifier, period. If you are "man enough" (actually lacking any qualities of a man) to lay hands on your wife girl friend or SO, then you have crossed the line. I'm not a fan of stricter gun laws at all, but DV cases are indications of people who can not control their emotions enough to legally possess a firearm. Flame away, but that's how I feel about it.
 
First of all, never believe or trust the Dems, they will flip & bite you...wait and see.

I am sorry, but this case sounds like domestic violence no matter when it happened. This is not the place to argue this specific case, but DV IS a disqualifier, period. If you are "man enough" (actually lacking any qualities of a man) to lay hands on your wife girl friend or SO, then you have crossed the line. I'm not a fan of stricter gun laws at all, but DV cases are indications of people who can not control their emotions enough to legally possess a firearm. Flame away, but that's how I feel about it.
No flames, just consider the other side of the coin for a moment, and keep the endgame in mind....

What about the woman who fights back against DV, what if (and this has happened) she is the one who gets charged??? Now she cannot legally own or carry a gun for when the "man" comes back for her.

No, DV is too common and too sticky to be lumping it in with those disqualifiers....and that is exactly what the antis want.
 
Last edited:
"The thing that most concerns us about this is our friends at the NRA are supporting it, and that could give Democrats cover in the election," said Larry Pratt, a spokesman for the group.

It's good to know that both sides consider politics more important than rights.

I'm not a fan of stricter gun laws at all, but DV cases are indications of people who can not control their emotions enough to legally possess a firearm. Flame away, but that's how I feel about it.

I think there should be a statute of limitations on minor domestic crimes that are filed into the NICS checks. A person changes a lot between 18 and 25, let alone 18 and 65. If you try to kill or seriously beat her, mark it forever. If you are hauled off for a night for slapping her, give it 7 years. I'm not advocating DV. Honestly, would any of us want to be prevented from protecting ourselves, forever, because of something that bought us one night in jail when we were 18? I'd like to think most of us have matured a bit since then. I think this "adjustment" to NICS can be good or bad, depending on where the line is drawn, and who draws it. Anymore, everyone is diagnosed with some mental disorder. Everyone is on a medication. Anti-dipressants are issued like they're PEZ, all of which seem to make suicide a greater possibility.

What if, and this is just an idea, when you're prescribed a medication that has a tendency to cause drastic mental changes, like anti-dipressants, it gets put in the system, but before they clear you for the first firearm purchase after being prescribed, they send someone out to check on you, looking for obvious signs, maybe ask a few questions, then clear you in the system if you check out?
There are all kinda of things that would have to go into this, obviously. Manpower for the interviews, Doctors and healthcare getting into the loop. A more reliable system for NICS. A very strict set of rules governing the said interviews, and competent people with no agenda to conduct them. Not to mention the funding.

Flame me for another idea to remove rights, if you like. If we're going to have a system that is supposed to catch threats to society, lets at least do some things to make it actually work. I don't see the complete removal of NICS anytime in the next ten years, short of civil war or drastic change in attitudes, but I also don't think it should discount the possibility that people do change over time.
 
Please try to think - I know that at least some of you can.

Here's what happened, folks...

I'll bet that McCarthy got a phone call from Dean and Pelosi telling her to **** about guns, because they KNOW that they're facing a big election, or they're not going to support ANYTHING for her area. Betcha she gets some pork now.

They probably also told her that she can start again in 2008...
 
domestic violence incidents

The police officer makes the determination at the scene who the "guilty" party is. It is not a jury of your peers. Many times people are "carted" off and later everything is fine. I've been in LE 35 years and seen my share of these cases where sometimes it is a bad enough scene to warrant removing someone's right to own a gun. MOST of them time it is a one time argument and usually the man is taken to jail simply to stop the nonsense for the evening. And believe me in the old days the woman was NOT taken to jail unless he was cold and still! It was a woman's word that got many a man hauled off after she had provoked, or flat out started the fight.

Having said that I obviously was lucky enough never to be the victim of such an incident but was married to a full time bitch who didn't hesitate to go violent. AFTER I married her I found that she had coldcocked her first husband with a steel frying pan because he pissed her off. And it didn't take much to piss the old cow off! She tried many times to invoke arguments where fisticuffs would have been the next step. Kind of a "dare" game. Of course the old cow was a peace officer to boot. For that matter she still is... So my point is domestic violence cases shouldn't be considered at all unless the "offender" is convicted in court of a crime. And I don't mean the JP/Municipal court "simple assault" version. There are lots of aholes out here among us, both men and women.
 
No flames, just consider the other side of the coin for a moment, and keep the endgame in mind....

I agree every case is different and if the victim fights back it is a different story. However, if the situation is bad enough to call the PD and a complaint is filed, the case will be seen by a judge. Now if the charges are dropped, it should come off the individuals record. I should have clarified my point which is a DV conviction should disqualify the person from a firearm purchase not merely an arrest.
 
I do think the NRA does a lot of good and I know this isn't because of VT, but this is the lobby that is supposed to be working to lessen laws, not strengthen them. They have my mail saying why I wont be joining in the near future. And I can understand playing politics, but agreeing to strengthin laws? No thanks.
 
Take the same scenario and it is funny (not ha ha) what different conclusions people will draw. I did not know McCarthy's husband was killed by a madman with a gun. Before I thought she was just one of the read from the handbook liberals and she at least has some more understanding and sympathy. I do not disagree with her but I respect her as a true believer. In contrast the woman in texas had her parents murdered in a mass shooting and her conclusion was I had a gun in my glove box and if I had it with me they would be alive. Anyway right or wrong I have more respect for the combatants when their fight is personal and not just intellectual jawboning.
 
McCarthy has stong feelings about guns and RKBA. ALL EMOTION--but she has 0 practical knowledge on the subject whatsoever.

She has NONE of my respect for THAT reason alone. She doesn't even understand simple jargon and terms. She's as bad as Helmke (HCI mouthpiece) who, one would think, would know the correct name for the parts of a firearm.

This NRA backed thing is playing with fire. Watch something get sneaked on by.

Anybody remember 1986? We should be getting national reciprocity on CCW in exchange for even TALKING to these people.

This is memetic warefare at work--it is facinating to watch.

Now is time to win a convert for their own good to RKBA-- but no one wants to do it right now while people hurt so much.
 
I can understand legitimate cases of DV being a disqualifier for owning a firearm, but I've seen a lot of friends with crappy taste in the opposite sex get burnt hard over jealousy or some stupid crap like that and get a completely undeserved and exceptionally harsh punishment just because everyone automatically believed the female.

One friend just got an injunction because his GF said she was afraid of him and that he'd come home and beat her and whatnot (which I personally knew was the exact opposite in a very literal sense. IE she beat him a lot when she was mad. Tried to hit me a few times)

I think I may have to go through that again with my roomate who met a girl 2 days ago.. Pill popper extraordinaire, extremely clingy, and just broke up with her fiance last week. She's already talking about moving in with eachother, they refer to themselves as BF/GF, etc etc...

I really hope that's not the case as I gave my roomate a lot of helpful advice to make that crazy relationship go as smoothly as possible, but things have a way of working out for the worst with this guy and I'm kinda torn about what I should do. He's a lot happier than he was, and he's also hardly ever home anymore so I get some serious alone time now which is awesome, but the downside just seems like an innevitable reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top