Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill - by Alan Korwin

Status
Not open for further replies.

44Brent

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
398
Location
Illinois
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=020494

Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill - by Alan Korwin

Many NRA Members "Confused" by Proposed Gun Bill

Five-fold increase in gun-ban list is "troubling"

Secretive passage rankles even hard core

Could be fast-tracked through the Senate this week

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

The swift passage of a gun-ban bill in the U.S. House, without committee hearings, floor debate or a recorded vote and possibly without even a quorum present, has NRA members nationwide asking what happened.

In a nationally released memo addressing the confusion, the NRA said this is "nothing unusual," further confusing their members. Swiftly adopting a gun-control measure on a voice vote has not occurred in at least fifteen years, if ever, according to Bloomfield Press, the largest publisher of gun-law books in the country.
http://www.gunlaws.com

The NRA, long considered a feared and powerful gun-rights lobby, allied itself with the most ardent anti-gun-rights forces in the House to quickly push through a bill that would massively increase the NICS Index -- the database of people who cannot pass an FBI background check for purchase of a firearm.

Psychiatrists and doctors would have an increased role in determining who gets on or off the list. The medical community has in the past exhibited pronounced anti-gun behaviors, bordering in some cases on hoplophobia, a morbid fear of weapons of any kind.

The action was taken during the morning "Suspension Calendar," normally reserved for "non-controversial" bills. Its use to slip through an expansion of gun control is highly irregular, with no similar action known in the past. The bill is HR 2640, "The NICS Improvement Act," posted here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/DHSinNICS.htm

No one knows how many of the 21 million records Congress seeks will truly identify Americans who lack the legal right to have a firearm. The effect on guns already owned by people in the 21 million records seems clear -- they would be subject to confiscation. At least, a transfer of ownership seems a likely requirement if the law is enacted and those people's names are poured into the list. There are no plans to notify these people.

An error rate of just one-tenth of one percent (very low for government work) would mean that 21,000 Americans will have their rights unjustly denied if the bill becomes law. These people will then be forced to line up and go through an arduous, time-consuming, complex and expensive process to prove their innocence. The government is not required to cooperate, though the law does provide a framework for getting rights restored, at NRA's insistence. (The bill says agencies "shall" act to keep records accurate, but nothing happens if they don't; no time frames for corrections are specified.)

News reports have shed no light on the accuracy or validity of the impending additions, or any preparations to handle a flood of appeals. An error rate of 1% would equal 2.1 million false "guilty" verdicts.

The existing list of criminals, illegal aliens and other "prohibited possessors" is 3,960,981 after 11 years of careful development (as of Dec. 31, 2005). Under the proposed law, at one fell swoop, it will grow to five times its current size. More than ten percent of American adults would be barred from exercising the fundamental civil right to arms. The NRA points out that Americans who have the right medical disabilities do belong on the list.

"It's scary, when both the main defender of this civil right and the enemies of that right combine and work to deny rights to so many people at once," said an insider who prefers to remain anonymous. "Are the records accurate? Can people unjustly accused swiftly restore their rights and reclaim their place in society? Shouldn't we check the validity before we summarily add so many people to the list, and not just add them and let the innocent suffer? Why are the NRA and anti-gun Democrats trying to move so fast?" Carefully checking 21 million people's records would of course slow down the process, and delay entering all the names.

Emails, blogs and chat rooms are filled with such questions, even as mainstream news reports praise "the first significant gun-control legislation in a decade," ignoring a dozen gun bills Congress has passed in the last ten years. Despite the jubilant mainstream headlines, the NRA memo says this is "NOT GUN CONTROL!" (emphasis theirs). After reading the bill, it certainly seems accurate to call it gun control, a term now used almost exclusively to refer to gun bans of one sort or another.

In a related but unreported development, experts note that the expanded NICS system, if combined with information from the Real ID Act, could provide a centralized federal monitoring facility for the entire population, under the guise of crime control. Privacy advocates have expressed concern over the possibility, though many officials see this as a good thing.

The Brady law, ostensibly to control handgun sales, initiated the entire project in 1993, at a cost of $250 million, plus subsequent allocations. The new bill adds $375 million per year for the next three years. In a 1998 surprise, the Brady Handgun law was automatically expanded to include all firearms, not just handguns.

The new law has many built-in protective requirements, and methods of appeal for those wrongly accused, but provides no punishment of government agents who fail to comply or to keep records accurately, placing the effectiveness of those safeguards in doubt. The Justice Dept. is supposed to give Congress a list of all the agencies that are not complying, once a year. In an odd requirement of unknown usefulness, various mental health institutions and providers are given power to certify former mental cases as now qualified to have guns.

In the past, federal and state officials have been known to stonewall, delay, deceive and claim impotence when confronted with requests to have rights restored to the innocent, or to the reformed. Congress has refused to fund such reviews, which are required by law, since 1992, effectively eliminating a person's chance for due process.

In a copyrighted story on 6/21/07, WorldNetDaily said:

"Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., announcing a provision to allow doctors to ban people from owning guns... The plan allows names to be entered into the NICS system based solely on a physician's diagnosis or prescription of a medication: adults who have taken Ritalin and soldiers with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder would be classified as mentally ill and given the same opportunity to own firearms as convicted felons: None." Simple diagnosis or medical prescription does not appear to be in the bill as grounds for a ban. Ritalin and PTSD are not listed at the present time, though critics of the measure are concerned that such things could change.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/
 
Seriously, congratulations on this. They've managed to turn the mental health "profession" into defacto dictators over John and Jane Citizen.

Yet somehow this won't be abused... yeah right.
 
I dont know atleast they attempted to add a process where you can amend it. If this is passed it will at least pacify the brady bunch and prevent them from justifying further bills under the Virginia tech. reasoning. NRA influence from this bill could be used to call off future gun control bills since the NRA sided with the brady bunch. NRA also looks sensible and moderate supporting this bill preventing any anti-gunner from labeling them as a far right organization. I dont disprove of thier actions especailly if it is an ends to justify a mean.
 
I had to read it and think about it a bit.
But it looks like it is intended to keep guns away form mentaly defective people.
 
If this is passed it will at least pacify the brady bunch and prevent them from justifying further bills under the Virginia tech
Not a chance. They will see it as a victory and push harder to remove the rights of whomever still has them. We've seen it before and they'll do it again. How many time must we be burned before we learn that their ultimate goal is complete disarmament and totalitarian government covered by sham elections.

Jefferson
 
"The existing list of criminals, illegal aliens and other "prohibited possessors" is 3,960,981 after 11 years of careful development"

Careful development my Aunt Mary's elbow. Only 22 states report ANY info on individuals who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. Careful development Mr. Korwin? Try again. Research is cool, try it.

John
 
The idea of denying a right because of a private citizen's judgement--and an MD is a private citizen--is the idea that "due process" via a court adjudication is not necessary.

Looks to me to be a shoo-in in federal court to get this law kicked out.

Art
 
748 said:
I had to read it and think about it a bit.
But it looks like it is intended to keep guns away form mentaly defective people.
I didn't read anything in the 2nd Amendment about prohibiting people who are mentally defective... whatever "mentally defective" means.
 
I still have yet to see where anything is changed with this law in regards to who is prohibited from owning guns other than reporting procedures and appeal.
It is still dependent on the language in section 922 subsection (g)(4) of title 18, which has not changed.

It just looks like more alarmism to try to generate revenue through book sales (this guy is trying to sell books) and donations to gun orgs.

Can someone actually provide a citation other than "GOA says" or "this guy says" anyone who is depressed will be prohibited from owning firearms?
 
Sergeant Bob's got it....

But most of the folks naively posting above have their face buried in a Brownell's catalog when they should take a basic poli sci class and try to "learn the game"....

Let's compare the press headlines...

1) "NRA Reaches Across Aisle for Legislative Unity in Keeping Guns from Mentally Ill"

2) "NRA Opposes Bill Keeping Guns from Mentally Ill After VA Outrage"

So often we get a bad name because we have to oppose a bill for a variety of reasons even though it, PR-wise, makes us look bloodthirsty.

For once we get some good PR even with the VA Tech tragedy just a few weeks in our rear view mirror. This is the first time in the last 20 years that there's general shrugging of shoulders that "gun control wouldn't work", that all the procedures were followed, etc.

This new bill won't do a helluva lot but we can get PR credit for it. And borderline legislators that feel they have to vote on something in the realm of 'gun safety', etc. can use this bill as shelter - while voting against any othe upcoming gun bills (say, HR1022 if it ever made it out of committee, etc.)

Some of you guys are so friggin' stupid politically you almost deserve to lose your gun rights. You can't see the forest for the trees.

In the meantime, the Bradyites are switching their campaigns to state and local level and are going after ammunition in larger states and locales while
you idiots bloviate about some handwaving here. My sources tell me the Bradys think ammo control laws and microstamping stuff are to this decade what assault weapons laws were in the 1990s.

Guess GOA needs to stir the pot and raise funds to repaint the office at the end of the living room.




Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
 
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/unjustif.htm

UNJUSTIFIED PSYCHIATRIC
COMMITMENT in the U.S.A.
by Lawrence Stevens, J.D.

In 1992, U.S. Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado held hearings investigating the practices of psychiatric hospitals in the United States. Rep. Schroeder summarized her committee's findings as follows: "Our investigation has found that thousands of adolescents, children, and adults have been hospitalized for psychiatric treatment they didn't need; that hospitals hire bounty hunters to kidnap patients with mental health insurance; that patients are kept against their will until their insurance benefits run out; that psychiatrists are being pressured by the hospitals to increase profit; that hospitals 'infiltrate' schools by paying kickbacks to school counselors who deliver students; that bonuses are paid to hospital employees, including psychiatrists, for keeping the hospital beds filled; and that military dependents are being targeted for their generous mental health benefits. I could go on, but you get the picture" (quoted in: Lynn Payer, Disease- Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992, pp. 234-235).
A headline on the front page of the July 6, 1986 Oakland, California Tribune reads: "Adolescents are packing private mental hospitals But do most of them belong there?" The newspaper article says: "...mental patients advocates say many adolescents in private hospitals are not seriously mentally ill, but merely rebellious. By holding the adolescents, who often dislike hospitalization, advocates say private hospitals reap profits and please parents. ... Some county mental health officials and psychiatrists at private hospitals acknowledge there are hospitalized adolescents who, ideally, shouldn't be there. ... 'It distresses me to see kids in these facilities; it distressesme to see the profits going on,' Jay Mahler, of Patients Rights Advocacy and Training, said two weeks ago at a Concord Public forum. 'It's a hot business,' Tim Goolsby, a Contra Costa County Probation Department adolescent placement supervisor, later agreed. 'If your kids like sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll, that's the place to put them. I'm not sure insurance companies know what's going on, but they're being ripped off.' Goolsby estimated 80 percent of adolescents in Contra Costa private psychiatric hospitals are not mentally ill...
 
This new bill won't do a helluva lot but we can get PR credit for it. And borderline legislators that feel they have to vote on something in the realm of 'gun safety', etc. can use this bill as shelter - while voting against any othe upcoming gun bills (say, HR1022 if it ever made it out of committee, etc.)

Some of you guys are so friggin' stupid politically you almost deserve to lose your gun rights. You can't see the forest for the trees.

:barf:

Well maybe some of us are "friggin stupid" or maybe living in CA you have forgotten what it is supposed to be like living in an atleast semi free country! :banghead:

Lest we all forget, the Brady's are not our friends, lining up with them on anything is NOT a good idea. But maybe you are right and it is not big deal, but more likely this is another way that they Brady's and their ilk are trying to push us further down that slippery slope. I may be friggin stupid, but I can still see how this could be used to bite a lot of people in the butt. Eventually it can be turned against us and despite your thoughts on our collective political IQ, I and many others around here want to see this remain a free coutry! :fire:

The NRA taking this position is a sign that they are either weak, blind, or way to trusting!
 
"I may be friggin stupid, but I can still see how this could be used to bite a lot of people in the butt."

A lot being the individuals who for many, many years (GCA of 1968) have been legally prohibited from owning and purchasing firearms BUT didn't have their names on the (more recent) federal NICS list because they lived in one of 28 states that did NOT report any court-ordered involuntary committment info. The remaining 22 states did NOT report all of the info.

John
 
John,
Do you really believe that that will be the end of it?

Do you really believe that there will not be a push to add many different physcological issues to the list of things that will disqualify you from exercising your 2nd ammendment rights (+ making up new ones)?

Further more do you believe that removing guns from the hands of someone who IS a danger to society will really protect society from that person?

Be honest, you are willing to accept those "reasonable restrictions" talked about on that other thread so long as it doesn't look to get to close to you. Unfortunately to many are willing to do that without realizing that this can be made to effect them pretty easily. We all talk about being prepared for the worst, and being glad to be disappointed. This is one of those times. I hope you are right, but I am afraid that you are wrong!
 
The federal "assault weapons ban" expired we are heading in a fine direction federally. It is the state level we must fight now to prevent the Brady bunch from using thier guerilla tactics. This is a major PR victory for the NRA i will still continue to renew my membership with them.
 
Do you really believe that there will not be a push to add many different physcological issues to the list of things that will disqualify you from exercising your 2nd ammendment rights (+ making up new ones)?

But there is no legislated limit on those things now. The law does not specify what makes one "defective"--it just requires that the adjudication find a person mentally defective (and, under this bill, a danger to self or others). There will be no need to add things or invent new disorders.
 
It won't be 'big deal' to most NRA members until their name shows up on the list and they're scratching at their heads trying to figure out why?

What it comes down to is the (often unspoken) feeling that the 'crazies' of the world are OK having their rights abridged along with crimnals, illegal alliens, hot-headed domestic abusers and the like. And surely, some folks are very ill and need to be protected from harming themselves or others.

And sanity has a mutable definition. Case it point, homosexuality was a mental illness until 1977 when it was dropped from the DSM. Had it not been, could having been judged 'gay' keep one from owning a gun today?

Just a stray thought to ponder.
 
John,
Do you really believe that that will be the end of it?

Do you really believe that there will not be a push to add many different physcological issues to the list of things that will disqualify you from exercising your 2nd ammendment rights (+ making up new ones)?

They could have done that without this change. This bill changes nothing in regards to what will get one ADJUDICATED or COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION and lose your RKBA.

There, I put it in big letters because it seems many have been unable to understand.

But, don't take my word for it. Try actually reading the bill and 922 subsection (g)(4) of title 18 of the USC and figure it out for yourselves. Don't let a bunch of people on the internet do the figuring for you.
 
As yet SGT. Bob.
The record shows that laws can be twisted to serve other ends.
Cho was NOT adjudicated, and this addition would NOT have stopped him from acquiring arms. Even the most casual observer can see this. So if this law would not do what it is stated to do, how will it be amended to do its purpose which is to keep arms out of the hands of people like Cho.
That is what concerns me.

Jefferson
 
Oh, I finally understand what the pro-NRA people are saying.
It's not the beast which is the problem. It's what we're feeding it.
The lesson I'm walking away with is that government actually can be a solution to our problems. We just have to realize that every example of it going wrong from history is just that we haven't gotten it right yet.

There's a larger issue here than guns.
 
Confined for observation is NOT currently considered adjudication. When it is expect a surge in the number of 72hr observational holds.

Jefferson
 
They could have done that without this change. This bill changes nothing in regards to what will get one ADJUDICATED or COMMITTED to a MENTAL INSTITUTION and lose your RKBA.

There, I put it in big letters because it seems many have been unable to understand.


The indiscriminate use of large-size type is psychologically suspect. Hasn't anyone told you this? Most "experts" agree. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top