Quantcast

Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

Discussion in 'Legal' started by orygunmike, Jun 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pablo45

    pablo45 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    544
    Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"
     
  2. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    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
     
  3. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    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?
     
  4. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    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
     
  5. Silver Bullet

    Silver Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,335
    Location:
    Arizona
    What's stopping you ?
     
  6. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    TheOld Man asks:

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

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

    The whole damned thing, I would say.
     
  7. Michael Thomson

    Michael Thomson Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    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.
     
  8. eric_t12

    eric_t12 Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    Messages:
    172
    Location:
    SD
    +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
     
  9. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    I don't see any expiration or need for reauthorization of the law.

     
  10. Michael Thomson

    Michael Thomson Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    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").
     
  11. sigman4rt

    sigman4rt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Maine
    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?
     
  12. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    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

    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
     
  13. gego

    gego Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    224
    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.
     
  14. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    Yeah, I love that voice vote only. No one to get angry at.
     
  15. Rebeldon

    Rebeldon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Cowford
    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?
     
  16. jselvy

    jselvy member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    518
    So the NRA whoring itself out is better than it maintaining a vestige of principle?

    Jefferson
     
  17. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    3,808
    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." ?
     
  18. TrybalRage

    TrybalRage Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Messages:
    317
    Location:
    Marietta, GA
    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.
     
  19. gego

    gego Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    224
    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.
     
  20. Michael Thomson

    Michael Thomson Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    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.

    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.

    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.

    This 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.

    Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.
     
  21. Ratzinger_p38

    Ratzinger_p38 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    759
    Location:
    Ohio
    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)
     
  22. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    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.
     
  23. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "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
     
  24. Rob G

    Rob G Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    771
    Location:
    Cypress TX
    Please Read The Bill First

    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.
     
  25. munangokeewati

    munangokeewati Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    15
    NRA Derangement Syndrome

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice