Art Eatman said:I'd like to know what legislative effect at the national level has been accomplished by GOA
Finally, the Post article also says the "federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks." Well, that sounds good, but GOA already won this battle in 1998 when we drafted and pushed the Smith amendment into law.
What's stopping you ?I still say
NO COMPROMISE
I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals.
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.Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"
Digressing to the off-topic issue of the NFA: At that time, there had been little or no prior reason for the NRA to be involved in any great amount of effort to lobby against gun control laws. This was a new phenomenon. And, like many, it was believed that SCOTUS would overturn the NFA. The NRA was not to blame for the death of the plaintiff in the appeals process; his absence meant the court decision followed the fed's wishes.
I don't see any expiration or need for reauthorization of the law.Michael Thompson said: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.
SMITH AMENDMENT NO. 3234 (Senate - July 21, 1998)
[Page: S8680] GPO's PDF
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire proposed an amendment to amendment No. 3233 proposed by him to the bill, S. 2260, supra; as follows:
In the pending amendment, strike all after the word `Sec.' and insert in lieu thereof the following:
None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for (1) any system to implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever, submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); provided, that any person aggrieved by a violation of this provision may bring an action in the federal district court for the district in which the person resides; provided, further, that any person who is successful with respect to any such action shall receive damages, punitive damages, and such other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The provisions of this section shall become effective one day after enactment.'
I think they did give them the Musket balls very quickly one at a time, in volleys.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?
NO COMPROMISE!!!!
The Washington Times said:.... The only vocal opposition in the House came from Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican. Mr. Paul, who is seeking his party's 2008 presidential nomination, described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment."
Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"
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?
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.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?"
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." ?
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.No compromise
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.
Yes, let's all work to protect the rights of criminals and mental incompetents to own guns.