Democrats, NRA reach deal on gun bill

[pablo45]

Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"

 

[JohnBT]

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

 

[TrybalRage]

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?

 

[publius]

I'd like to know what legislative effect at the national level has been accomplished by GOA

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

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.

 

[Silver Bullet]

I still say
NO COMPROMISE

I would much rather this be a stand up fight than slinking, stinking, backroom, backdoor deals.

What's stopping you ?

 

[alan]

TheOld Man asks:

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

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

The whole damned thing, I would say.

 

[Michael Thomson]

Why is the nra negotiating our rights to the enemy. Why can't they say "NO, THIS RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON"

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.

 

[eric_t12]

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.

+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

 

[publius]

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.

I don't see any expiration or need for reauthorization of the law.

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.'

 

[Michael Thomson]

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").

 

[sigman4rt]

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?

 

[jselvy]

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?

I think they did give them the Musket balls very quickly one at a time, in volleys.

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

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.:banghead:

Jefferson

 

[gego]

.... 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."

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.

 

[TrybalRage]

Yeah, I love that voice vote only. No one to get angry at.

 

[Rebeldon]

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?

 

[jselvy]

So the NRA whoring itself out is better than it maintaining a vestige of principle?

Jefferson

 

[.cheese.]

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." ?

 

[TrybalRage]

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?

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.

 

[gego]

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.

 

[Michael Thomson]

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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." ?

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.

No compromise

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.

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.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

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

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)

 

[alan]

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.

 

[JohnBT]

"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

 

[Rob G]

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.

 

[munangokeewati]

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.